The result was Speedy keep and trout the nom if they do this again (kidding). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no context and almost no content. Schuym1 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Religious leader that is a non notable with only passing references in scant sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as A1 by User:Lectonar. (Non-admin closure) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced oneliner on a potent potable, with no indication of its significance, notability, or what liquor it contains... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources --T-rex 00:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete, A1. Lenticel (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this edifice is notable; Hogansville has 2,774 people and therefore very unlikely that their city hall in a disused theater is notable... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was merge. PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an un-notable episode of Static Shock. There is no real world significance and no context. Schuym1 (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 20:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to locate any non-trivial third party publications about "TheSaurus" the rapper. JBsupreme (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Philippe 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that is all this article consists of, with examples that do not demonstrate the term or its origin. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of regions of space in the Honorverse. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from the Honorverse franchise. As such, it is repetitive and trivial, and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was early close and keep, AfD withdrawn by nominator after evidence provided that WP:CORP criteria are clearly being met. -- The Anome (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No independent evidence of notability supplied. Only external links are to magazine's own website and YouTube channel. Was previously deleted after first AfD: has anything changed in the intervening time to make it meet the notability criteria? -- The Anome (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit I may be partisan, as an employee of the company. We are a magazine with almost 50,000 subscribers, hundreds of thousands of visitors to our website, and we've given nearly $1 million to charity. We were the first outside company to curate the homepage of YouTube. We have been written about in Foreign Policy , Boing BoingThe New York Timesnumerous times (among many other places in print and online). This last year, we were nominated for two National Magazine Awards. I'm not sure what other threshold of notability we could possibly have to meet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.106.34 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 20:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet these criteria. Working as a common journalist in an important magazine doesn't make you notable. Besides, this guy is the person who created this page (User:Damfb and I have reasons to think that he is also User:Paleofreak, who created the pages Buenos Aires International Book Fair and Fernando Novas). But, apart from that, he doesn't meet these criteria. I'm a journalist from Argentina, I work at Clarín and this person "is NOT regarded as an important figure nor is widely cited by their peers or successors". Besides, in the Newsweek Argentina article in Spanish wikipedia, it says that this guy works there as a "corrector". I keep looking: this guy says he published articles in Clarín, but I searched Clarín.com (you can search by article author), and I didn't found any article written by him. PeterCantropus (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking: the user Damifb was expelled from the Spanish wikipedia, you can check it here. And Miotroyo probably is the same guy. He's the only one that edited this article, along with Damifb and Paleofreak, and he removed the notability tag that Nancy added to the article. Besides, according to this section in his talk page, he tried to list this guy as an atheist in List of atheists article. Of course he couldn't prove it, because his opinions weren't published anywhere. (For the English speaking wikipedians: "Miotroyo" means "My other self") --PeterCantropus (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per well-reasoned arguments for deletion, contrary to the vague and/or non policy and guideline based arguments for keeping. Disregarding all delete arguments because either the policy or guideline involved is in your view disputed, or because the opinion doesn't follow some essay, is not really constructive and rather self-contradictory (if you don't want people to use policies, you certainly shouldn't start using essays in your arguments). And if you disregard "pernom", perhaps it would be fairer to add the same to "per le Grand" opinions as well... Fram (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is as such an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Sonic the Hedgehog comic books and cartoons. It is therefore duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from the Star Trek series. It is therefore both duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 20:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Future reason album without a confirmed release date or any sources, let alone reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums Aspects (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect / merge to List of minor characters in the Teen Titans animated series#The Punk Rocket, which has already happened. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Punk Rocket is an non-notable villain that has only appeared in one episode (plus a few cameos) of Teen Titans. Schuym1 (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobility issuesEE 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Static Shock. Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nails is a un-notable character that has only appeared in one episode of Static Shock. There is no real world significance and no context. Schuym1 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as G12, by User:Alexf. (Non-admin closure) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Soxred 93 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any sources which would afford this company notability inline with WP:V. Россавиа Диалог 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Result was speedy delete under criterion A7: no assertion of notability. (Non-admin closure.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent WP:HOAX as IMDB lists no actor in the cast, certainly doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER notability Madcoverboy (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and revert. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be someone's personal invention. A search yields no results [13]. meshach (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Religious leader that is non notable and has no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Moved this draft rewrite to a subpage of the talk page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unneeded subpage that was copied from the original. Tavix (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial and unsourced list based upon original research. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, question here is, is a book review notable? The book, its author and the author of the review are, without a doubt, but I don't think that confers notability to the review itself. The claim that it's "much cited" appears in reality to be that it was reprinted. I find no evidence the review has been discussed and is anything more than a book review. I doubt the title is a valid search term so I don't see the need for a re-direct elsewhere. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was close, pending separate relistings Waggers (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Players do not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, players do not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. GauchoDude (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons provided above:
The result was keep. John254 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct band that never released an album or single. Fails WP:MUSIC. Only possible claim to notability is soundtrack appearance, which can be mentioned in the relevant article. Unable to find any reference to supposed Disney album appearances online. The only substantial mention of the band I can find is that New York Magazine article - which appears to have a promotional tone. Contested prod. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This is an unreferenced article for what seems to be non-notable fiction. The only hit I see for this with a Google search is the Wikipedia page. Doing further searches for the author in relation to writing fiction provide very little information. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's try this again. From what I'm noticing from the Eggman Nega article, all the information is nothing more than just plot info. The only sourced outer-universe info is the storyline confusion section with Taylor Miller. If it has nothing more to offer than it has now, then it has no reason to be here, plain and simple. ZeroGiga (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A1. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn record label Mayalld (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn music producer Mayalld (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. However, if any editor who doesn't have WP:COI issues thinks they can address the problems noted here, drop me a line and I'll userfy it for you.Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unashamed COI - article written by user:CDS International. Speedied once as spam. Are they notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neıl 龱 10:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no chance of asserting notability. It is filled with NOTHING but in-universe information. It is just a parade of cruft that needs to be tossed out the window. Anyone else agree? ZeroGiga (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Oh lordy! what a wide range of opinions, (some involving chainsaws!) but howsoever I look at this, there does not seem to be anything remotely close to a consensus. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I know the chao are adorable creatures and one of the current staples of the Sonic series, Cream has a chao (Cheese), even Chaos is a mutated Chao, but let's face it, this article is filled with almost nothing but in-universe information and has no chance to assert notability. It has no reason to be here. ZeroGiga (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress. Her relationship to Michael Richards does not make her notable. DCEdwards1966 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While there is some news coverage of his desire to change names and religions, this appears to be a case of BLP1E. Being in the news for being switched at birth and the religion issues does not appear to be encyclopedically notable if it hasn't actually created new legal precedent. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per G11 - non admin close. ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a howto, not sure that this is salvageable. ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Static Shock. Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She-Bang is a non-notable superhero that only appeared in three episodes of Static Shock. There is no context and there is no real world significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuym1 (talk • contribs)
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable topic about a non-notable device from Futurama. It is only notable in the first episode when Fry almost got himself killed with it, but other than that, it serves no other purpose of mention here. DELETE.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroGiga (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by G7 (outside of this discussion)
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
Bio for non-notable person. Damiens.rf 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
administrators, please help !
— Preceding [[Wikipedi
<meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> a:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let us promptly delete this article and all the others you have tagged for deletion. Anyway, people can find the info about the topic and the related individuals all over the internet, if they need some references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabuchodonozor (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile i wll keep on blanking the page and, sorry, this is not vandalizing when you blank your own work ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Static Shock. Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anansi is a non-notable superhero that appeared in only one episode of Static Shock. There is no context and the is no real world significance. Schuym1 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; spam/ad entry; poor quality. Jkorbes (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Nashville Star (season 6). (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless this contestant wins the "Nashville Star" contest, the subject isn't notable enough. StaticGull Talk 19:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the sources indicate the subject's notabilty, it still doesn't seem notable enough to have its own entry. StaticGull Talk 19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if/when Ms. Joi has her own claim to notability (her own song/album charts, for example). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC, does not meet musicians' criteria. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Unanimous delete vote for all three articles --JForget 23:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nominating the following as well:
The result was Delete --JForget 23:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. May be restored for a merger if anyone feels like it. Sandstein 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a PROD tag, but the author removed it. I do not believe this meets WP:N, as it has virtually no coverage from independent reliable sources. Enigma message 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, I'm not sure if BLP applies, even though he was alive at the moment he got shot). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Article has just come off an AfD, but the closing admin said he had no objection to an immediate re-opening, as long as each article was nommed individually. I should also add that I created the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I don't see that anyone else has made substantive edits, so this probably could have been a speedy G7.--Kubigula (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, I'm not sure if BLP applies, even though he was alive at the moment he got shot). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Article has just come off an AfD, but the closing admin said he had no objection to an immediate re-opening, as long as each article was nommed individually. I should also add that I created the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The cited reference is to a proposal, not to an official SI document, and cannot be regarded as a WP:RS Mayalld (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. Tagged as non notable since april. Also no references. Anonymous101 (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Hypnotize (album). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a lyrics repository Madcoverboy (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Individual university residential halls is not notable enough, merge to List of University of Auckland residential halls or some such thing Madcoverboy (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This artist has released a number of mixtapes, but I don't see any evidence of non-trivial coverage by third party publications or that he meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont kno how to start a discussion on here. But i watch over all of chips social networks... what can i do to fix chips wiki so it follows the guidelines. The last thing i want is to have this account suspended. Alot of our fans rely on the wiki page and compliment it all the time, so we dont want to take that away from them. Everything on his page is accurate information, please let me kno what I am doin wrong, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevslab (talk • contribs) 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The artist has lots of high-caliber collaborations, a chart single seems to be a matter of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.52.227 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. A number of users have expressed an interest in improving the article. If they don't do so soon, it can be relisted Waggers (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn software Mayalld (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Athaenara per CSD G11 and CSD G12 as blatant advertising and blatant copyright infringement. WilliamH (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. Although google search shows several ghits [32], there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. No hint in google news [33]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No established notability as actor or soldier Linkkennedy (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note:I also moved this back to the first title, as it is technically the first (only) nomination. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the original author of this page, and everytime I add a citation about Nathan Geist's military history, someone takes it off without explanation. I urge that this page is not deleted as it is extremely uncommon for any military personnel to have any ties with the film industry, let alone as an actor who gets credited roles in the small film market in Chicago. Less than 1% of ex-soldiers ever contribute to the film industry, and even less concurrently serve while maintaining status as a credited actor. I am not understanding how that is not notable. Linkamo (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC) linkamo[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable single per WP:MUSIC; only one title appears in searches (here) and it's not even the right artist; no charting, etc. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion on grounds of WP:Neologism, WP:Dictdef and WP:Notability (only 3 ghits). Prod removed by contributor without comment. Marasmusine (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neıl 龱 10:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, a comprehensive list of every weapon and vehicle included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions is not notable. None of these items have any real world notability, either individually or as a collection, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted as has been done in the past in this area and in areas such as video games. Allemandtando (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Reasons for keeping ("needs fixing", "bad faith") are not reasons based on Wikipedia's inclusion policies. Neıl 龱 10:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter. , a comprehensive list of every weapon and vehicle included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions is not. None of these items have any real world notability, either individually or as a collection, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted as has been done in the past in this area and in areas such as video games. Allemandtando (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The keeps predominantly stem from opinions that do not appear to be supported by policy, guideline or any established precedent/ consensus. There is also clearly some confusion over the applicability of primary sources. PS can not be used to establish N but can be used to V non-controversial information in an article on an otherwise notable subject. In the final analysis, I determined that the nom/deletes presented sound arguments that were well-supported by policy/guidelines. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter. Yes, the Imperium is probably notable; however, a comprehensive list of every weapon and vehicle included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions is not. None of these items have any real world notability, either individually or as a collection, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted. Allemandtando (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Bad faith nom. L0b0t (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Whoops, thanks for spotting that Neil. Nom. has AfD'd so many articles at the same time but not bothereed to lump them together it's hard to keep track. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article must violate about half a dozen guidelines (NPOV, OR: being the main 'violations') some examples are, respectively, "Both Manchester and Liverpool have a 'china town', however Liverpool's is Europe's oldest", "Places of natural beauty, but also homes of the rich and famous". etc. The only references supplied are those to one other page that is a Wikipedia article. Overall the article seems somewhat like someone's interpretation of several articles on-wiki, written into one large piece that makes no sense and is in no shape to be referenced or accurately sourced since the "megalopolis" (which is the whole point of this page) doesn't actually exist. Rudget (logs) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The urban part of the North West is a megalopolis according to both definition and the reality of the area; the article is a work in progress intended to help understanding of the metropolitan nature of the region, versus self-contained city regions such as the West Midlands, Glasgow, etc, which currently operate in metropolitan isolation. "Megapolitan" is rarely an official title in the same way as "metropolitan", but is instead a physical event with associated socio-economic outcomes (ie. increased labour pool, larger market, increased cross-region mobility, etc).
The Liverpool Manchester megalopolis has been referred to by others previously; other terms that have been used are North-West city region, North-West megalopolis, North-West conurbation. Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis is the most appropriate for this article, as it accurately describes the phenomena in an understandable format. It has been difficult to choose a title for this article, but the phenomena is worthy of note.
Incidentally, I was also considering authoring articles on other such urban areas, such as the West Midlands, which also has a unique and interesting background and history.
Regarding points of view, there are none in the article - again, it is a work in progress and references will be added as time goes by (I don't work on Wikipedia full time). Liverpool does have Europe's oldest Chinatown; little known fact perhaps, but there you have it - part of Liverpool's history (which has its own entry on Wikipedia). Alderley Edge etc, is a nationally known beauty spot very popular with hill walkers and the like, it is also home to the rich and famous and is one of the UK's most expensive places to live (so you'd have to be rich, at least).
I have been in discussion also with people at Wikipedia_talk:GM who raised points regarding verifiability but are actually interested in seeing the article complete in order to add a reference to Wikipedia for something that is consequential.
I would like to say that the article is not meant to be offensive in any way or do anything other than document an event and consequence of urban growth.--Genolian3 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The main deletion argument was the subject was non-notable, and those arguing keep were unable to effectively counter this. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable school. No sources, school was founded only six years ago. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 17:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable film, that has no references, other than an IMDb link. -- JediLofty UserTalk 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student group, Wikipedia is not a webhost Madcoverboy (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for db-band and a hangon was placed, because they had two albums on a borderline notable label. However, I'm finding no sources whatsoever for this band, not to mention the WP:COI and overly promotional tone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.smother.net/interviews/racebannon.php http://www.punknews.org/article/29366 http://www.naughtysecretaryclub.com/racebannon.htm http://betterpropaganda.com/artist_page.aspx?id=343 http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/6869612/a/First+There+Was+The+Emptiness.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern records (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure)—Reason: Thanks for the mild trouting. :) I assumed that all the articles had identical merit, based on preliminary research of a few. I'll dig deeper and nominate any individually that warrant further discussion. Livitup (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A single author, Qiy (talk) (contribs), has created pages for this company and several software products created by this company. The user has repeatedly deleted CSD tags from the articles (see user talk page for examples). Neither the company nor any of its software seems to be noteworthy. The top 100 Ghits are all press releases, announcements that the company is working on some project, or publications of OR. I'll be listing the articles of the software products as part of this AfD, so everyone can get the whole context. This is the first time I've AfD'ed on such a grand scale, so if this is improper or stupid please trout me and I'll go away. Livitup (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following additional articles should be included in this AfD. These are all articles on software products produced by DHI. The same user created these all these articles, including the one on DHI. Livitup (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoygabsadds 18:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only independent source is an interview with Biota; I'd prefer to see multiple coverage as suggested by WP:Notability guidelines. Contested prod earlier in the year with notability concerns, but contesting editor then admits a lack of secondary sources. I'd be happy if someone can find further significant coverage but I'm drawing a blank. Marasmusine (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - blatant copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoygabsadds 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NF. Minimal ghits are limited to listings on commercial websites such as Amazon, while a search for the Korean language title (내 여자친구 이야기) yields nothing of relevance. No listing on IMDb, or on Korean film websites such as koreanfilm.org, HanCinema, or KMDb. A request for further information on the koreanfilm.org forums supports what I already suspected, that this is merely a non-notable, straight to dvd, soft porn film. PC78 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoygabsadds 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoygabsadds 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoygabsadds 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - copyright infringement (CSD G12) J.delanoygabsadds 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a WP:RESUME Madcoverboy (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. nancy (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO notability, reads like a resume Madcoverboy (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. This project is no different - preproduction is still ongoing and anything could happen before the proposed filming date. The article can be recreated when principal photography begins. Steve T • C 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. No one other than the nominator wanted it deleted, and just saying delete doesn't count as an argument. — MaggotSyn 13:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP, reads like WP:ADVERT or news release Madcoverboy (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like an WP:ADVERT; fails to show notability per WP:CORP—news search shows nothing. Arsenikk (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, Speedy deleted as re-creation of deleted material (G4). AngelOfSadness talk 18:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER Madcoverboy (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP Madcoverboy (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a planned film by Roland Emmerich. While there has been casting and other preparations, it has not yet begun production. Per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not yet warranted. There can be delays to production, and a noted potential delay is the actors' strike, as noted here. Films like Shantaram (film) (merged) were affected by the writers' strike, so the possible actors' strike adds more uncertainty to the production of this film. If production does begin, the article can be recreated. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO, reads like a resume Madcoverboy (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G11 by WBOSITG. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another MySpace band that fails WP:MUSIC, also likely WP:COI Madcoverboy (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to National Health Service (England) where content has already been merged. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant op-ed piece Mayalld (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism, clear hoax, part of pattern of hoax articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be a hoax (no sources provided) by user who has only contributed this single article. Lady Lynx website has no indication that such a person exists, and no google hits except the wikipedia page. Jogurney (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (there was content, the content was already deleted as copyright infringement). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an advertisement, fails WP:CORP Madcoverboy (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an announced project by Judd Apatow. Per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not yet warranted with no guarantee of production to ensure a full-fledged film article layout. If production begins, the article can be recreated. In the meantime, a sentence or two could be mentioned at Judd Apatow#Upcoming projects. Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied as copyvio. --Stormie (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD (PROD notice removed without comment or explanation). Nuruddin Farah is certainly a notable author, but this article is simply not an encyclopedia article, it is an essay, original research. Stormie (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was previously nominated in February but was kept in a no consensus decision. Since then the article has remained stagnant and there have been few, if any updates to the list, which hasn't been updated in nine months (note that the first season of this show ended in May). Also a list which is basically a rotating list of talk show topics which have nothing beyond the title of each program to differentiate them from each other, and are not unique in the subject matter dealt with. Nate • (chatter) 09:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal essay dealing in pure speculation about an institution's position in 7 years time. WP:CRYSTAL if nothing else Ged UK (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; article itself mentions only a single article was written about it and it has been tagged since december of 2007. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism Ged UK (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following article are also being nominated in this AfD because they are redirects or just WP:Coatracks to advance the same marketing points, and have turned into substantially the same articles recreated with similar names before:
--Closeapple (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a neologism. Davewild (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neolgism. Can't find any refernce to it in a couple of pages of google results. Ged UK (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film still in production. From the article: "Although its unknown if the film will be released nationally, even internationally, just yet" Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is a disputed PROD, no reason given for disputing. Mattinbgn\talk 08:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to Does This Look Infected?, AfD discussion not necessary for an editorial decision like this. Stormie (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sum 41 song fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs. Not a single and a short 38 second song that never charted. Also it is unreferenced information. I propose to redirect to the appropriate album: Does This Look Infected? Orfen T • C 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources attest to the independent notability of this character. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT and WP:N. A few random mentions in various pop culture items does not equal notability. Otto4711 (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, either a joke or certainly fails notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not asserted and appears to be low. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Lucas Cruikshank. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted and seems of very low. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Attempted G11 speedy-delete (listed by another user) was refused by the administrator. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 06:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as copyvio from here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fo English WP -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - article has been updated, no more link spam in article. Withdrawing decision to delete.. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a list of external links, non encyclopedic Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 05:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This band is not notable, and there are no sources at all. Dave Foster (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. — MaggotSyn 12:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This upcoming artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Musician who fails WP:MUSIC, and the article has requested references since August 2007 as well (making it a WP:BLP problem to boot). JBsupreme (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, due to notability and crystal ball concerns. Davewild (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No third party sourcing at all. No firm release date. No title. Tracklist "leaked". Pure crystal. Kww (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that is not a notable topic. Davewild (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically exact same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Brazilian, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian Brazilian and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxembourgian Brazilian - absolutely no content other than the fact that a fringe, made-up ethnic group exists. Not to mention the article is a misnomer as it would have to include Canadian Brazilian and Mexican Brazilian, 2 articles made by the same author which are also either up for deletion or have already been deleted. JuJube (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy (db-bio) from a week ago. Fails WP:BIO. A vanity article about a member of a band that's borderline notable at best. Reyk YO! 03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the album and artist are notable, this particular song is not. It was not released as a single and hasn't had any notable presence in the media that I am aware (and I am a JM fanatic and am the number one contributor to his WP article). Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy / snow delete, take your pick. BencherliteTalk 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Self promotion. Badly done. Watchsmart (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do-not Delete - I have been his client for 8 months . He is very skillful and understandably there in top ten for the key term SEO Specialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.54.201 (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SEO Company - Search Engine Optimisation & Marketing SpecialistUK's No.1 search engine placement, positioning & promotion expert service offering website SEO optimisation to improve website rankings and increase ... www.smart-traffic.co.uk/ - 72k - Cached - Similar pages
SEO Generalists vs. SEO Specialists - ClickZDoes it sound like I prefer SEO generalists to SEO specialists? ... A top-of-the-line SEO specialist has a wide variety of skills. ... www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3597321 - 82k - Cached - Similar pages
STAR: SEO consultant & SEO specialist, a 7-point job description ...STAR offers a 7-point SEO consultant & SEO specialist job description. If you need an SEO expert, call 888-743-9939 now! www.star-optimization-design-hosting.com/seo-consultant-specialist.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
SEO Consultant Specialist - Top SEO, SEM Consultancy – SEO ...Hayi is a top freelance SEO Consultant & SEO Specialist with proven record in Search Engine Optimization, SEO, and Search Engine Marketing, SEM. www.seo-consultant-specialist.com/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
Higher search engine rank, organic optimization firm, Atlanta SEO ...Capture Commerce comprises a team of experienced Internet marketing professionals, an Atlanta SEO optimization firm, who do business ethically, ... www.capturecommerce.com/ - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
Big Oak Search Engine Optimization Services Company : Richmond SEO ...Big Oak offers search engine optimization (SEO), Internet marketing, seo copywriting, website design ... Search Engine Optimization Specialists & Marketers ... www.bigoakinc.com/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Agence de Référencement Montréal SEO SpecialistLes billets futurs de mon agence de référencement se retrouveront dorénavant chez SEO ROI services. This SEO specialist is moving his blogging activities to ... cityseo.blogspot.com/ - 86k - Cached - Similar pages
Professional SEO Specialists | SEO PhilippinesWe specialize on Link Building SEO. Our SEO services include Copywriting, Web Site Promotion, Website Development and Internet Marketing Consultation. www.seoglobalpro.com/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
Razvan Marian Jr - SEO consultant & professional specialist ...Not the regular SEO blog... this is me... this is my life... this is my work... www.razvanmarianjr.com/ - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
SEO Company UK - SEO Manchester, York, Leeds, WarringtonKeyword: SEO Specialists Manchester – Position: 1 Keyword: SEO Specialists Leeds – Position: 1 Keyword: Search Engine Optimisation York – Position: 2 ... www.senopsis.com/ - 28k - Cached - Similar pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmansoor (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources for No More Dead Dogs. Fails WP:FICTION Schuym1 (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per A7, no assertion of notability. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization, with no coverage in reliable sources and very few ghits. Possible conflict of interest, as the article was created by User:Rupertcheek, the founder of the project. — Wenli (reply here) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as vandalism. It is also not verifiable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. I can find no online references, and some of the links from within this article are clearly incorrect, eg Maxime Weygand would have been ten years old at the time claimed, and Paul Reynaud was not yet born. I can find no online reference to Jordane Elias either. Britannica doesn't appear to know anything about this tribe despite being cited as a ref. Tatau Island does exist. gadfium 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article seems to fail the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC. The band has released 1 album under an independent label (WP:MUSIC requires at least 2 albums on a major label or a notable independent label), there has been no non-trivial media coverage from independent and reliable sources and the band has not charted a hit on any national music chart although there is mention of having a hit single on a local radio station. All in all, it seems to be a band that may be known locally but, again, it fails the basic tenets of WP:N and WP:MUSIC. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, consensus is that the article is notable and has been rewritten to remove the copyvio. Davewild (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Google does turn up a few references (as well as a lot about a different Pat Fry) but these are all either trivial, or not independent of the subject. Reyk YO! 02:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calendar Girl is a minor Batman villain. Fails WP:FICTION Schuym1 (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a work of fiction. Although it's enjoyable to read, I don't think it belongs on the wikipedia. Mblumber (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that this should have been a speedy delete instead of being put up for discussion. Schuym1 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Lectonar per CSD G12 as blatant copyright infringement. WilliamH (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure subject satisfies WP:BIO (only a county commissioner). The article is also unreferenced. Article has a prod request (not by me) on same reasoning in its past history (prod was removed by article's original author, no further action taken to improve article concerns). umrguy42 01:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Whether or not to place a redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 08:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable fictional 'team'. It consists entirely of a plot summary, unfounded speculation about the nature of the characters (At least two may well be the same characters, and not successors), and the only non-comic citation uses a solicitation about a possible upcoming event, thus a speculative cite. The characters are non-notable, and represent a single story arc which lacks real world critiques and citations about its importance. ThuranX (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't look for this with your GPS. Clearly one of the more interesting hoaxes. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that this is a neologism. Davewild (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Neologism and not encyclopedic material. Poor Poor Pitiful Me (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 23:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:OR and makes claims that are not backed by independent sources. Keep it all, there is not much academic or verifiable research yet due to this movement's infancy. let this be what Wikipedia, at its core, is all about, re-taking credibility from the oppressive institutions that dictate transmission and validity. There IS a transition occuring in our collective esteem that is and will continue its movement from that of postmodernity, and it is about sincerity, simplicity, compromise, and collaboration. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. GizzaDiscuss © 23:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If in future The Young Werewolves gain more fame and more references become available, the article can always be recreated. Neıl 龱 10:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music): no claim to major-label albums; requests for verification or references on even non-notability-qualifying items have only resulted in reference links that don't verify the facts they're used for. Biggest claim to fame seems to be a one-liner in The Village Voice that mysteriously doesn't even appear on the Village Voice website. Closeapple (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is the only album by this band: