The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject fails WP:BIO. Article appears to be for advertising for a book and serves no other purpose. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability that I saw, that meets the Wikipedia:Notability (music), but maybe I missed something. I didn't find anything in Google News. There has been enough debate about notability on the talk page to make me keen to bring this to a wider audience, rather than tag it for speedy deletion. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Synergy 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does participation in - and even winning - a junior competition confer notability? I think that age-limited competitions are not the sort that do, otherwise many under-16 or under-18 footballers, little leaguers, and high school/college athletes would be deemed notable, contrary to the normal outcomes at afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A typical tourdates listing for a future Vanessa Hudgens tour to bunch of state fairs. I prodded this and it was recreated. I would like to argue against a redirect since '"Identified Tour 2008" -wikipedia' gets zero Google hits. I searched without quotes and found nothing to warrant an article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is set out like a project, referencing only an educational establishment's FAQ or other WP articles. Assumption is complete original research (points eight and nine at WP:DEL#REASON) - possibly a college paper or coursework? Booglamay (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A7 by Tawker. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously up for AfD in March with a result of no consensus due to some Kurt Weberism (no offense, Kurt) and the presence of a decent length CMT bio. However, besides that, I am finding no reliable third party sources that are more than mere trivial mentions of the duo, so I feel that they still don't meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as both CSD A7 (no assertion of importance) and G11 (blatant advertising - org spam), then taken to a deletion review, then sent here by the deleting admin (me). Fails WP:ORG. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved I moved the content to the George Nethercutt page as the writing is on the wall, as it were, here and that sounded like a reasonable solution. If someone is so inclined would he or she correct the redirects at Nethercutt Fellow and Nethercutt Foundation so that they direct to the section as it now stands. I Have been wikibonked for a while and do not remember how to do that.--Counsel (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable local chapter of the Humane Society. No third-party references. Tom (talk - email) 22:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Swing Your Rag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These articles should be deleted as it fails notability according to WP:MUSIC#Songs. There is no such thing as a music single "released on MySpace", which really doesn't matter since, according to policy, for a song to be notable it needs to have been listed on a notable music chart (Hot 100 e.g.). Merging these articles to the Paper Trail would be useless as well, since they are already mentioned. See also:
Do U(knome)? yes...|or no 21:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. More than one of the arguments to keep concede that this article is lacking in sources - which ironically enough is the primary contention of the nomination. Shereth 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See prior discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altered texts in Scientology doctrine. The article appears to be mostly WP:OR, and relies heavily on primary sources, and an WP:OR analysis of those primary sources. Has not received significant discussion in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, though of course I am amenable to being proven wrong about this point, would love to see the sources that go into detail discussing this topic. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per WP:CORP. Only has two news mentions but from minor sources at best. Most of the sources in the article are from the organization itself. WP:CORP states, "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization...Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable.." Ave Caesar (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for an entire article to be dedicated to one song from a musical, especially when the a lot of the content in the article has nothing to do with the song itself. Juansidious (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two sentence article on a footballer who plays for a reserve team in the non-fully professional third tier in Spain, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Was originally prodded, but as happens so often, it was removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. AfD nomination withdrawn. Article speedy deleted as hoax under CSD G3 Matilda talk 06:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pure invention. No rider of this name known to the website of his supposed team, nor on cyclingnews.com, nor on cyclingwebsite.net; not in current TdF, yet alone a stage winner, and rather than having won 2 world titles, he is unheard of on the UCI website. Kevin McE (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as product of vanity press. DS (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. The book is not notable. The book is self-published with no significant reviews, nor has it won any awards or have any other attributes that would make it notable. A search through Google news, scholar and book find nothing. a web search turns up lots of listings for online booksellers. Whpq (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it describes an element of the book that also fails notability:
The result was Delete, not encyclopedic. Chillum 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant article, supposedly about terrorism, but in fact only mentions accidental damage caused by fictional nanobots, such as is already covered by Grey goo KatieWay (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep for now, but it needs to be expanded beyond a dict-def to deal with issues brought up here. Chillum 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very widely used term, but it's still an undersourced dicdef with a trivia list. I can't see it expanding beyond a dicdef. Has also been tagged for cleanup for a year with no improvements. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 20:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G3 as hoax, by Happyme22. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 19:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a hoax. All hits on Google are from Wikipedia. --aktsu (t / c) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G12 by Matthewedwards, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 19:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
copyright violation; unsourced; notabilty not claimed Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 19:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. After ten days on AfD and extensive discussion, this article about a fictional character in a roleplaying game (the content about a real-world historical title that was briefly inserted has not stuck) is still only sourced to three of the game's rulebooks. This means that it fails WP:N, a guideline according to which the topic of an article must generally have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In view of this, the arguments of the minority of editors advocating a "keep" would have to be persuasive indeed to prevent deletion. That, they are not. With the notable exception of DGG, who makes an interesting WP:SS argument (although one that would amount to inherited notability, which I think is not generally accepted), they either amount to WP:WAX or otherwise fail to address the issue of the specific sourcing requirements of WP:N. I'm therefore required per WP:DGFA to discount most "keep" opinions and to find that we have a consensus to delete. Sandstein 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of plot elements from the Warhammer 40,000 game articles. As such, it is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The complaints you have raised only seem to require a revision of the article, not a deletion. The Emperor is a very important character in the Warhammer 40k Universe. Deletion would be rash and injudicious. Sfrostee 00:33, 13 July 2008
I have begun the new version and will continue a bit later. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article about a mixtape which fails WP:MUSIC#Albums: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources", however, no sources are provided. Ros0709 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted under A7. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:BAND guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A7 Speedy. Tawker (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a random website. No indication of why or how this is notable. The only sentence in the entire article has ((fact)) stuck on it. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Unreliable. Arb name. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation of the publishers' intellectual property. This is a subjective list, therefore a creative work, and so it's copyrighted. If this were a list of the top 100 comedians ranked by album sales, or some such objective criteria, then it wouldn't be a copyvio. Corvus cornixtalk 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. This is a case where an appropriate article on this subject may be defendable in the future, but at this time is not supportable with our requirements for verifiability in independent sources. The subject is not patently non-notable, but this article's existence in mainspace is currently premature. I'll be happy to userfy it for any interested editor. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an academic research project which, though it may be very worthy, has no third-party sources to prove notability in Wikipedia terms. There is also a problem with conflict of interest, and so a concern with promotion, as the article author is a member of the project. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge, with Amazon.com#Controversies and redirect to False advertising. The main point of contention of this discussion was if the article could have a neutral point off view when calling the examples it discusses "tricks". This is especially problematic since the majority of the article deals with a single retailer, which prompted Neon white's description of this article as as a coatrack for criticism of Amazon. Furthermore, all the sources discuss particular examples of controversial sales tactics but do not discuss "online sales tricks" as a general subject. In light of this focus on a single retailer and lack of sources discussing the subject in general, I think a merge is the best option. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a neologism with an arbitrary set of examples. ZimZalaBim talk 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete (all delete votes) --JForget 00:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable subject. No sources at all. Little assertions of notability. Article is written by User:Peter.deperro, so obvious conflict of interest is present. "Peter J. Deperro" gets nine google hits (Most of which are related Wikipedia links) and "Peter Deperro" gets fourteen. Also of note: This article was tagged for notability and being an autobiography, and prodded for being a "nonnotable person; fluff piece." In addition to removing the prod, User:Peter.deperro made a "minor change" that removed the maintenance tags with no explanation why. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn --JForget 00:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Article only has one source meaning poor reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Only the BBC inline citation works properly. Not reliable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. RFerreira (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Only sources are self-published. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. RFerreira (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. No inline cites means zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be loverly? Unfortunately, there's a bit of WP:CRYSTAL going on here. From the research I did, it appears Keira Knightley is considering this project -- she has not signed up for it, nor has not received the green light. I'd love to discuss this further, but I'm getting married in the morning... Ecoleetage (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. RFerreira (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Label is redlinked. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Hard-Fi related cruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.
In general, the reasons given in the closure of this AfD apply mutatis mutandis. Moreover, this article has additional policy problems which the "keep" opinions fail to adequately address: most content is unverifiable, sourced either to "the games and their manuals" in general or to a small number of unreliable sources. Also, its scope and subject brings it into conflict with WP:NOTGUIDE, a policy.
To the extent that a very concise summary of this content (about one paragraph) is required to adequately explain the game within the scope of an encyclopedia, it may be restored for selective merging to Pokémon or another article – as soon as reliable, specific sources are provided. Sandstein 17:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still appears to be a "detailed" wholly in-world game guide information that really should only belong on a FAQ page. Salavat (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete and transwiki to a strategy guide Wiki of some sort — Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also, none of the articles referenced establish any out–of–universe notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to All the Right Reasons --JForget 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Never released as single therefore never charted. Insignificant media coverage. No references or inline cites means zero reliability. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Never released as single therefore never charted. Insignificant media coverage. No references or inline cites means zero reliability. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently little-used term: original research? Of the 9 Google hits [28], four are from Wikipedia itself, and three appear to use the phrase to mean something other than the subject of the article. In addition, at least one of the references given seems to be related to something else entirely, with the only similarity being the use of the word "psychophysical", another is an ArXiv preprint, and a third is behind a paywall, and thus not easily reviewed. The remaining reference (Klein) does appear to be about the general topic of psychophysics and mind-body duality, but does not use the word "psychophysical" anywhere. The Anome (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Help in Choosing the Best, of The 63,800 "Verifiable" Reference Books and Papers on the Psychophysical Paradox (or Problem or Debate)
Thanks,
--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am under the impression that this article is not Notable as per wikipedia guidelines. Smcbuet (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. BJTalk 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company per WP:CORP; article has existed for a very long time without improvement. It was kept at AfD before purely on the basis of google hits, despite it being an advertisement. Mangojuicetalk 15:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not cite any sources, and is orphaned in the way of links from other articles. It isn't really notable enough to warrant having a seperate article of its own, however parts of the article could be merged with the FunOrb article. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason for nomination unknown; completing incomplete AfD. --Geniac (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (CSD G4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Know What They Do to Guys Like Us in Prison (2nd nomination)) Mangojuicetalk 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Not released as single. No significant media coverage. No cites or references means zero reliability. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as unverifiable per WP:V. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bootleg that was never released. "The full track listing is debated...", "but these songs were definitely released...". The article name is arbitrary. Is this a fan attributed name? No inline cites or references = zero reliability. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not-notable. Regular home nation concert tour. No sources = zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Cisman Mahmoud. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incoherent, nn. Placed speedy deletion tags which were promptly deleted. Lusantian (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted and salted, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination), and comments below. -- The Anome (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the worldview conveyed in this article is covered effectively in other articles, while this article conveys the inaccurate impression that it is nonfiction. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree that this is represented as definate non-fiction. The aim was to put forward the claims of individuals and their reasoning behind it. I feel that there are a reasonable amount of sources for what i have mentioned but I do not think that I have represented the information as 100% fact nor implied that it is conventional opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that this encyclopedia should have this type of information available. I dont think that people's professional opinions should be ignored just because they are unconventional. You should still allow other people research to be put forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also the other articles that mention et intelligence are not adequately networked. That was one of the main purposes of making this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that if someone went on wikipedia there isnt a page that talks about the overall claims of these people. so if u just wanted to research claims of et activity there isnt a page that links to the other ones like this one does. I am happy to edit the whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No actual argument was put forth establishing the notability of these bridges within the current Wikipedia notability guideline. There is no sub-guideline for bridges, so statments that they are notable because they are old has no merit. Notification of Wikiprojects is by no means a requirement, rather a courtesy, and therefore has no bearing here. WP:USEFUL covers the other baseless support comments. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely, totally, utterly non-notable bridge. It isn't even the main bridge across this particular river to this small town (that'd be the Gill - Montague Bridge, a bit under a half-mile away). The bridge is not a link to a highway, principal or otherwise, nor are there any sources, reliable or otherwise; even the article admits the bridge is "nondescript." Only 17 Google hits [32], all of them this article and various Wiki mirrors. As far as I can figure, the sole purpose of this article is that someone's been creating them for bridges across the Connecticut River, no matter how insignificant ... and not always accurately: the name of the town is, in fact, "Turners Falls." A redirect to Turners Falls, Massachusetts was reverted with the comment "this is a bridge, not a place." Fails WP:V, WP:N. RGTraynor 15:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages, all of which completely fail as to sourcing and notability:
There are numerous other such articles, although a number of the crossing articles have better claims to notability, but that will do for now. RGTraynor 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Synergy 00:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on a senior thesis by Trey Anastasio. This is a bootleg, and as such is unofficial and prone unreliable claims. Article itself has insufficient inline citations and is unreliable. Non-notable fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "proposed name for an abortive supergroup". This is not notable. I.e. this was never even a band, but a name for a band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to Led Zeppelin European Tour 1970. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 16:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Led Zeppelin played under this name during a concert tour in Copenhagen. This is a nice vignette, but not notable as a freestanding article. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why the page I created for "The Nobs" would not be a notable freestanding article, and 'Led Zeppelin 1970 European Tour' would be. The incident surrounding the use of Led Zeppelin's temporary name was noteworthy and detailed enough to include many specifics. Despite including legitimate references for my sources, the article I created has basically been modified (removal of important points regarding use of "The Nobs"), extended, and simply given a different title. Someone felt it was significant enough to make all the changes for a redirect - Because if it's not, then it should be deleted altogether. A more reasonable explanation for all of these alterations would be appreciated. Yobbo14 (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is, uh, garbage. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge (non-admin closure). The article should be merged to Club Penguin. Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. No inline cites or references. Unreliable. Any useful information should be merged to Trey Anastasio, per the Ozzy Osbourne band being in Ozzy Osbourne. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced stub about a type of ornamental cross that some people seem to want to stylize into a national-relgious symbol. It is apparently true that some people in the Macedonian Orthodox Church have used this design for a medal of some sort (see this article [36] which seems to be talking about that and from where the original illustration of our page was also stolen). But the claim that this is a traditional and specifically Macedonian ornament, that it has been "discovered" in several churches (how? was it hidden or unknown previously?), and that it has been discussed as such by "international archaeologists" seems unsubstantiated (I don't know if that newspaper article makes claims to that effect, but I'd be wary about accepting it as a reliable source anyway.) Most likely, this is an entirely non-notable movement by some small group of inventing a symbol for themselves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and merge (non-admin closure). The article should be merged to Trey Anastasio. Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. This is "unofficial name" of Trey Anastasio's touring band. Non inline cites or references. Not reliable. Anything of use can be merged to Trey Anastasio. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, i'll userfy if requested. Wizardman 03:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just created. I didn't know what to make of it, but if I had to guess I'd say it's unsourced stuff. Google turns up nothing for "Hazrat Sayed Mohammad Ameer Shah Al Qadri Al Gillani" or "Moulvee Jee" Adoniscik(t, c) 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and http://hindko.pk/bod.html ...a student mentioning his name at his own website http://drahmad.org/page2.htm If any other information is needed do contact me here or at shiz409@yahoo.com. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadri409 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, the article is a mess. Please acquaint yourself with wiki formatting and the WP:MOS. Secondly, we need to be able to verify the contents of the article, which means reliable sources. I don't see much in Google for any "founder of Qadria". --Adoniscik(t, c) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that helps me decide. If all you have for support is one web forum with less than two dozen posts I would have to say this article fails the notability test. --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought maybe Google Books would have something...it does. On page 49 of Shah Latif and His Message we find "The Qadria Sect. The founder of this sect was Sheikh Mohyuddin Abu Muhammad Abdul Qadir bin Saleh Musa Jilani. He was born inn 470 Hijra (1077 AD) and died in 861 Hijra (1166 AD)". This is in disagreement with your article. Does it refer to a different sect by the same name? WE need more information; this is why I am pressing for reliable sources. (Please add your responses after mine instead of revising your previous ones.) --Adoniscik(t, c) 22:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please read again i have clearly said that Sayed Mohammad Ameer Shah is the decendent of Hazrat shiekh Abdul Qadir Jilani http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadir_Jelani & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Qadir_Gilani. the founder of Qadria order ...Secondly qadria is not a sect its a sufi order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadri ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadiriyyah as far as the text formating is concerned i do accept i am not good at it that i can correct ...the problem with the data here is that most of the books are in urdu , under translation ....sayed Mohammad Ameer Shah remained the Founding Patron: Syed Mohammad Ameer Shah Qadri Gilani and his son Patron:Syed Noorul Hassnain Gilani that you can confirm from, http://hindko.pk/bod.html... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadri409 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realy appreciate your hard work ..very much oblieged and impressed to see your efforts and interest in getting the right information on wikipedia,,, let me mention that the website you have refered gvies information about another Ameer Shah Qadri who passed as mentoined on the site "He died in 1692 A.D (1102 H) and buried at Hujra Shah Muqeem." He passed in the mughal era as mentioned on the site " During his stay at Delhi, Emperor Alamgir came to meet him but he went to toilet before arrival of Badshah. Alamgir waited some time and then sent his son to enquire about him. He came back with this news that Syed Sahib has disappeared. So Alamgir come back without any meeting with him. After this incident when his search begun, a strange thing come in to knowledge of residents of Delhi that Syed Muhammad Ameer Gilani was sitting on Qutab Minar. "
Your suggestion is valauable about starting a subsection on Abdul-Qadir Gilani ..it needs much more time to gvie all the missing links Sayed Muhammad Ameer Shah is the decendent of Shiekh Abdul Qadir Jeelani at 24th generation..
This family belongs to the Hazrat sayed Abdul Razaq who was the son of Hazarat sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani and later on one of his decendent in 1060 Hijra came to Thatha in the sindh province of Pakistan name Hazarat Sayed Abdullah Shah Ashabi http://www.geocities.com/jawedom/memon.htm ...and http://wikimapia.org/6133070/Abdullah_shah_ashabi_tomb .To work out all these links and thier verification from web source might take ages for a person like me. can you guide me that how to put this page in invisible mode for the time being and when we have enough data we should put it online ??? Thanks again for your help .Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadri409 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more references. Books of Muhammad Amir shah Qadri Gilani are available even in catalogs of Library of Congress http://catalog.loc.gov/ You can search the name "Muhammad Amir shah" and you will easily find out at least following books (names of the books are also in Urdu)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masyed (talk • contribs)
Here are some english sources http://breakingnews.augustachronicle.com/terrorism/stories/092601/926proof.html same interview at another link with graphics http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/09-01/09-27-01/a02wn013.htm Another link to Prof Dr Muhammad Masud Ahmad research work which was translated by Prof. M.A . Qadir(Ex Principal Govt. Degree College, Sukkur, Sindh Pakistan) and is printed by IDARA-I-TAHQEEQAT-E_IMAM AH MED RAZA INTERNATIONAL (25-Japan Mansion, Regal (Raza) Chowk, Saddar Karachi)www.imamahmadraza.net in which he has given references on Page#34 line #26 , 27, 33 and on page # 45 line # 03 or 37th Reference in bibliography. http://www.geocities.com/shiz409/MoulviJieReference_DrMasaudThesis.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadri409 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this link about his demise news where governer of NWFP province condolence is given the source is PPI pakistan(From Pakistan Press International Information Services ©RIGHT 2004 Financial Times Ltd. Limited)& Publication: Asia Africa Intelligence Wire Publication Date: 28-OCT-04 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-14203089_ITM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadri409 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns. Based on the article, and their record at IMDB, I'm not sure they pass WP:N. rootology (T) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn --JForget 00:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Verging on fancruft. No inline cites. No reliability. How can songs have a fictional setting. Any useful information can be merged into songs that are 'set' in Gamehendge. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Despite the good faith references, ELs, and other improvements, there's not enough information about the site from third-party, verifiable sources - not the same thing as information from the site about itself - to meet WP:WEB. KrakatoaKatie 05:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined prod. Non-notable fansite. I found it on recent changes patrol and was going to CSD it but it seemed legitimate. It turns out it is not associated with Square Enix but rather is a distinct and non-notable entity. Plenty of web hits exist, but they are forums on the site itself, blogs, and regular hits point TO the site, not independent coverage ABOUT the site. Frank | talk 13:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 04:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this should be sourceable, but Google doesn't give any links besides directories. Can any locals help with adding history and removed promo language? I'd love to remove this delete vote. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
any advice welcomed on how to source these links or the info would be gratefully recieved Andipeeuk (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look apologies all round... tbh I kinda wish I'd never bothered... my tone is as such due to an overwelming sense of frustration... all I wanted was to add my bit of input into the greatest encyclopedia ever, and include something that IS of importance (albeit in a regional sense) but no more than many other of the smaller wikipedia articles. Given that after a discussion with many people from the area we all remembered Mister Dave's. but nothing appeared to document the fact that this nugget of regional gold ever existed, all I ever wanted was to mark this milestone in the history of the Balti (which it truly is!) with its own entry into Wikipedia.Andipeeuk (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax article, made by a Gerald Gonzalez sock, who kept on putting point-of-view information about the actress Angel Locsin. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod about a colour. I can't see how this article can possibly be notable. Found very few sources, and the vast majority of the sources are about products with the colour, and not about the colour itself. Are there notability guidelines for... colours? Samuel Tan 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of them appear to have had this name judging by sources (maybe that Taubmans paint). --Dhartung | Talk 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per unanimous vote/failure of WP:ATHLETE --JForget Could be reinstated should we officially plays in a pro league. 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Young footballer who has not played in a fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. He has youth caps, but consensus is that these do not confer notability. Article has already been deleted once (via prod) for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
article does not give any reason for notability and I could not find any reliable sources. Samuel Tan 12:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Google search produced nothing. Possibly fantasy biography. Carbonrodney (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, (very) quick google search gives homepage, myspace, facebook etc. but no reviews or articles. Carbonrodney (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - possibly a POV fork. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is just Milton Orkopoulos but with a comma at the end. Carbonrodney (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball. Unreleased single of no proven notability, from an album whose first single barely scratched the charts. Kww (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax article, incorrectly tagged for speedy. No other sources for this found. EyeSerenetalk 11:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete due to verifiability and notability problems. Davewild (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited article which is mainly comprised of an uncited list (i.e. WP:OR). No evidence of notability or independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, consensus is that the article does meet the notability guidelines due to the sources found here which should be added to the article. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to show the group has any actual notability - they've done no gigs of note, and the record label they claim their last album was released by is so big it doesn't even have a website, or anywhere else which attests to it being notable at all. Also, I strongly suspect that the creator of the article was bassist Chowdhury Fazle Shakib, judging by the creator's name and their edits to the article. Delete LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, due to verifiability and notability problems. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is unverifiable and notability is questionable with 52 G-hits and no G-News hits, It appears to be original research and self-promotion. It also seems unlikely that someone who only finished his master's degree four years ago would be considered "one of the greatest strategists and policy makers in international relations theory" as the article proclaims. These reasons are the original Prod reasons put out by Accurizer and Iain99. Jons63 (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO as not a professional athlete, nor amateur who has competed at highest level of competition, nor has enough WP:RS with substantial coverage of the subject. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fictional band. There are no sources besides the show itself (so not independent of the subject) and I can't find anything on Google except lyrics and t-shirts for sale. In other words, this band hasn't been covered or discussed by a reliable outside source. Finally, the whole concept in my opinion is unencyclopedic. Reyk YO! 08:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by me. The text is clearly an advertisement and describes a future event. The article could be rewritten to be more suitable for inclusion, but one would not start with this text as it is unsalvageably biased. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musical competition that has received virtually no secondary coverage. Lincolnite (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No notability established. Wine tastings like this happen all the time. They may be of interest to a trade journal, wine correspondent, or a local paper but they hardly merit an entry in an encyclopedia Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that this is probably a hoax. Davewild (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated as non-notable and so-far unverifiable - (to extent of possible hoax). Ghits for article name [39] basically just this article. No mention of this facility, its cocktail evenings or mourning bonobos on the zoo's site [40] - though Belle Isle Nature Zoo does exist, I can't find any evidence that this does. Hunting dog (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 04:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating on behalf of CultureDrone, as he didn't complete the nomination... Carbonrodney (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advertising for nn company. Vast majority of sources are just directory listings, and remainder look like advertising press releases from the company. Mayalld (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have no idea if this is the proper way to post in here but I was unable to find another example to show the proper method, but I would like to defend my article. The sources to directories are to example the food and beverage sections within yahoo, ebay and amazon, and the inital reference is to the site the Glen Klock originally created before agbase.com, but with the same model in mind. If these references are inappropriate they can be removed. An online farmer's market is just what it sounds like, and to be fair it's not a new concept, you connect straight to the seller rather then through a middle-man website that takes a cut of the profit. I thought this concept was more commonly known but, as it appears to not be, it can be included in the article. If this page is really just going to be considered promotional, I'd like it to be explained how it is different from pages such as Massachusetts Bay Trading Company, ZipZoomfly, Winecommune.com, Warm sentiments, CheapOair and numerous other pages within Category:Online retail companies of the United States, none of which are marked for deletion or considered to be an advertisement, and yet all have more self-supporting content within the article comparitively. Gladkov Mikhail (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable autobiography. Googling Sabir Abdus Samee gives 519 hits, I get more than that. Carbonrodney (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I gave this articles because in most cases it is difficult for Bangladeshi authors to come out with appropriate recognition. The is a fault of the Bangladeshi media and print industry. I think if Wikipedia helps to enter these authors they might get the recognation they are entitled to get. As far I know Sabir Abdus Samee is one of the few Bangladeshi poets who write in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenberet08 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already deleted. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page has nothing, not even a history. Just a speedy delete contest tag. If it weren't for that, I would speedy delete it! Seriously, it needs to be deleted. Carbonrodney (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, consensus is that this is a valid list. Davewild (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has existed for roughly 2 years without any of the actual species haveing a BlueLink Article. How useful is a list of redlinks? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Died Pretty, consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines but is an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a 'prolific' drummer, he has no reliable sources. The two web links only mention Colin Barwick in a secondary manner--as the band Died Pretty's drummer. The second web link briefly says Barwick was a band member from 1983 to 1985--or 2 short years. Hardly notable. Leoboudv (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:N and WP:RS What is notable about this fictional mechanical device? Article is childishly written and has no proper ending...a classic dead end page. It also lacks any reliable sources to prove any inherent notability. Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete for the same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination) (serious WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:N problems not adequately addressed by keep opinions, restoration for very selective merger possible if sourced). Sandstein 18:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apears to be wholly in-world game guide information that really should only belong on a FAQ page Salavat (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is linked to in (by my count) 106 mainspace articles and 119 project pages. Quoting WP:OSTRICH: "If the context seems unfamiliar or non-notable, consider first whether the article or list is a necessary fork of a larger main article or series of lists. Think about whether deletion of the sub-topic would disrupt the overall cohesiveness of the main topic." Again, I think that, while some believe this article's individual notability is unverified, it supports the other articles in its topic and, therefore, should not be deleted. SunDragon34 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, there is a lack of sources that define this topic and consequently an absence of reliable sources discussing the topic. This article therefore fails WP:V since it consists mainly of original research and synthesis of unrelated sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a non-existent theory, supported by synthesis and original research. The article's creator, Rokus01 (talk · contribs), has for quite some time been conducting a campaign on Wikipedia against the Kurgan hypothesis, the most popular model of early Indo-European origins (see here for the opinions of respected science editors like Dbachmann and Mathsci on this). The closest thing we have is a single use of the phrase "broader homeland" in a 1989 book by a professor in the field named Mallory (see here), who wrote "Alternatively, we might wish to opt for a broader homeland between the Rine and Volga during the Paleolithic or Mesolithic which resolves the archeological issues by fiat". A side observation like this does not a theory make, and none of the additional sources in this article appear to use anything like the term; the article is a giant synthetic construction.
Google on "broad homeland hypothesis" turns up 3 pages of Wikipedia mirrors. Google Scholar of the same turns up nothing, and neither does a Google Books. In comparison, Google Scholar of "Kurgan hypothesis", the accepted theory, turns up 7 pages of hits, and Google Books turns up 8 pages of hits. I ran the searches with a number of related phrases, like "broad homeland theory", "broad homeland model", "broader homeland hypothesis", and so on, with the same results.
Merzbow (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to esteem the article on its merits, without giving prevalence to the hypercritic arguments of fanatism. Rokus01 (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it is very silly to base deletion of an important theory on being described by various authors rather than referred to by a fixed name. Any descriptive name would do:
P.S. Even sillier to propose a Merge, to contain this article theory within a competing theory: this would be like merging Tomb of the Unknown Soldier into Adolf Hitler.
Also, this is not the right place for making (never properly sustained) personal attacks and advertisements. Rokus01 (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable release by non-notable artist Somno (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. It must be stated, however, that many of the complaints raised about this list are ones that are better handled via diligent editing, not deletion. Shereth 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inherently PoV title, would probably be an indiscriminate list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 03:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia:Lists was poorly referenced above. A list must specify inclusion criteria. There is no clear inclusion criteria, list of banned video games already exists, there is no reason to keep this article because it serves no clear or useful function. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as a well written but obvious hoax. Kevin (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(delete) – (View AfD) That there is a place in Dorset called Stanbridge seems accurate, as for the rest, a city-state? Wars and treaties with German towns? Laying claim to large areas of Dorset? A mercantile stormtrooper force? An extended hoax I think! Benea (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Synergy 00:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be merged into a more appropriate article, like bonfire or simple fire. Homotlfqa83 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Page has been speedily deleted and salted. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 16:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article claims several thousand google hits for notability -- not at all clear all google hits are of the same person. No reliable sources supplied. Subject is a 16 year old film maker. I believe not notable, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. RayAYang (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This film maker deserves credit for what he does and desereves to be better known so I've made a page for him. Besides other people from youtube are on here so why not him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chosenagain (talk • contribs) 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete then redirect, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines but seems to be an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of a secondary character who has appeared in just one film (Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby); with no sequel planned in the works, this article is very unlikely to grow significanty IRK!Leave me a note or two 02:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete and pay more attention. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax. No refs. No ghits. Claim to notability is being the "mother of Chapoemicy". Can find no evidence that Chapeomicy is a real word/vocation. Can find no evidence that J. F. Byrnes University is a real school. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not a travel guide, but this article sure is. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely unremarkable star whose only claim to fame is that Voyager 1 will pass somewhere near it in a few million years, and that's already mentioned in the Voyager 1 article. Reyk YO! 02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw Nomination- I am hereby withdrawing the nomination for this article because consensus is clearly to keep it. But I do think that a notability criterion for stars will be necessary sooner or later- statements like "all stars are automatically notable" need to be discussed because a lot of people (myself included) would say that it just ain't so. Reyk YO! 03:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this alleged meme is not notable, or if it is, the article fails to demonstrate notability clearly. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I will simply vote for delete for failing WP:RS and hope Protonk feels better later on. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was that the article has been speedily deleted by User:Ben W Bell. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any evidence that this is a notable lawsuit, or even that it happened. I tried a few different combinations of terms while searching google and could not find any writing about this case; the author has not been able to add detail or sources that would confirm the accuracy of this short article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, due to the lack of reliable sources for notability and verifiability. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is incomplete and lacks any coverage from reliable sources. It may be a single person's POV. Moreover, the issue of racism is already covered in the racism article and is better sourced there with numerous references and footnotes. Wikipedia is not a WP:DICT for other less well known forms of racism. Artene50 (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local church. Was PRODed, but has already been deleted through PROD before. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Movie listed at IMBD as being in production, but no major actors, so we should wait for the actual release before creating an article on this. For the time being, delete. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Software with no asserted notability. Delete. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable publication for which the only sources I could find are blogs and similarly unreliable references. The person apparently responsible for the publication is similarly non-notable. Pinkville (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow delete, yes it's early but these could have been bundled and as the main AfD makes clear, this is the consenus for these stations. No prejudice against re-creation when/if these stations become a reality or begin construction.. TravellingCari 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
States no sources, nothing found online nor on the New South Wales Governement site. Non-existent station. There are no official nor any other sources indicating that such station is even proposed or planned for construction. Pikablu0530 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is non-notable and I have been unable to find any verifiable sources to support it. Remarkably, the article includes this passage, under the overblown heading, Controversy: His rather outspoken, sometimes unfounded comments on other photographers, directors, and artists, as well as his public airing of his private life could be considered career-breaking, or at least a hindrance this early on in his career [my emphasis]. Even more remarkably, in the sentence that follows its author resorts to the absence of material as evidence of notability: some websites, including buzznet.com were edited to completely remove his concluding interview in its entirety. The "external link" provided is a personal blog, and of the four "references" provided, three do not mention his name and the other one is (again) buzznet, hardly meritorious. Let's drop this absurdity. Pinkville (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-Bio of a religious leader that is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable yoga instructor. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. It seems the subject is notable as per the sources found in google books. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible original research. Together these two terms do not equal notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable publication. According to its website, the first issue will appear in September, and it will be distributed for free in the railway station of one city, Winterthur, by the city's tourism agency. Apparently not much more than a promotional vehicle for artists local to Winterthur. No media coverage that I can find. The two articles from a local paper that are cited do not discuss or even mention the magazine. Sandstein 07:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]