The result was No consensus. I don't find even a rough consensus for keeping, or deleting the article. I have assigned little weight to the IP comment regarding sourcing, since no actual examples were provided, however, the follow on arguments of the same "no applicable citation" that were from account holders got equal weight. If I gave comment equal weight, the result would be the same here, still no consensus for deletion. My best recommendation here would be to wait awhile before relisting this debate, and in the mean time, discuss notability and sourcing issue on the talk page. I see some argument for a possible merge, that can also be discussed on talk. There is no consensus to merge here either. I'm not an administrator, I was one in the past however. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this subject is notable enough to have a page in its own right and it's in danger of being one-sided. Does anyone think six months after the by-election this article will still be not worthy? I subject merging to Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Philip Stevens (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep The article is an appropriate fork of content that would otherwise unbalance David Davis (British politician), Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008, plus a few other related pages. Being 'in danger' of bias, or not being notable in the future, are invalid reasons for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Re-voted on relisting. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--86.29.243.15 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to List of Wal-Mart brands. Not notable alone. Malinaccier (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable private-label brand. Possible merge with List of Wal-Mart brands. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus is that some other organizational structure may be preferable in the future, but no to deletion at this time.--Kubigula (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only one death...and that's it. The template is 92% of the content of the page. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, as improved.--Kubigula (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school that fails to cite sources. Delete GreenJoe 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Not notable without sources, and as it is WP:NOTDICDEF. Malinaccier (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than a very brief mention in "Scientology Fiction" in The Washington Post, could not find significant discussion of this article's topic in secondary WP:V/WP:RS sources. Also, WP:NOTDICDEF. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable, unsourced, listing of bootlegs. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable marketing term, likely created to promote a magazine by the same name. Despite several requests on the talk page, no references have been provided to show that this is a notable topic on its own. Almost all edits have been done by anonymous IP's with little or no edits outside of this page, suggesting a possible conflict of interest. As discussions on the talk page have stalled, I present this to the community for discussion. BradV 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out: http://www.amazon.com/Streetwear-Insiders-Guide-Steven-Vogel/dp/0811860361 Streetwear is NOT the same as HipHop fashion Also check out trade exhibitions such as http://www.breadandbutter.com and http://www.margin.tv to get a grip on what streetwear's about. These are streetwear exhibitions where hiphop fashion plays a very small part. Urban hiphop fashion may dominate streetwear in the USA but this is not the case across the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.166.167 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not fulfill the requirements for a musician/ensemble. He is signed to a major label, but has (as of yet) no releases on that label. Ironholds 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy Robbins is an artist signed by Universal Motown and in fact exists on the Universal Motown page in wikipedia. So i would strongly press that he is notable.
universal motown page on wikipedia itself puts him under "Notable artists under the Universal Motown/Universal Republic Group".
This is from the WP:MUSIC guidelines: "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network.". I suggest you follow this link [radio.disney.go.com/artists/incubator/jimmyrobbins/bio.html]. Somewhere in the "J's" are "Jimmy Robbins of Too Sorry for Apologies- Step One. Obviously notable enough for Radio Disney
iTunes also has him on there, another media source
Jimmy almost has 5 million plays and he has 79,000 friends on myspace. He actually has two songs on radio disney, 'Step One' is just the more popular one. He has a Street Team page, and many fansites dedicated to him. He has also gone on tour with noteable artists like The Scene Aesthetic and he is working with the very famous producer Bryan Todd
here are two more articles that we found on jimmy robbins [3] [4]
Alternative Press Magazine featured Jimmy in it as well, back when he was still TSFA. Isn't a spot in a major music magazine considered "notable" ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabszx (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The artist has had music in rotation at Radio Disney. Currently his music has not charted but according to Mediabase and BDS he is getting 4 spins a week. Furthermore, his Radio Disney interview was broadcast throughout the RD network in July of 2007 as part of their incubator program. His website feature was added to supplement his radio feature.
Additionally, you mention that the artist needs two or more releases on said label to be considered notable. Would you like me to list the plethora of artists on Wikipedia that are currently supporting only one release? --Adamlarue (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was one of the youngest performers on warped tour when he was with Ashwin. And as said before he was featured in AP magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabszx (talk • contribs) 10:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, Nakon 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been the subject of COI concerns for some time. I've looked for multiple references to satisfy the general requirements of WP:BIO, but can't find anything non-trivial. The artist's website [5] lists private and corporate collections, but none that can be verified, and no museum collections that might satisfy the specific requirements of WP:BIO#Creative professionals. Artfacts.net, usually a reliable and comprehensive source, only lists dealers [6]. Ananny is a working artist, but fails to meet the notability requirements for inclusion in the encylopedia. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be wary here. There might be POV issues due to the fact that the original creator works for one of the partners in the project. Three paragraphs look like they were heavily reworded straight from the media-net-works.de website - and have NO wikilinks in them. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Stephen Arnold Music, Nakon 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biography, no independent sources, written like an ad, questionable notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to Rewrite
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been speedied once, but I'll bring it here for discussion. Article is mostly advertising, and sources lead to a business directory listing and a self-nominated award. TN‑X-Man 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was originally a prod, which was contested. Non-notabler footballer - hasn't payed in a fully professional league and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 21:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list created by a poll, and therefore not an objective list of statistics. That makes this the intellectual property of the football club, and therefore a copyright violation. I discussed this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and was pointed to [19], which specifically discusses such content, and which says any list whose selection is based primarily on editorial opinion (rather than say statistics or geography) is considered to have that minimal spark of creativity necessary for copyright Corvus cornixtalk 21:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I was close to calling this one no consensus, but in spite of some arguments that the delete !votes were unfounded in policy, the same holds true for many of the arguments for keeping, which seem to be based on claims that it is useful or citing the WP:ITSCRUFT essay. In the end there were no answers to the concerns that this list did not pass key guidelines and policies such as WP:V and WP:LIST. As there are no major objections to userfication of the material, I will make it available upon request. Shereth 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable list-cruft. ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see more reasoned argument for deletion than "Non-notable list-cruft". This list will compile information that users would otherwise have to dredge through multiple articles for. The fact that there is only one entry in the table now points to the article's stub status, not any lack of notability. Currently only a couple of the university pages have listings of fictional alumni. Those alumni can be rolled into this article and it can be expanded to contain information that is not currently available elsewhere on Wikipedia, providing an article with worthwhile and convenient information for the reader.
I think that this is a case of:
Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.
and I hope that I have successfully rebutted the claim that this article is not related to human knowledge. --John (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC):
(Edited 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. Every vote for deletion here is more based on personal taste than on reading the rules for adding material to Wikipedia. Even the one that sites a valid reason (original research) pointedly ignores the commenter's own observation that it is simply bringing together information that was already on Wikipedia. The only arguments I see for deletion so far amount to:
For goodness sake people, please think about what your argument really means before you cast your vote. Read Wikipedia:Lists, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates, Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:No original research, and (most importantly) Wikipedia:Deletion policy--and understand them--before deciding that your particular issue supports deletion of the article.
One critical thing to remember when voting (quoted from Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Editing):
If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem.
This article is already in compliance with this by virtue of having been tagged with ((stub)) and ((expand list)); therefore, arguments that it is too incomplete do not contribute to this discussion, but ignore points already addressed.
John (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC):[reply]
Link for block of text is here. Sorry to edit someone else's comments, but we need to be able to read the entired afd page. If you think this is out of line, revert or change it, but I feel that the block of text doesn't help. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I am sounding frustrated here, but I have begun to feel like you are trying to justify your initial vote by "quoting scripture for your own purposes," and without keeping an open mind that your initial opinion may have been in error. Please... PLEASE... read the entire policy or guideline that applies before jumping to the conclusion that it supports deletion of the article. --John (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think categorizations befits this topic very well. Perhaps I'm not thinking about this intelligently enough but I see each alumnus having a category tag for each school and each school has a category page. That means that for fictional characters we would have to have a 'shadow' category for every school they attend. Maybe that is in line with what we would want to do, but I think we might be better off userifying this and checking some of the possible source material for some secondary coverage (not just the ones I linked, those were mostly sources for the fictional characters themselves). 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The result was no consensus and keep since there are no BLP concerns over the article. The main question in this debate has been whether the awards Mr. Leslie-Carter has won are a sufficient basis for notability, and with no consensus that they're not sufficient, and with a reasonable case being made for either side, this article stays. As noted, improvements to the article are desirable, at present there are no categories listed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like a CV while the subject seems to be not notable. →Christian.И 21:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. I don't find even a rough consensus for keeping, or deleting the article. I have assigned little weight to the IP comment regarding sourcing, since no actual examples were provided, however, the follow on arguments of the same "no applicable citation" that were from account holders got equal weight. If I gave comment equal weight, the result would be the same here, still no consensus for deletion. My best recommendation here would be to wait awhile before relisting this debate, and in the mean time, discuss notability and sourcing issue on the talk page. I see some argument for a possible merge, that can also be discussed on talk. There is no consensus to merge here either. I'm not an administrator, I was one in the past however. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this subject is notable enough to have a page in its own right and it's in danger of being one-sided. Does anyone think six months after the by-election this article will still be not worthy? I subject merging to Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Philip Stevens (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep The article is an appropriate fork of content that would otherwise unbalance David Davis (British politician), Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008, plus a few other related pages. Being 'in danger' of bias, or not being notable in the future, are invalid reasons for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Re-voted on relisting. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--86.29.243.15 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local politician. Unsourced since 2006, I can't find any references. Hut 8.5 21:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable event that hasn't occurred yet, with no reliable sources listed. Article is a combination of original research and advertising. TN‑X-Man 20:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Soxred 93 04:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable championship. If they have several a month, just how important can they be? Corvus cornixtalk 20:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --JForget 23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable:
Metal-archives.com
Metaluniverse.net
Metrolyrics.com
Mastersland.com
and others.
-Has released two or more albums on a major label:
Twilight Legend
Curse Of The Angeleye
both on CD-Maximum, Russian major label.
-Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable:
Andrey Ischenko played in Catharsis.
-Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city:
It is a first and a most commonly mentioned band, playing Russian power metal.Ironguardian (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imago_(Catharsis_album)
Imago_(Имаго)
Prizrachnyj Svet
Krylya (album)
Verni_Im_Nebo Ironguardian (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a research paper, as it says in one of the early paras. Full of POV and OR Ged UK (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Wizardman 17:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newsworthy and tragic story but of little encyclopedic value. No sources to indicate notability beyond the current event. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Nakon 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no room for any growth and is a non-notable neologism and it should therefore be deleted because wikipedia is not a dictionary. The topic is not notable for inclusion in wikipedia even though it is verifiable is does not meet WP:N it is WP:NEOLOGISM and possibly WP:OR in addition to this it violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY, transwiki to wiktionary and delete. Myheartinchile (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet up and running radio channel, sounds like blatant advertising to me. Bear in mind that this is my first AfD, so if I've gotten something wrong, don't bite me! Rdbrewster♪♫♪ 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your Nuts
Its a Radio station!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.248.103 (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consists entirely of idle speculation and would need a full rewrite in the event of the game being actually announced or published, at any rate. Sandstein 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is full of speculation and rumors. Speedy tag removed by an IP with no reasoning given. Fails WP:CRYSTAL for a future game release and Blizzard Entertainment buying a domain does not qualify for an article. TN‑X-Man 19:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicating the notability of this surname - WP is not the Spanish phone book. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this sub-caste is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of trivial game guide information on the Pharaoh and Cleopatra games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per consensus. I suspect Giulietta Masina would be pleased. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed redirect of non-notable single, scheduled for release "in 2008". Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from trying to figure out what is an environmental journal, this is best handled by categories - note, there's only one entry here anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nakon 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to sack as Dhartung suggested. The term 'sacked' is almost as ambiguous as the term 'sack'. The etymological discussion in the present article is interesting, but wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for discussion of etymology. I see nothing worth saving in the original article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Possible candidate to be moved over to Wiktionary, or maybe just needs to get zapped. I leave it up to the community on this one, thus nominating it for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another political candidate, this time for the California State Assembly. PROD removed by author, saying "Masry is notable because of history making run, coverage by media, and upcoming book published by a university press." Per WP:BIO#Politicians, being an unelected candidate for political office does not confer notability; and nor does having written a not-yet-published book. If elected, she will qualify for an article, but until then I don't think being "the first Saudi American to run for political office" is enough. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. If having gotten an album review is some claim to have met WP:BAND, then we might just as well scrap WP:BAND. This article has been listed for speedy deletion and for PROD, and has deletion has been rejected. See the article's Talk page. This is not a notable band, and just claiming that their album has been reviewed doesn't explain how they meet notability requirements. And album reviews do not provide the sort of information that an article about a band can be created, in general. Corvus cornixtalk 17:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn art appreciation group, article sourced only to the group's own site. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a band, Prior AFD was closed as Keep but was overturned at Deletion Review - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 11 - where discussion decided the article should be relisted to get more participation. I have no opinion. Davewild (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete since there is nothing to merge an stuff we better get rid off, then recreate as a redirect and protect to avoid having to go through this again. New arguments for lifting the protection and recreating the article (in the unlikely event that this does become independently notable) can always be made at the article talk page. Fram (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Low importance within the Rugrats. Internet popularity is debatable IMO. Personally I think this page should be redirected to List of Rugrats characters. However, i'd also be happy for this page to be deleted. The main reason i'm nominating it for this 3rd AfD is because another user wants Drew to have his own article, and I dont believe he should. AGU! Defender (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested redirect of non-notable, forthcoming single. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A page of non-notable trivia. This is evidenced by the fact the article is built solely by bullet points and lacks a proper intro Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable tours. I think Roll the Bones Tour to Snakes & Arrows Tour are notable, so I am not nominating them. Notability is not asserted (nor reliably asserted, as the source "Rush: The Complete Tourbooks" is just a tour listing). Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing incomplete nom for User:92.232.121.101. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While there are claims of meeting WP:Notability in the article, gsearch is only coming up with passing mentions at best. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a security company. Cites several sources, but they don't really discuss the company itself -- they are mostly quotes of company officers, or mentions that the company has security people in this or that country. I don't think the subject has been shown to be notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. This article is written by Lucy Cortez, Cary's administrative assistant. It's completely written like a resume and has been deleted twice, once by A7 and the 2nd by PROD. There are no reliable sources, and any of the few Google News or Web hits are press releases or mentions of him as a contact for his company. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the article has a COI and is the sort of self-promotional vandalism we do not tolerate on Wikipedia. Rdbrewster♪♫♪ 19:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probable non notable as only known because he is CEO of company that seems non notable but i am not sure so I am filing an AfD Anonymous101 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a word, which seems to exist primarily to tell people to use "correct grammar". Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a usage guide. Ptcamn (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disgree with the current process - this xfd should be clearly placed at both the Wikipedia Project Indonesia and Wikipedia Project Malaysia noticeboards - failure to do so will makes this xfd a classic notice in a closed filing cabinet at the bottom of the stairs behind a door marked do not feed the leopard - there is not sign that the proposer or the other editor to comment here has either any knowledge of the subject or the subject area - if they do so my apologies - at least make sure that the issue goes to :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia and :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Malaysia - to make this proposal one which the relevant projects could actually see what is going on here SatuSuro 15:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Bahasa language should not exist - it is tautologous and a misuse of the words from both languages potentially makes wikipedia look like a blog like scrapbook not an online encylopedia - if the delete goes ahead - some consideration will have to be made for the re-naming of the absurdly named Bahasa language disambiguation page - and a new RS V and N compliant article that deals with common misunderstandings and usages of the words and their context that moves beyond the issues raised by the Afd nominater and supporters - the article might be removed but the issue remains SatuSuro 04:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local club, with no references or assertion of notability. Lone external link is club's own site. Hellno2 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as blatant advertising. -- The Anome (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence given that this defunct band meets WP:MUSIC criteria in the very-MySpacey article, and the article is written like advertising copy; but the band does have some independent-source coverage in [36]. Edge case? The Anome (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to MediaWiki. Sandstein 17:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really notable for an encyclopedia IMO. No reliable sources to back up his notability. D.M.N. (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination is withdrawn. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very sad, but not enough evidence. Plus, non-notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to delete it at all.
The result was Keep. People should take a closer look at WP:LISTS. If there are Dutch comedians worthy of an article, if Dutch comedy is a notable topic, then a list is in general perfectly acceptable. It is not the same as a category, since it can include redlinks, and can include more info than a category. I'll move it to a better capitalization as well. Fram (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Humour may be subjective, but notability appears to be lacking here. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree as these comedians are starting promising international carreers, or already made notable appearences in UK and USA. For example, Raoul Heertje is well known in the international comedy scene, Hans Teeuwen has made a succesfull international start in London and will be performing in the Edinburgh festival with Micha Wertheim. As they all speak English fluently I think they can be expected to make notable contributions to the international comedy scene. Evazwaving (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2008
The result was Speedy Close, without prejudice, by nominator. See discussion. Dweller (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied this article in April, before userfying by request. Since then, user has added a couple of sources. It's been in userspace long enough, really, so I've moved it back into mainspace and AfDd it. Sure it's fancrufty, but do the notability claims stand up - are there multiple non trivial references in RS? Dweller (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. No evidence of passing our notability criteria for musicians. Dweller (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, Nakon 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Club plays in "senior ranks of London hurling" according to their website. Not professional team, although clearly a well organised amateur set-up. Dweller (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was } Speedy Delete G1 - Patent Nonsense. Not to mention hoax. Resolute 17:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google search brings up a grand total of nothing. Not an AFL legend as far as I can see Ged UK (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as recreation (G4) by Craigy144. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a non-notable film was Deleted in a 19 June AfD and is now back, one day later. Unfortunately, the article still fails to explain notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Speedy delete under WP:CSD G4 - still does not show references. --Triwbe (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability of the author or the idea. Article created by the originator if the idea. Only reference is to a website of his, which solicits paid subscriptions. Art Carlson (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biography restored for wider discussion after deletion review because of some assertion of importance. Nevertheless there are currently no independent sources. Tikiwont (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Allis Ph.D. thesis was "Searching for Solutions in Games and Artificial Intelligence", which is quoted by other scientific article 42 times, according to CiteSeer. HermanHiddema (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no content, and the page appears to exist solely to advertise/promote the company. Olana North (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2nd nomination, first nomination occurred over two years ago, and the article still doesn't even begin to meet current encyclopedic standards. No sources and no indication of notability. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion per CSD A7. Jesse Viviano (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No links that i can find (admittedly I dont speak finnish) No content on the page other than the comedians name/birth and death dates. Official website link is down, rendering that information source closed. Ironholds 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 21:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hindi word definition. WP is not a dictionary Triwbe (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 21:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable phantom "curse." Local interest only, if that, unreferenced by anything other than weblogs. Only 37 Google hits [38] and none reliable, being a plethora of blogs, forum posts, Youtube videos and Wiki mirrors. Finally, a heap of WP:OR and WP:SYN violations. For example, it's proof of the Buffalo curse that the Los Angeles Clippers, which started in Buffalo, hasn't been a very good team, or that the Buffalo Sabres - like, come to that, twelve other of the current NHL teams - haven't yet won a Stanley Cup. (Except, of course, the minor league baseball and hockey teams and the pro lacrosse team that have won championships don't count because, well, they don't, is all.) Ravenswing 04:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted per the chorus of unanimous disapproval below, and WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was tempted to speedy delete this as an attack page, but thought that perhaps some others could see some merit in a well sourced, neutral article. However, I can't see that an article on this topic can be anything less than disparaging. Mattinbgn\talk 04:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, resume style bio, spam style article of an apparently non-notable attorney. MBisanz talk 04:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic directory style list. No sources or commentary. MBisanz talk 04:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sources provided, so let's get writing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:CORP; no significant independent coverage of this games company. Previously nominated for WP:CSD#A7, though denied because there is an assertion of notability (unsourced). Most sources on the web appear to be press releases, game update notifications, or self-published. May largely violate WP:NOR. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Weak Keep Their games are known (Ship Simulator), but article needs more work. Keeping the page rests on the article being improved dramatically. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable politician, does not meet WP:BIO for politicians. The one reference used to support the article is not independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not the place for a campaign pitch. Mattinbgn\talk 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable politician, does not meet WP:BIO for politicians. No evidence of notability outside his political candidature has been provided. Given that the creating editor is User:Liberal lytton there is an inherent conflict of interest. Mattinbgn\talk 04:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete speedily. No assertion of notability. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
quick google search brings up nothing. could be a7-bio although I sugges waiting a few days to see if the author shows anything that can bring this up to WP:BIO standards. Katanada (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While Monty Python witticisms are not really valid arguments for deletion per se, brothers and sisters, their underlying point is well taken: for all we know, this could have been a committee consisting of one person. Not the faintest hint of notability, in other words, and the "keep" opinions do not address this. The slightly ridiculous name does not help either in establishing that this was a serious organisation (judged by the standards of such organisations, of course). Sandstein 20:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being Portuguese, I was curious about this article. However, I was unable to confirm notability for this organization Ecoleetage (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AfD ended in no consensus, and I hate to say the Delete arguments in the last round were somewhat stronger than the Keep arguments. It is hard to verify notability in either English or Portuguese. I wish more people would chime in here. Thanks! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close - pure vandalism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a "copy/paste" from Fushigi Yūgi Eikoden. There is no CSD for this that I know of although it is definitely CSD. Let me know if there is such a category for speedy that I could used to nominate next time. Thanks Katanada (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete the articles on Crehan, Ellsworth and Wylie as there seems to be no real objections to that. The remainder will be closed as no consensus at this time, as there was some potential for notability being discussed. Because of the relative lack of discussion here, I have no objections to the immediate renomination of the remainder (as individual nominations) but will leave that up to the discretion of interested editors. Shereth 21:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, BLP may not apply). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. I should also add that I contributed to the article in the past. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages (some of which I actually created) for the same reasons:
The result was delete. Shereth 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is not notable Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tourist brochure entry about a non-notable beach. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entertainer is not notable (tagged since April 2008) Sebastian scha. (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I don't particularly care about this person but I do think he is notable. I just added a few references showing that he has been featured multiple times in notable television and stage performances. He has been the subject of multiple independent sources. The article should be re-written though to sound more encyclopedic.Nrswanson (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be kind of like atlas or travel guide information... not encyclopedic information...Please check WP:NOTTRAVEL I need a second opinion. Thanks! Katanada (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 21:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:PRODUCT and/or WP:WEB; little/no information available in secondary sources. No secondary sources mentioned in article. Article itself says they're only just starting a closed beta, may violate WP:CRYSTAL since it isn't a finished product yet.
Originally nom'd for CSD under G11, but declined. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school, fails WP:V. Current consensus holds that absent unusual circumstances, primary schools are not notable. Only TWO hits on Google UK, one being this article. RGTraynor 00:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism seemingly referenced only in a Scots' writer's autobiography that seems to have zero currency; only three hits on the UK Google for the term, one referring to this autobiography. Fails WP:NEO, WP:N, WP:V. RGTraynor 00:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. While it would certainly be notable if it could be appropriately sourced, it apparently can't be. —Angr 06:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. faithless (speak) 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax article claiming that non-notable 17-year-old is the next Robert Kennedy, a Greek parliamentary candidate, a chemical researcher and a "well established sportsman." CSD template deleted out by anon IP with no comment. A whopping 14 G-hits, consisting of this article and various Myspace- and Facebook-clones. No references tendered, fails WP:BIO going away. Ravenswing 00:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 21:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn due to article being redirected. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with lack of sourcing - for example naming individual warlords, and neutrality - being biased towards the Courts Union. PhilKnight (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with artene... people simultaneously having the same thought is generally a sign that it's a good one...:) * Keep Though I completely agree with the arguments presented above by editors above (wp:npov, wp:or, wp:undue), those are reasons to edit, not delete, per WP:SOFIXIT. I've moved it to List of warlords in the Somali Civil War [42] On second thought, it's wp:redundant with Factions in the Somali Civil War, which also lists them with better organisation; my vote is then Redirect ¨¨ victor falk 10:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]