The result was close incomplete nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some minor news coverage, but nothing that looks like this person has been the primary or major subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete as clear vandalism. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no sources and the topic seems to be made up. Jalanpalmer (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax, as can be seen from the linked image of this alleged breakfast. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Toronto Police Service. Since the content is well-sourced merging anything not already in the latter article is encouraged. Wizardman 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a teenager shot and killed by a Toronto police officer was prodded and unprodded in 2006. The incident and the results are discussed in Toronto Police Service. The individual is otherwise non-notable, so a redirect may be in order. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 concert. Not notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted notability is not really asserted. Some information may be relevant elsewhere but I do not think a formal merge is even necessary. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 dates. Not notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was originally kept when nominated about a year ago. However, community consensus towards "allegations" articles has dimmed quite a bit in the meantime. Article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH; most other articles dealing with this kind of topic have been deleted or merged elsewhere. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an advertisement, and it's not even thinly veiled. The only reason I don't prod this is that the subject itself may be worthy of inclusion. If so, I'd say something like Roll-Your-Own would be more suitable (even if that needs a big help, too). Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of WP:OR for your reading pleasure. Okay as an essay, inappropriate as an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Opinion leadership. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probable copyvio. An SPA who can't even spell the title of the article correctly created three identical articles that read like they've been lifted from a medical paper. They include a "bibliography" - a sure sign of a copypaste from somewhere. A likely paper is the only reference given in the article. I can't log in to see the full paper but it bears all the hallmarks of a copyvio. andy (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If someone wants to make a redirect then fine, with no sourced content I don't see a need. Wizardman 05:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, folks, it is not yet another sequel to that wonderful anti-Christ movie. This one is a bit of spam about a particular type of guitar. It is a great advertisement, but it doesn't belong here. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A football fanzine, of no obvious notability outside its very small circle of readers. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure), as per WP:SCHOOL. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable high school. The article offers no reason for its inclusion here.Nomination withdrawn Although I am not convinced that this particular school is notable, per se, I will abide by the consensus here regarding WP:SCHOOL and withdraw the nomination. My thanks for those who stopped by this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. - Toon05 23:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band; unreferenced, no claim to notability offered. Mikeblas (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Kept. Non-admin closure. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non-notable song. Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 21:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable board game, possibly unreleased. As it it stands, still only sold in one shop. TN‑X-Man 21:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Legend of Atlantis (game)
King Midas: The Golden Touch
andy (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Article could use cleanup though. Wizardman 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda sitting on the fence with this one. There's one album on Wax Trax! Records but not much else - thought I'd bring it here for discussion. Thanks sparkl!sm hey! 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD G7. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the present time, the subject does not seem to have sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research, according to the notability guidelines for music-related topics and for general biographies. Most information in the article has not been verified by reliable published sources, and the third-party published sources used to verify some claims feature only stock promotional text, and do not demonstrate any intellectual independence from the subject. Dancter (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD request per G11 (advertising). Tawker (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gsearch isn't turning up notability; lots of blogs and press releases, but nothing solid. Gnews search coming up with a different person. WP:Autobiography and advert issues don't help. Contested prod by subject. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable game - only 10 non-WP hits on Google. Seems to have no existence outside a small group of Finnish students and their Facebook friends. andy (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was This was a very tough AfD to close. The dispute seems to be on a rather base level about what our policy really constitutes as notable. Certainly I would encourage a discussion to evolve on what constitutes notability for minor leaguers. However, as the guidelines stand now, are they notable? That's the question presented, and the consensus seems to lean slightly. Jose Mijares I'm closing as keep since he's on the 40 man roster and several people pointed him out. After reading each comment, the consensus for the others that shows is one to delete. I can try and explain the close durther if needed, but it seems like everything that could be said has been said. Wizardman 05:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that people out there think I'm just some over zealous fan. Deolis Guerra was considered enough of a prospect by the Twins that they sought him from the Mets in the Johan Santana deal. That's not notable? Yet he is on your list.
This particular Miracle team captured its division title in the first half of the 2008 season, and set a franchise record in the process. Considering that the Minnesota Twins are respected universally for having one of the best-- if not, the best-- farm systems in baseball, the team that accomplished this feat is notable. Certainly, at very least, the all stars, first round picks and starting rotation deserve to have their entries kept.
I've read entries on other minor leaguers that were one sentence long. I did every one of the Miracle players more respect than that. I'm not saying that I did a perfect job, but I think that there are other articles out there that deserve to be on Wikipedia less.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hhmmm... Maybe I'm biased as the creator of these articles, but I had the opposite reaction to this spirited debate. I think this AFD-- as jumbled as it is-- has shown that enough people in the general community DO consider minor league players to be notable enough to keep their articles. If they were completely insignificant, and I was dead wrong to create them, the response would have overwelmingly shown that. It hasn't.
I would definitely call this a hung jury, and move for aquittal.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: For what it's worth, I also disagree with the concept that notability is not temporary. Stars rise and fall all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what some people on this page believe, the FSL and Class A are, by far, NOT the lowest minor league level. In addition, there is no team in any pro baseball league called "Miracles". WE NEED PEOPLE WHO KNOW ABOUT BASEBALL TO BE COMMENTING ON THIS PAGE OTHER THAN MYSELF AND JOHNNY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.150.111 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - not even an assertion of notability. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a "research group" whose "owner" Christopher Marshall is , I guess, the author Titanicboss (talk · contribs). The web-site consists of a single page, which has links like "Forum" "About Us" and "Contact Us", but they don't work. The forum of the "Global Research and Scientific Analysis Organisation" is summed up at the bottom: "Our members have made a total of 158 posts. We have 27 registered members." Sorry, Christopher, this is not notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two non-notable people (Kauffman and Sabelli) invented this term ten years ago for a recursive function that has an oscillating parameter. Since then, no one else anywhere in math, physics, or statistics has picked up on the term. The term therefore has no notability and generally the article is serving as a soapbox for one particular user's pet theories on Bios theory (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bios theory. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for marginal original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, all! As a former Wikipedian, I will offer an extended comment rather than a vote. I want to try to explain what I view as a hidden agenda on the part of User:Lakinekaki, creator of the article under discussion here.
IMO the ideas promoted in several WP articles by Lakinekaki fall within the pseudoscience genre I call "living universe"; authors writing in this genre include James Rose, James Lovelock, and Hector Sabelli.
The basic rules vios here are easily verified:
WP:COI vios: User:Lakinekaki is IRL Lazar Kovacevic (see this previous AfD debate for details), who is or was affiliated with the Chicago Center for Creative Development of Hector Sabelli, which in my view cannot be characterized as a legitimate scientific institute. Kovacevic has coauthored several papers on so-called "bios theory" with Sabelli, but he has consistently failed to disclose this close personal connection to the ideas he is writing about at WP (for example by pointing out the connection in the talk pages of his articles).
WP:FRINGE vios: Kovacevic has repeatedly tried to present Sabelli's "bios theory" as mainstream, but the only papers on this so-called "theory" are authored or coauthored by Sabelli, and they appear to have been cited only by the authors themselves. Kovacevic provided a link to a paper by Sabelli e-published at the Ceptual Institute (formerly Integrity/Ceptual Institute) of James Neil Rose (Minden, NV), but this is apparently yet another one-man "research institute" which discusses such topics as "Gaia, teleology, Cyber-cosmos, Diakosmesis, Cyberneomonasticism, Integrity Dynamics, Novelty". Rose states his position like this:
The Universe is sentient and whole at every level, in every act.
It is good science. It is good spiritual enlightenment.
It is good humanity.
— James Neil Rose
From this brief snippet it should already be clear that "Ceptual Institute" cannot be characterized as promoting mainstream science. Rose earned an undergraduate degree in biology (1969) and worked as a art dealer and coin dealer; he is not a scientist.
Hector C. Sabelli is a psychiatrist by training, not a scientist. His coauthor Lazar Kovacevic is an electrical engineer by training; his other coauthor, Louis H. Kauffman, is a mathematician (more later on that!). Sabelli has written some more or less mainstream stuff in his own field, and has also written at least two fringe books on his so-called "bios theory".
In "Bios Theory of Creative Evolution", Sabelli summarizes his basic idea like this:
Bios is a theory regarding the natural creation of complexity from simple elementary forms. Fundamental physical, biological and human processes are autodynamic and creative, rather than determined or aleatory; they causally generate diversity, novelty, and complexity. This is bios.
... Bios is also found in the series of prime numbers, indicating that bios is a fundamental mathematical process. Mathematical recursions show that biotic patterns are generated by the recursion (action) of bipolar and bidimensional oppositions (e.g. sinusoidal waveforms) and conservation. In nature, bios may be generated by the interaction of similar and universal processes: (1) action, the flow of energy in time; (2) the rotation of harmonic opposites; (3) the conservation of stable structures. At the physical level, they are exemplified by physical action (Planck's quantum) and unipolar gravity, bipolar electromagnetic force and the tripolar nuclear forces that generate stable material structures. These factors appear to be necessary and sufficient to generate life-like (biotic) patterns. These forms reoccur in a homologous fashion within and between the multiple levels of organization they contribute to create. ... While current discourse on complexity stress random change and puts forward the emergence of order out of chaos, mathematical recursions show that order deterministically generates chaos, and the diffusion of chaos generates bios. Biological evolution is a creative development in which (1) causal actions (not just random mutations) generate biological variation; (2) bipolar feedback (synergy and antagonism, not only Darwinian struggle and competition) generates information (diversification, novelty and complexity); (3) connections (of molecules, genes, species) construct systems in which simple processes have priority for survival but complex processes acquire supremacy.
— Hector Sabelli
In other words, Sabelli et al. claim that natural selection is dominated by a murky alleged "creative principle" they call "bios", an alleged tendency toward complexity. This could be called a neo-Chardinian/Lamarckian notion, with the twist that Sabelli claims (quite incorrectly) that his principle is founded in modern nonlinear dynamical systems theory. Thus for example in addition to his Chicago Center, it seems that Sabelli is also associated with a Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology and Life Sciences and a Bios Group. Sabelli and Kovacevic claim in another paper that the distribution of galaxies is also determined by this alleged "bios principle", and they appear to suggest that "bios theory" might offer a cure for various psychiatric conditions. (Psychoceramics not included?)
I think it is obvious from these excerpts why the few mathematicians/biologists/physicists who have heard of "bios theory" consider it classic pseudoscience, chockfull of ecletic terminology (e.g. according to Sabelli, gravity is "unipolar", electromagnetism is "bipolar", and "nuclear forces" are "tripolar") and impressive buzzwords hijacked from a real theory (nonlinear dynamical systems). But here things take a highly technical turn, and unfortunately, as Kovacevic appears to concede in a policy page discussion at wikimedia.org, non-mathematicians will probably have to take the word of the WikiProject Mathematics members here for the following:
Louis H. Kauffman is a distinguished mathematician, best known for introducing the bracket polynomial which is one step on the easiest path to defining the HOMFLY polynomial in knot theory, and which Kauffman used to establish an intriguing connection between statistical mechanics and knot theory. Since I have often written about this topic enthusiastically in the past (e.g. old UseNet postings written long before Wikipedia even existed!), it should be clear that my enjoyment of Kauffman's earlier work is unfeigned. Nonetheless, I have the impression that Kauffman has long had a reputation for generating some pretty odd ideas, and IMO his work with Sabelli can at best be located on the borderline between fringe and cranky. (One might recall such precedents as Isaac Newton for the proposition that even mathematicians can have some rather odd ideas!) This circumstance presents special WP:BLP problems; Wikipedia's track record in preventing bios of (arguably) "notable fringe figures" from becoming slanted toward wikiwoo has not been good. For what it's worth, my experience from 2006 suggests that the best approach is to keep such wikbios very short--- and protected. To avoid misleading readers, one must very briefly mention both mainstream accomplishments (bracket polynomial) and fringe claims (bios theory), and leave it at that. Protection is neccessary to avoid endless and ultimately pointless content disputes with User:Lakinekaki, spamming of very long C.V.s, and so forth.
I am sure it will be obvious to mathematicians with a knowledge of nonlinear dynamical systems (since I once wrote a diss on a topic in dynamical systems, I hope I can include myself in this group!), from what has already been said here, that Sabelli et al. are incorrect in claiming that nonlinear dynamical systems theory (real math) supports "bios theory" (pseudomath). Pseudomathematics is unfortunately a genuine and growing phenomenon, which often seems motivated by extrascientific agendas clustered around creationism/deism: I recall for example widely promoted claims that ergodic theory (real math) supports Dembski's "irreducible complexity" (pseudomath), or that statistics (real math) supports "bible codes" (pseudomath).
WP:COAT vios: In particular, this audience will recognize the origins of the so-called "process equation" in the circle map (real math) discussed by V. I. Arnold in connection with the phenomenon of Arnold tongues (real math), and this audience will immediately recognize the dynamical systems terms which are misused by Sabelli to (unintentional) comic effect. (To be fair, I point out one exception: Sabelli is using homology in the biological sense, not the mathematical sense!) Several pages at the website of the Chicago Center for Creative Development strongly suggest an extrascientific motivation for "bios theory":
Biotic development illustrates how evolution may be expected to continue creating an attractor of infinite complexity rather than tending to equilibrium. This provides a mathematical metaphor for God compatible with contemporary science and with mental health principles...process theory regards philosophizing about God as sacred art.
— creativebios.com
Note that Sabelli himself has also edited Asymmetry, adding a citation to his book on "bios theory" and a description of his views. At the present time, that article is sorely unbalanced; in particular, it lacks such obligatory mainstream citations as the seminal book by Hermann Weyl.
I'd like to end my extended comment by urging any mathematically literate students who don't yet know much about nonlinear dynamical systems to read some very enjoyable undergraduate level books which offer a fine overview of this wonderful subject (including Arnold tongues, time series, and many other wonderful things which are dreadfully abused by Sabelli et al.):
Enjoy! ---CH (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpt:
WP:N A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. ... The "multiple" qualification is intentionally not specific as to number, except that it be more than one. ... multiplicity of works ... is one researcher or journalist writing and publishing a series of different articles on a single subject. One rationale for this criterion is that the fact that people independent of a subject have noted that subject in depth (by creating multiple non-trivial published works about it) demonstrates that it is notable.
Note that policies evolve, and in my opinion this represents a 'minimal' threshold of notability for inclusion, which can become higher in the future by requiring in depth review by the secondary source.
Update: indeed, above policy definition from the time of bios deletion does now include requirement for secondary source review.
End of excerpt.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this real? Talk page shows doubt, unreferenced. MAYBE an mention on teen sexuality. (Entire Category:Sexual urban legends articles should go away.) Wholly non-notable... "featured" on single Oprah Winfrey episode only.
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references are from the blog itself. Pray tell how does this blog pass the notability test? some more references are referencing stories mentioned on the blog, not referencing the blog itself. yet other references are about the contributors to the blog.
Is notability inherited by the famousness of the author/contributors? (if you can indeed call them famous)
Only two credible references refer to the blog, one in the context of the traffic it generated and the other when The Hindu responded to some question raised by the blog...
I'm curious to see, how do other wikipedia editors see the status of this entry.
I was tempted to log-out, before I AfD'd this article as Indian Journalists are a sharp tongued lot. but what the heck... <flamesuit on> ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If stories on this blog and the blog contributors have been mentioned by others then this is evidence of notability. If you feel details of the blog would more appropriately appear in the Authors wikipage then a merge is more appropriate. Filceolaire (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has nothing to do with "famousness". Journalists arent exactly rock stars. Its about 'notability'. Both the owner/author of the blog and the blog itself are "notable". The blog is owned by Krishna Prasad, a former editor of a major newspaper (until the world's largest English daily bought it and shut it down) and a distinguished journalist who has worked at many major news organisations. If not for anything else, he's comfortably notable for wikipedia's purposes as one of the journalists who exposed Indian cricket's match-fixing scandal.
Now the blog. Apart from the fact that it is owned by a notable journalist, sound 'bytes' from the blog also feature fairly regularly in the reportage and op-eds run by many of other major news houses including CNN-IBN... particularly when they are covering Karnataka affairs. That is enough indication of its notability for wikipedia's purposes.
Now, if you have concerns about the sourcing, that is an entirely different matter. If I'm right, the article has changed more than a fair bit since I authored it several months ago. Nevertheless, sourcing may very well need clean up, but we dont need an AfD for that. Feel free to slap appropriate tags on it if you will and I'm sure somebody will eventually get to it. Sarvagnya 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the references, I think this one can pass WP:N, though the "Notability" section in the article could be renamed. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another poorly-written and original research-based article about an unsourced religion that comes up empty on Google searches, similar to Esai and Brhmoism. Beemer69 chitchat 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is difference between ‘claim’ and ‘notability’ . as ‘Myths to ‘Reality’ . Such matter should not be debated or deleted but posted on wiki as who said what ? Nobody has seen the past how or why old Bible converted into New Bible? My case an stakes of Brhmoism , Esa Masi , Esa seeks Wikipedia-Arbitrary intervention urgently. For instance….. Mythology , Superstitions , Blind Faith , Fictions , Philosophy , Religions , Spiritualism , Consciousness are awkward or illogical claims to get Registered/Notifications/ References . Yet wikipedia has such topics otherwise which wikipedia / encyclopedia media caretakers paparazzi has noticed Buddha getting enlighten under Banyan tree , however Krishna orating Gita discourses to Arjun during crucial hours of busy bleeding war , or Jesus doing miracles or issuing commandments. In those days there were no internet , media or paparazzi to register, record claims references or sources and yet their claims are recorded in wiki. Naresh Sonee or Brhmoism is not a superstitious, blind faith institute. Various news papers had proved his factual existence through news and reviews. Even internet search throw many hits on him and Brhmaand Pujan. What else this debate needs? Just fight like means school boys only to prove the existence of such ‘able voice’ wrong? Should not such crab fight end in wikipedia to claim me wrong and concentrate to read then realize what is the ‘ intention or purpose’ of Brhmoism . Should only professionally managed trust who profit under the name of some religion be posted on wikipedia either Asaram , Murari Bapu , Deepak Chopra. I leave this matter to the expert senses of Wikipedia-Arbitrator. Regards--Dralansun (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from being a mishmash of totally incorrect information. A fact I am quite aware of as I am the Storyline developer who designed the character of The`Galin. I seriously question that there is enough demand to validate a page dedicated to this specific Character in the ArtixEntertainment cannon. At best it is difficult to make encyclopedic. At worst it is pure fancruft. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Found this link on PC Magazine online website, which appears to verify Karnesky's argument. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. I was not able to find any reviews or significant coverage by secondary sources. Aside from first two paragraphs, the rest of the article is written like an advertisement. Prod declined by a user who bears the name of the software's author, possible WP:COI issue here. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cgrenier (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 22:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the author is definitely notable at least for having written Requiem for a Dream, I'm not confident he's hit the "all published works are automatically notable" level. And if he hasn't, this certainly isn't. Of course, anyone who'd like to argue he DOES fall into that field is welcome to assert so. Vianello (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? This is Hubert Selby Jr. we're talking about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.157.77 (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Redirects may be created through the editorial process. Sandstein 22:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11 near identical biographies of members of JabbaWockeeZ, a dance crew featured in one season of a tv show. With no other sourced claims to notability these should be deleted per notability for only one event. Ros0709 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles are:
Hhgdhdhdhhfgfjd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.65.90 (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another article on a single non-notable residential street in NYC. PROD was contested with the statement: "clearly notable street/ no reason to remove", but I'm afraid I don't see what is so clearly notable from the article or the source. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? what is so non-notable about this street that it warrants removal versus (for ex.)Bridge Street or Front Street?
Bank street has a 'story' behind its name and there are landmark buildings located on it too (Westbeth the most significant example). <br />((please do not attribute the 'argument' from Orlady as I do not believe her intentions are anything but to argue 'banned user' to justify reverting contributions/edits of merit without question. Beeblbrox's comment illustrates my point. I'm sure to be removed/blocked from here, however this article definitely doesn't need to be.)) Thank You --StAuNcH ChArAcTeR (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 14:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be sourced entirely form the subject's own website. I did not see any obvious better sources in the 200-odd unique Googles either. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely sure if this is notable or not. Only 344 hits on Google. Seems to be a commercial process for...something. (Can anyone understand the article?) I am also having trouble finding any reliable sources from third party publications. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issues; the subject produced no hits on Google. Article consists only of original research and does not cite any reliable sources. Unsourced religion similar to Brhmoism article. Beemer69 chitchat 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might want to include Esa Masi in this AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is difference between ‘claim’ and ‘notability’ . as ‘Myths to ‘Reality’ . Such matter should not be debated or deleted but posted on wiki as who said what ? Nobody has seen the past how or why old Bible converted into New Bible? My case an stakes of Brhmoism , Esa Masi , Esa seeks Wikipedia-Arbitrary intervention urgently. For instance….. Mythology , Superstitions , Blind Faith , Fictions , Philosophy , Religions , Spiritualism , Consciousness are awkward or illogical claims to get Registered/Notifications/ References . Yet wikipedia has such topics otherwise which wikipedia / encyclopedia media caretakers paparazzi has noticed Buddha getting enlighten under Banyan tree , however Krishna orating Gita discourses to Arjun during crucial hours of busy bleeding war , or Jesus doing miracles or issuing commandments. In those days there were no internet , media or paparazzi to register, record claims references or sources and yet their claims are recorded in wiki. Naresh Sonee or Brhmoism is not a superstitious, blind faith institute. Various news papers had proved his factual existence through news and reviews. Even internet search throw many hits on him and Brhmaand Pujan. What else this debate needs? Just fight like means school boys only to prove the existence of such ‘able voice’ wrong? Should not such crab fight end in wikipedia to claim me wrong and concentrate to read then realize what is the ‘ intention or purpose’ of Brhmoism , Esai , Esa Masi. Should only professionally managed trust who profit under the name of some religion be posted on wikipedia either Asaram , Murari Bapu , Deepak Chopra. Though Esa Masi and Esa vice-versa Brhmoism are two different 'purpose or intention' topics . This will only help wikipedi / arbitrory to improve their judgemental views that myths, religions, beleifs and voice cannot be erased on only popularity of notability on search engines. For which I leave this matter to the expert senses of Wikipedia-Arbitrator. Regards --Dralansun (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity in India already exists to discuss about the Indian followers of Christianity. Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
talk:202.54.176.51|talk]]) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This scheme of MBT generations is not supported by any reliable or verifiable source, nor even adequately described in the self-published foreign-language web sites cited, so the list is based on original research. Discussion at the article and the Wikiproject yielded nothing. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 17:32 z
Withdrawing this request, thanks to developments noted below. Thanks for your opinion, and sorry to take your time. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:01 z
I tried for eleven months to encourage the editor of this article to find any acceptable reference at all, or to translate the proferred foreign-language text. I checked my own references and canvassed at the appropriate WikiProject. When a second editor became active and the two started revert-warring over their own versions of original research, I decided that enough was enough, and gradually moved towards the deletion request.
Shame on you for accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 19:21 z
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 22:28, 1 August 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)) . |
POV Fork Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:POV: The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented.
--117.201.64.88 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Bedlow was a member of both, The Libertines and Babyshambles, however he was only a very, very brief member. Both bands were not even signed to a label when he was with them. His membership in this bands did not affect the bands at all. Right now he's nothing more than a bar musician. There are thousands of his sort. This person is definitely not notable enough for an own article. Malfacteur (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. 31 hits on Google for "Joshua Eads-Brown", only 51 total hits without quotes. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable karate style, advert-like aticle RogueNinjatalk 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as non-notable --Stephen 05:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer, fails WP:MUSIC. Despite the article's assertions of numerous TV appearances, there is no IMDB entry for either "Timothy W. Hodge" or "Timothy Hodge." No reliable sources crop up, and the only hits pertaining to this artist (there's a modestly known R&B singer by the same name, if a good bit older) are his own website, this article, various Wiki mirrors and a couple self-posting music sites. Fails WP:V. (taken from RGTraynor's exemplary nomination at this article's previous speedily closed AFD - WP:Articles for deletion/Timothy W Hodge) nancy talk 17:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. A merge discussion can be opened if desired. Wizardman 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion or evidence of notability and no sources found other than manpage mirrors, which do not constitute significant third-party coverage. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, no notability established. Tan ǀ 39 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a product article, but I'm not certain. The references for this article are: a user subpage at a private website; a link to a Google search that actually only returned 67 hits, not all unique; and the PuTTY page on Wikipedia. What exactly makes this particular subject notable enough for inclusion? I just can't tell. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod. This was just created but it is an obvious made up term as I engine searched and got no hits. The articles also has no references. I attempted to speedy delete (under G1 and G3) it but the creator removed the tag. SRX 16:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was kept after barely surviving previous Afd, based on it allegedly meeting two criteria of WP:Band, however the article in its current state does not establish notability with mostly primary sources used as references. These do Not meet WP:RS. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Apparently appearing on a couple of compillations and allmusic is not enough to establish notabity here, and I recommend deletion. Even after clean up, external links (not satisfyling WP:RS) provided mention a member, not about the band or their achievements. Whilst noting that attempts have been made to improve the article, it still fails most all criteria for WP:Band and unlike the first Afd, this could really benefit from wider ranging views ShimShem (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Band is notable with multiple commercial recordings on notable labels. References are plentiful in the article. Sources are reliable journalists who have covered the music industry for years. Don't accept one person's opinion of whether a particular Wikipedia guideline has been met; read the guideline and decide for yourself. People who are at all knowledgeable about punk rock know that this was a significant band, as evidenced, for example, by the outpouring of support at the recent fundraisers given to benefit the children of the late Mike Conley. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the original afd, the vote ended up being 6-0 for keep. That's not "narrowly" surviving. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Needs improvement, not deletion. This is obviously notable, and there are plenty of reliable sources. A search for "M.I.A. punk band" on Google brings up 4,350,000 results (seriously). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I'm not sure what the rules are (and like any good punker I hate rules anyway), but don't you have to assume that Alternative Tentacles is notable, since it has its own Wikipedia article? Only if you got that deleted (and good luck with that!) could you make that claim. Gaohoyt (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request. ShimShem, could you please stop hacking the article until the Afd is closed? It does your case no good to change Murder in a Foreign Place from an LP to an EP--it's 11 tracks, for goodness sake! [51] Someone has to clean up the damage to the article after all. Gaohoyt (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tan ǀ 39 16:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of notability, no references independent of White Wolf (or "unofficial" fan-based material), and the article consists primarily of in-universe description. This should be transferred to the White Wolf wiki and deleted here for this lack of notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability, as recommended by Juliancolton. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, no references. No hits on Google. Pretty much a hoax. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:REF, and WP:HOAX. SRX 15:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable segment of cable TV show. Contested prod. Hippo (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musical entry. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC, definitely does not pass WP:RS Ecoleetage (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
College athlete, has not "competed at the highest level" of amateur sports per WP:ATHLETE. Actor with a single non-leading role, fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Steve CarlsonTalk 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails to meet notability guidelines, tagged since last month without changes Movingboxes (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as sources were never provided. Wizardman 22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Google and could not find any sources that this album even exists. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaults to keep. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not notable... no credible references...ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, Fails notability .--SkyWalker (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Tan ǀ 39 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tan ǀ 39 17:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs (a lot of) work but Puzha appears to be a pretty big publisher in India with a fair amount of titles. I wouldn't call that 'non notable'. Channel ® 23:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. Most of the content promotes the company (the criticism section, though providing some neutrality, does not add to the companies notability) Ernestvoice (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable B-sides and remixes. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peter2012 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Battle of Lake Erie. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's time this article went away. It duplicates the subject of the article Battle of Lake Erie; Much of it is blatant POV; since it lacks in-line citations, much of it also appears to be OR; and what little remains is almost unsalvageably poor grammar and vocabulary. HLGallon (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into Tori Amos discography. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable B-sides. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B-sides are discouraged on discography articles, and WP:NOHARM is an argument to avoid. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Someone can make a redirect if they want to though. Wizardman 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article features no sources at all- it's just rumors, because the song has entered the Billboard chart! If someone wants to keep the charts positions, it would be better put them into the albums section!!! Olliyeah (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy. Not notable as fails WP:ORG. Sources listed don't mention article name. Fails WP:V Sting Buzz Me... 22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSIC#Albums, compilations, remixes, demo tapes, etc. are not generally considered notable. Arist is redlinked, and No notability asserted. Was PRODed, but has been deleted through PROD before. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any reliable sources discussing this hybrid. The current article consists of original research and original synthesis based on descriptions of each dog breed. Mangostar (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about football player and probably is a hoax. Any football sources in Ukraine and Russia don't know this player. Same article nominated to deletion in ru-wiki.Seelöwe (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Article was speedy deleted per CSD A7 (no assertion of importance). This was overturned per this DRV discussion. It was determined that the awards cited constitute an assertion of importance. Some concerns remain, however, about the suitability of the sources provided (a number are from college newspapers) and whether the group meets notability criteria. Possible merge targets may or may not be available. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously speedied per WP:CSD#A7, but this no longer meets the criteria. Appear to be a signed band, but a search through Google and other sources reveals mentions on fansites such as Bebo, and few reputable sites to verify notability of this band. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Hasn't been 5 days but I think we can invoke WP:SNOW here. Wizardman 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This player is not notable per the notability guidelines for baseball. Tintor has never played beyond Class A ball (two levels below the AAA standard). He has never been an all-star for his leagues and the closest thing to a notable award is one player of the week honor (which isn't notable). Metros (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly a hoax, there seems to be no coverage of this condition anywhere on the internet as well as the doctor cited not being found. –– Lid(Talk) 13:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 13:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't need to be a disambiguation page for this, as there is only one entry. StaticGull Talk 13:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as the article is about a user-made add-on for a video game. StaticGull Talk 13:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for deletion because it is about a planned film based on a faux trailer -- see /FILM coverage. Filming has not begun, as seen by the "in-development" status at IMDb, so article does not yet warrant existence per the notability guidelines for future films. No prejudice against recreation if filming does begin, which is not a guarantee in the film industry. Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep because nobody seems to support outright deletion of this article. Editorial options such as merge, redirect etc. should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. Sandstein 22:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separate article as a sub-article to Vaishnavism was considered for merging into a section of Vaishnavism. Sufficient references given for a separate article. Consensus required as to deletion and re-direct with loss of references and material. Wikidās ॐ 12:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:# Merge - create a subsection that retains all material of this article in Vaishnavism article
:# Part-merge - retain the article as a sub-article of Vaishnavism, (current situation) --Wikidās ॐ 12:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vaishnavism: Hindu sect also called Vishnuism, or Viṣṇuism, Sanskrit Vaiṣṇavism, Main: worship of the god Vishnu and of his incarnations, principally as Rāma and as Krishna. It is one of the major forms of modern Hinduism—with Śaivism and Shaktism (Śāktism).
Images of Indian Goddesses: Myths, Meanings and Models By Madhu Bazaz Wangu] explicitly tells us to refer to it to compare Vaishnavism and Shaivism. Why would the author do so if Vishnuism and Vaishnavism are different.
The Arts of Nepal By Pratapaditya Pal] calls the sect Vishnuism, but uses Vaishnava for the follower, a word which used for Vaishnavism.
Towards a Christian Pastoral Approach to Cambodian Culture By Gerard Ravasco p.56] mentions Vaishnavism and lists the alternate spellings, one being Vishnuism as a footnote. p.109. For consistency, authors seem to use 1 spelling "Vaishnavism" or "vishnuism". Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gnosis: A New Translation with Selected Letters (2006) by Frithjof Schuon
"Vishnuism, or Vaishnavism, is a theistic sect of the Hindu religion whose members worship the God Vishnu as the Supreme Deity" p. 154 ~ priyanath talk 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the case is complicated by the fact that often modern Vaishnavism term is translated as Vishnuism, however I will bring up references clearly indicating that Vishnuism (as worship of Vishnu) became part of what is now Vaishnavism, thus supporting my conclusion that it is to be moved to Historical Vishnuism. I will clean up the article in the meantime. Wikidās ॐ 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Hasn't played in a fully professional league and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:RS and WP:N. Possible WP:SNOW. The references provided in this article clearly demonstrate that this building is notable. Although buildings aren't inherently notable - my local post office would be lucky - this one meets the requirements. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A twelve story building. And... err... that's it. Absolutely no indication why this is important or significant, and the only sources are the usual two building directories. They are directories, we are not. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. As long as each Miss USA winner has an article then in order to avoid Systemic bias I can see no reason why each winner of Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria shouldn't have an article also. I'm sure they garner much media attention in Nigeria, though it may not be as easily availiable as its US counterpart. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a string of articles about individuals whose sole claim to notability is having won a beauty pageant--not a valid reason in my opinion. Inclusion seems inconsistent with numerous guidelines including notability (entertainers), people notable only for one event, and what Wikipedia is not. Would like community views on this. Bongomatic (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Great Khali. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable wrestling manager. -- iMatthew T.C. 10:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable wrestling interviewer, who hasn't even been around since January. -- iMatthew T.C. 10:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Unreferenced single-sentence of dubious credibility. No established notability through reliable third-party sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company & blatant spam. Has been deleted and re-created persistently. Nominating to delete and salt the earth, also so that it will have been consensus-deleted so that any recreation under a new name can be speedied per WP:CSD#G4. Storkk (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, lack of independent sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bootleg. Fails WP:MUSIC. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no 09:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bootleg, speculation. Are there any sources to even substantiate the name? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to 2014. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too many speculations. Not enough information for having such an article right now. Magioladitis (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Recent reference additions probably establish notability (although article is now promotional in tone). Tan ǀ 39 18:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barely-notable web company. I deleted this under A7 but was convinced to restore it. While there is some news coverage out there, the vast majority seems to be trivial or tangential or in the nature of a press release. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB, which is the criterion I would apply here. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Can't find evidence that any of the twelve criteria in WP:MUSIC are met. nancy talk 08:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. No reliable sources. Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable B-sides. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "future debut album" purportedly due to be released next year. The artist himself is non-notable and has yet to have anything in release. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL all around. Ravenswing 08:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (A7 - Bio that fails to show importance/significance of subject) by DGG. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability guidelines for authors, as the article itself states: "Although essentially unpublished"... "has only two collections of work available to the public, both of which exist only in a digital version available through Amazon.com's Kindle Store", the author isn't notable enough. Brought here for further discussion. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 07:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be un-encyclopedic. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 07:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether this is notable or not... Calvin 1998 (t-c) 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Organisation whose article does not assert notability. Might be speedied under A7, but I'm bringing it here as possibly contentious. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. A local organisation article, with a suspected COI. That's not the reason for deletion though, it's because despite numerous references being supplied and a further search there is nothing hat establishes notability. Nuttah (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable font designer, no mentions found in independent, reliable sources (only websites selling his fonts), contested prod (by user with likely COI) Somno (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable under-18 actor. All appearances have been guest-starring or other minor roles. Only sources are IMDB (reliability issues) and his acting teacher/casting director's webpage. Finally, the main editor is User:Gavinh2008, which suggests there may be a conflict of interest issue also. —C.Fred (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP. Lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. Second source appears to be a press relese, leaving one short article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted --Stephen 05:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musical agency, fails WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC. Created by User talk:Daisy404, who has created a flurry of walled garden articles around the Hodge family, all of which have either been speedied or are up at AfD, and a couple of which have been recreated after speedying. In this particular case (the soi-disant Mr. Hodge is on the masthead as "co-CEO"), despite the article's assertion that this is a giant firm with over 350 agents, 1300 employees and six offices nationwide, and the firm's own website claims a long laundry list of musical talent, few people ever seem to have heard of it: only 31 Google hits, all of them this article, various Wiki mirrors, the firm's website and Myspace page, and a few other self-publishing sites. I have the strong suspicion that the likes of Mariah Carey, Montel Williams, Mary Chapin Carpenter (whose name the firm's site actually misspells), Tom Brokaw, Jane Pauley, Beyonce, Lawrence Fishburn, Kanye West and many, many other such names and groups would be quite surprised to find out that they've "worked" with this agency, as the site claims. RGTraynor 04:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as G1. Soxπed93(blag) 14:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both Google and Yahoo are coming zero. I suspect this is a hoax. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge all--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Dixie Chicks song, not a single so it fails WP:MUSIC. I'm also nominating these songs below for the same reason. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that this is not a valid list per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially a list of units and the upgrades they get (from the article lead: "Leaders are special abilities granted to experienced units."). As such, this article isn't an appropriate video game article. Nifboy (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete All, consensus is that the articles fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Cenarium Talk 10:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable degree program, fails WP:NOTADVERTISING at a minimum. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted --Stephen 05:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added: Betty Jean Hodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for same reason.
Non-notable singing group, fails WP:BAND, WP:V. The articles claims that this group appeared on many albums, but a G-search turns up only 20 hits [86], all of them from this article, various Wiki mirrors, and various self-published sites. The creator, Special:Contributions/Daisy404, is a new editor busy in creating a walled garden for this group and its members, all of whom have either been speedied or AfDed; a couple articles have been recreated after deletion. RGTraynor 01:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ross Singers]]))&action=delete)) delete] I have to agree with you here but mainly on account of this articles awful formatting and grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahern94 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as G10 by Versageek. Synergy 08:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an orphan, and writing unknown movie scripts an "imdb trolling" is not notable. NauticaShades 01:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Cenarium Talk 21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A long list that slavishly documents every example of a small subset of Toy soldiers. Few of the companies that produce or produced these things would be notable, and none of the various types of soldier are. The entire list is hopelessly indiscriminate. Reyk YO! 01:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks notability. Unknown athlete (if he even exists - possibly a hoax). Google search of IAAF.org and USATF.org return no results for Josh Farris. Wikipedia criteria for notability of athletes are quite strict. Refer WP:ATHLETE. Runners meeting those criteria, will be known to the IAAF and have a profile on the IAAF site. If a US runner, will also be known to the USATF and be searchable on USATF.org site. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 01:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No establishment of notability in any vein, aside from two people on the talk page who say they know of it (one because they knew the person who came up with it in school one day). Vianello (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. Has been redirected per Khoi, so deletion is moot, and anyway towns are generally considered inherently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to dictionary DimaG (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was the article has been speedily deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity DimaG (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, due to concerns over notability and being a game guide. Davewild (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no independent references to demonstrate notability of this role-playing game terminology. The article consists solely of in-universe plot summary with nothing to support notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep as disruptive pointy nomination. Users first contribution to boot. Synergy 08:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable figure from Wisconsin. Fails WP: Notability guidelines 1972hero (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]