The result was Keep based on the vast improvements in the article, the inherent notability of an airline company, the adoption by the Aviation wikiproject, and the much improved sourcing in the article. Great example of the WP:HEY standard. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. Brianga (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --jonny-mt 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, non-charting song with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Previous attempts to redirect to Linkin Park have been reverted. Precious Roy (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (no consensus) - Nabla (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I declined an A7 speedy on this because there is an assertion of notability ("The recent hit 'We Cry' received single of the week on Today FM and on BBC Radio 1"), however without references this completely fails WP:MUSIC. Recommend deletion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --jonny-mt 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist Momusufan (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --jonny-mt 14:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Much of the information isn't sourced. It just seems to be about a way to hack Wiis, and a lot of it comes off as NPOV (such as "WiiJ-ing, apart from being an innovative and entertaining new form of DJ, is being heralded for its wholly wireless usage.." CyberGhostface (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge. (Please note article was closed by nominator due to suggestion by User:Hobit.) — Parent5446 (t n c e m l) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is all plot summary. It treats the place as if it was a real location. There is no actual point to the article but to speculate about what the place was like in the show. In other words, it is all in-universe, and there is no possible way to come up with out-of-universe info. The best way to go for this article is to trim it down and merge it into Earth Kingdom. It does not deserve its own multi-sectioned article. — Parent5446 (t n c e m l) 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. faithless (speak) 07:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly redlinks, no notable songs or albums, article reads like an advertisement. There are no references, and I have done a search and can not find anything online about this band Izzy007 Talk 22:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be advertising for a recently established non-notable web retailer. A query on Alexa [2] indicates that the website shoes.co.uk has extremely low traffic and it is not among the top 100,000. Cambrasa (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If someone wants to transwiki the content, please let me know and I will provide the text and history. --jonny-mt 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a gamefaq, similar pages have already been deleted in the past (pretty much for every popular videogame out there), also there is already a Dawn of War wiki: [3] Kessingler (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable malward file. Original research, violation of WP:NOT. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by me, A7, again. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
been speedy deleted a few times now under CSD A7 (Web) ninety:one 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In its first version this was a dicdef and given a PROD as such. It has now expanded to be a story about a song by Niall Quinn, and its performance in Trafalgar Square on St Patrick's day, and a word arising from it. The problem is that the source given is about St Patrick's day but does not mention Mr Quinn's performance, and a search for "Niall Quinn bypin" produces nothing. Delete as not notable because no sources. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 23:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a list, directory, source of original research or a crystal ball. This article covers all of these, and also contains unnecessary information (as such information can be found in the right places, such as Bulbapedia, and much better quality). Cipher (Talk) 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tagged for speedy delete, creator removed tag. title returns no google results. ninety:one 21:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Redmarkviolinist's passionate defense of the article notwithstanding, this person does not come close to meeting our notability guideline for athletes. Only in the rarest of circumstances are high school athletes notable enough for Wikipedia; examples would be LeBron James and O.J. Mayo, who had their high school games nationally televised, were regularly featured in magazines such as Sports Illustrated and programs such as SportsCenter, Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption. Ms. Clay should be commended for her achievement, but let's be honest about what she did: she set an obscure high school record in a fairly unpopular sport (relatively speaking, no offense intended). When she competes at the Olympics or whatever the world championship is for her sport, then she'll be deserving of an article, but breaking a high school record, while it's something to be proud of, does not merit an encyclopedia entry. faithless (speak) 07:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
High school athlete, from what I can tell probably not notable due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Guest9999 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A quick google check or Emily Clay, pole vault shows some mention in local periodicals and that she has broken some county records but only in a few sentences here and there and localised blogs. I seriously doubt if she has any national or world significance, she is still a high schooler. She might be a prospect in a few years but at present I see a distinct lack of reasoning why she should constitute a world encyclopedic article. Covering high schoolers I think sets a bad example unless they have national significance. Fails WP:BIO. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of ghits, but mainly just listings for competitions. She might hold a junior high school record, but other people are jumping higher than her now, as this link shows:[7] --Seahamlass (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Discussion below indicates that the article violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. --jonny-mt 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information. It isn't that it is crystal balling, because we can document predictions, it is that placing a number of calender events, with sporting plans, and environmental predictions constitutes an original synthesis. None of this is sourced, but even if sourced, why should we use one scientists prediction of the effects of global warming over another's (that's POV). Basically this is going nowhere encyclopedic. Docg 21:01, 23 March 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)) . |
The result was keep content merged to Corinne Bailey Rae and redirect. Notability for own article is not clear from the discussion but notability by association is. (I did a brute force merge, I ask editors with more knowledge of the subject to please help with the cleanup) - Nabla (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable musician- fails WP:BLP1E as famous for one thing- dying. Member of a redlink band; may warrant a mention on his wife's page, but certainly not his own. Prod removed without explanation. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (redirecting is at editor's discretion. I did it) - Nabla (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page provides information about one of several prominent retail businesses that compete to provide quality Harvard merchandise. The Harvard University campus is a tourist hotspot, and as such, competition for tourism is quite a notable subject. In addition, the Harvard Shop's membership in Harvard Student Agencies, Inc., a storied organization with a 50-year history that boasts the title of world's largest student-run corporation, makes the Shop an inherent subject of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlee512 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 March 2008
The result was keep. --jonny-mt 14:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent autobiography of an author. Article was deleted via WP:PROD in November, but the deletion was contested later. Hence it goes here for wider discussion. B. Wolterding (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to The Colbert Report. --jonny-mt 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable idiom. The article is heavily biased (plenty of weasel-words), lacks in-line citations, and is irrelevant overall -- notability has not been established. Wikipedia is not a repository of neologisms or quotes from TV shows -- and this is one step worse, it's something said by fans ABOUT a personality on a TV show; it's not even from the show itself. Poorly-written stub articles about things like this classify as fancruft. There is no point is merging this into the Colbert Report article, as all the same flaws would still exist there, and it wouldn't be contributing to that article (especially since the goal is, as with all articles, for it to be professional). Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly asserts notability, and by the looks of it the subject's merits are impressive. However, googling this individual yields very little to substantiate the bold claims. I'm really unsure about this one, since I hesitate to think that this is false, however, with a merit list like his, shouldn't there be at least a newspaper article somewhere? meco (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Rename per new sources found during AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No KQPW-FM exists in FCC database, nor does a KQPW-LP. The article mentions WQPW which is a station in Georgia not Illinois. Rtphokie (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by DGG (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G7 (Non-admin closure).. PeterSymonds | talk 21:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Delete. I can't find anything at all under that name. Commment Why was the page blanked? Hobit (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a company with doubtable business practices, and I can understand the interest of users to warn others of their methods. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Maybe a journalist should look into the matter, and might find a good story. However, currently it seems that no journalist has done so. As long as the entry is sourced entirely to blogs, and not to reliable sources, there's no place for this information in an encyclopaedia. Note to conspiracy theorists: I am not affiliated with the said company in any way. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet the notability requirements for a wikipedia article. It is also based entirely from the individual's own website and may be an attempt at self promotion. Nrswanson (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
((ajutor))
==Legături externe== *Situl personal al lui Laurenţiu Rotaru en:Laurenţiu Rotaru”) --Eastmain (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. Needs to at least have some reliable sources to prove notability; otherwise it fails WP:CORP, WP:V, etc. As DGG mentioned, it isn't technically a speedy since there is assertion of notability, though given the barren state of sources I'll delete for now. If they pop up in the future, feel free to recreate the article. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... what to say about this one? According to its website the Zeitgeist Project is "a bold and historic initiative that seeks to bring together under one roof a society’s most influential leaders, thinkers, and artists not only to celebrate the Zeitgeist but also to address viral ideologies." Apparently it will be led by a panel of "royalty, heads of state, UN representatives, international business leaders and Nobel Laureates." Oddly though, for such a lofty organisation, its website offers no information whatsoever about who is behind the project, or who these world leaders and Nobel Laureates are. And given its crucial importance, it seems strange that Google finds only 82 hits for the phrase "Zeitgeist Project", few or none of which appear to relate to this organisation. And it's odder still that an organisation of global importance seems to use linkspamming across on Wikipedia as its main method of publicising itself (see the revision histories of Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist the Movie - the latter particularly inappropriate as the website declares loudly that it has nothing to do with the movie). I can only conclude that this is one of three things: a shadowy, secretive and therefore unverifiable organisation; something just invented by a person whose ambitions are far greater than his connections; or an outright fabrication. Whichever of the three it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. The reason sited for deletion is: "non-notable organisation. A glance at their website will show that it does not exist yet Speedy concern: non-notable organisation. A glance at their website will show that it does not exist yet." THIS IS FALSE. The site does exist (www.zeitgeistproject.org)
2. It is claimed: "it seems strange that Google finds only 82 hits for the phrase "Zeitgeist Project", few or none of which appear to relate to this organisation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zeitgeist_Project). THIS IS CORRECT, but this is only because the Zeitgeist Project only went live a few days ago. Therefore, the above reason for deletion is not justifiable.
3. It is claimed: "Oddly though, for such a lofty organisation, its website offers no information whatsoever about who is behind the project, or who these world leaders and Nobel Laureates are." As stated on the Zeitgeist Project website, the project is ONLY in its infancy stages. The website NO where claims that the advisory board exists. The website's intend "is" to explain the vision and scope of what the Zeitgeist Project CAN be.
4. It is claimed: "And it's odder still that an organisation of global importance seems to use linkspamming across Wikipedia as its main method of publicising itself." To use the word "across" is hyperbolic. The author of this criticism only offers two examples one of which is the article "Zeitgeist". Since the Zeitgeist Project directly pertains to the Zeitgeist then how is adding an external and internal link to the "Zeitgeist" Wikipedia article a form of "linkspamming"?I wonder if the author of this criticism is the same author of the Zeitgeist article entry.
5. It is claimed: "I can only conclude that this is one of three things: a shadowy, secretive and therefore unverifiable organisation; something just invented by a person whose ambitions are far greater than his connections; or an outright fabrication. Whichever of the three it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia." None of these claims have any substance, in fact these remarks border on being incendiary. This person's entire case for deletion is a non sequitur. For example, to claim that Zeitgeist Project is an "ambitious" project and THEREFORE should be deleted is simply nonsensical and should not even require a response. However, a response is required or the Zeitgeist Project entry will be deleted. Second, there is nothing "shadowy" and/or "secretive" about the Zeitgeist Project. Did the author of this criticism actually read what the Zeitgeist Project hopes to accomplish? What it is promoting is anything but "shadowy" - ambitious yes, but surely NOT secretive. Finally, what is meant by "outright fabrication"? Clearly this is another example of a type of ignoratio elenchi fallacy. --Charles vanier (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Charles vanier (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What the common denominator amongst those who are requesting deletion is the consistent lack of sustained argument.
- Notice that no one actually quotes from Wikipedia deletion policy. This is very telling. For example, Balloonman states that his ‘reason’ for deletion is COI. A cursory reading of Wikipedia’s official policy about deletion clearly does NOT state that COI is one of its criteria.
- Given the lack of cogent arguments, it is also suspect why people even “feel” compelled to submit a request for deletion, especially given the fact that they make vague and incorrect assertions about Wikipedia’s official policy.
- In other words, it makes sense to submit a request for deletion when there is justifiable warrant after explicitly citing from Wikipedia’s official policy pertaining to causes for deletion. --Charles vanier (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nabla (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been left incomplete, and has been touched sparingly since its creation. The information that is there is entirely uncited, and possibly incorrect. (Being from the area, I can tell you that most of the counties colored "Other" in the map should probably be colored for 60 mph.) Furthermore, the topic is just too darn specific to be notable/encyclopedic. (No other U.S. state has such an article.) Kéiryn talk 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 02:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches reveal little coverage of this topic. It fails to satisfy notability guidelines because it provides no reliable sources that have significant coverage of the college itself (accreditation databases are not significant coverage). It has little potential to become notable in the future. Noetic Sage 19:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches reveal little coverage of this topic. It fails to satisfy notability guidelines because it provides no reliable sources that have significant coverage of the college itself (accreditation databases are not significant coverage). It has little potential to become notable in the future. Noetic Sage 19:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches reveal little coverage of this topic. It fails to satisfy notability guidelines because it provides no reliable sources that have significant coverage of the college itself (accreditation databases are not significant coverage). Noetic Sage 19:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 23:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be little information on this university college anywhere. It fails to satisfy notability guidelines because it provides no reliable sources that have significant coverage of the college itself (rather than simply ranking one program in the college). Even with the best architecture program in the country, the college itself is not notable. Noetic Sage 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contains no reliable sources or references. Does not appear to have potential to become notable, as internet searches reveal practically no reference to this institution. Noetic Sage 18:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nabla (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable show on student TV station; no external sources cited. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable vBulletin addon. No references are cited at all and the article is primarily written by the addon developers themselves. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 18:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12 months after the article is published you both just happen by and want it deleted. Why delete this article in particular and are all the other articles on every single wiki page that does not have references cited also going to be recommended by you for deletion ? It can not be merged with vBulletin's page because it would cause a riot on that page (read over the vBulletin discussion page and you will understand). The article was not primarily written by the add-on developers themselves, it was a combination of contributions by members then drafted and improved by same members. Its just coincidence I am the only one developer who has or is interested in having a wiki account and posted the article. No where does it say who can or can not submit an article to wiki and no where does it say that an article like this can not be submitted. What references do you want cited ? Scotsmist (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have such a good grasp on Wiki, you decide as I have no further interest here. I try not to associate with elitest nerds or bottom feeders, instead I try to build and give back to others. Its too easy destroying other peoples work, anyone can do that and doesn't take much effort. The people I know and associate with work together. IF you don't have something good to say about yourself, look for something bad to say about something else, huh ! So long and thanks for all the fish. Scotsmist (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally useles article in view of Category:History by region. It was created long time ago when the ystem of categories was not crystallized for good. `'Míkka>t 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. This page contains absolutely no content other than a list of names. Categories cover these pretty well. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unmaintainable list that adds nothing to categories. I have googled all four red links on the list and three of the four of them have no business ever being articles. B (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria; unsourced AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Some info may be useful some somewhere, not clear from the discussion. So I'll move it under Star Fleet Universe/Lyran and keep it there for a week or so before actuallly deleting. (similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination)) - Nabla (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I nominated another similar article in the same fictional universe: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) Jobjörn (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G7 (author blanked). mattbr 16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability, the team is playing socker only in a county league Matthiasb-DE (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, given the lack of evidence of coverage by reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability Matthiasb-DE (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The single given reference supports nothing more than a dictdef. The rest of the article is a complete fabrication. The Jargon File is hardly a reliable reference, anyway. No substantiation of any of the assertions here are available; removing them would leave that dictdef only, so let's just delete it. Mikeblas (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– i123Pie biocontribs 15:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom has confirmed this AfD was made in error.[27] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kiwi international rugby league player who played at a world cup, played for many proffesional clubs in Australia.Londo06 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pressed the wrong button, I use twinkle. – i123Pie biocontribs 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep and close. Afd not properly done, no reason for nomination given. --neonwhite user page talk 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Some info may be useful some somewhere, not clear from the discussion. So I'll move it under Star Fleet Universe/Interstellar Concordium and keep it there for a week or so before actuallly deleting. (similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran)- Nabla (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second nomination, the earlier afd did not result in a consensus. The article is about a fictional "union of several sentient races" in Star Fleet Universe, which in turn is some sort of offshoot from the Star Trek fictional universe. I think that while Star Fleet Universe may be notable, a nation within it is not - and unsurprisingly, there are no significant coverage in reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject to be found. Hell, the references listed seems to be in-universe themselves. If it has to exist, it would probably be better off with a deletion anyways - the current article is written mainly in-universe, unreferenced and uncited, and not in accordance with the Manual of Style. Finally, I'd like to comment on the previous AfD - while there perhaps wasn't any consensus to delete, there was definitely consensus to not keep. Jobjörn (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I nominated another similar article in the same fictional universe: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran Jobjörn (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Nabla (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. (I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) withdrew the AfD but forgot to provide the rationale at the top. I am filling this in for that user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Artist of very questionable notability. Currently, the article consists exclusively of a listing of the artist's exhibitions, all sourced to the artists's own website. The listings themselves include very minor and obscure galleries (e.g: "el Kahif Gallery, Bethlehem"), and consist of the same 3-4 exhibitions listed 5 or more times, for every place it was shown, including said obscure galleries. I suspect the page was created by the artist or a relative/friend editing with a clear COI. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online game, I searched for sources but nothing reliable came out. User:Krator (t c) 14:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOT (notability guidelines) for inclusion. Spaceheatercozitiscold (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copy vio removed from here. Text can be found at [32]. Anjouli (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just extensively searched for sources but the only reliable sources I find are directory listings. A website named MMOsite has some coverage of the game, but previous discussions on WP:VG achieved the consensus that this site cannot be used to indicate notability. User:Krator (t c) 13:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 02:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No FCC record for this station, not finding any references to the station in a Google Search, owner's website (Meeker Broadcasting) is dormant. Rtphokie (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I could redirect but I don't see a strong reason to. Wizardman 02:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. No significant third party coverage, major awards, showings, etc. Nv8200p talk 13:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (yet some reference should be added; merging is at edtior's discretion) - Nabla (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. No significant third party coverage, awards, national tours, etc. Nv8200p talk 13:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from its very poor English, which could be corrected, this article does not list any citations, the external links refer to pages of local only interest, this person is not a recognized writer outside the prefecture he comes from. Odikuas (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Not quite the participation I would have liked, but I'm not listing it for a fourth time, and anyway merge is a nice harmless close. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this student cycle tour was without question a laudable fundraising effort, as an article it does not appear to satisfy WP:N and WP:V; no significant secondary sources outside the group's/school's website cited or found. Contested prod. ~Matticus UC 08:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD on an article for a film which looks as if it's not even out yet (from the mixed tense in the article), and for which no sources are cited. Most of the article is a completely unreferenced plot summary. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a slightly strange one. This appears to be a disambiguation page that has growed like Topsy into a three-part article on three different Marias Chen. I reached it via Special:Random and attempted to clean it up. But that failed dismally through lack of sources. I can confirm that:
My gut feeling is that this is a tear-it-up and start-again situation: delete the current overgrown dab page and let editors with sources create one or more of these Marias as required. But there's nothing I could make of them within Wikipedia standards. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC altogether. No references, no claims to notability apart from the producer and the Tilly and the Wall connection, so it's probably speediable, but I thought I'd give the creator a chance to convince us otherwise. Closedmouth (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Speedied by Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs) as a copyright violation, WP:CSD#G12. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork.Non notable person.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable search find that this companys only claims to Notability are: "a strategic alliance with Sun Microsystems" and the Orion Application Server, which, as a wikilink, redirects back to this company Article. I contend that this is not enough to satisfy WP's basic WP:Notability standards. I could be wrong, as I cannot read the Swedish news, but doubt any improvment is forthcomming from them as this Article has been here since March of 2005 with no Cites to them as a source so far. Whats your opinion. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 16:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's been issues before with Dead Rising characters (Frank West for one); people also seem to be inclined to want to include the "psychopaths" in the game (which are nothing more than glorified boss battles, thus amounting to game guide material). This is not to say that list of prime characters in the game isn't inappropriate, but that list is already in the Dead Rising article, and there's no significant WP:SIZE issues with it; additionally plot sections are never split off from the main work. It is recommended this be deleted as it is redundant presently with the main text, and too heavyweight a page title to require a merge/redirect. MASEM 11:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable hypnotist. Fails WP:BIO Fritzpoll (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Unexplained) contested prod. Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes he was a member of a first divion swiss side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elomen76 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A game with no reliable third-party sources to assert notability. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. I find it impossible to reach consensus based on a nomination that does not actually state why the article is at AfD. the_undertow talk 22:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google says no to this one. αѕєηιηє t/c 11:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. The company remains non-notable, and fails WP:CORP. The company is mentioned in the article for its only notable game The Three Musketeers (video game), but there is still no coverage in reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a politician based entirely upon primary sources. Google throws up a lot of blogs/unreliable sources, but reliable sources appear to be limited to passing mentions only. He does appear to have a job in health, but I can't find any reliable reference to him being the Labour candidate for Coromandel. Not that that would make him automatically notable anyway. Prod was removed by author with a request for an explanation. Also note the author admits to having a conflict of interest. Happy to withdraw my nomination if I am shown reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not give them a chance? Seems at least as interesting as many included, and it is not as though Wikipedia criteria are followed in practice. See the Denis Dutton entry for example? Kininmonth is an interesting name, doesn't he get points for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable article. Dabbydabby (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No comments in 2 weeks = no one cares. Wizardman 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A song that was only released for airplay purposes, it fails WP:Music and it is poorly written. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and actually it meets also CSD A1/A3 per lack of content other then the images.--JForget 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really encyclopaedia material, just a series of images. αѕєηιηє t/c 10:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3 vandalism, image also deleted. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an unnotable hoax. αѕєηιηє t/c 10:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There seemed to be some support building for userfication, but then the article's primary author chimed in to request deletion. If anybody else wants to work on it in their userspace, let me know on my talk page and I'll happily userfy it for you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see how this article asserts notability. I originally nom'd it for CSD but that was probably a little over the top - this seems better. I know the policies and what makes someone notable, but I still do not understand why this person is notable at all. If you are going to vote keep, could you at least point out where it asserts itself? Thanks. αѕєηιηє t/c 10:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i know of the site health thru understanding and am familiar with what it provides to people. it is my contention that this is a very notable venture that is much needed by the people who use it. for the members who participate on a site such as this, it can mean the difference between having and not having the inner strength necessary for the challenges faced by the people there. in a world that is so full of self centredness i believe that it should be spoken of widely when an individual takes it upon themself to provide such a necessary platform for people facing challenges such as theirs. it is a totally selfless act and should be commended not considered for deletion.
this leads me to the subject of equal rights now. we are living in a violent and judgemental world today. we are much better than we were years ago and will get better in time. but that can only happen when we have open communication and information. i truly believe that much of the prejudice and judgement people feel and express comes from ignorance and lack of knowledge. by deleting this communication it will set ourselves backwards. why delete something so positive??????
i consider what robert has done to be extremely notable and commendable.
with thanks, roseyoneRosyone (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with roseyone! We need more young people with his drive to be role models for our youth and society in general. We need more people in this world reaching out to make a difference in our lives. What would be served by deletion? Thanks, toomuchforme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomuchfor me (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete through CSD:G1, patent nonsense.--Alasdair 11:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed when a dictionary reference was added for the well-established word "hobo", but none is provided for "emo hobo". I can find a few references in blogs and the like, and there is an artist who calls herself "Emo Hobo", but this is a neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little more than a resume, admittedly created by the subject himself: [40]. Lots of assertions and unreferenced credits and plenty of hopes and some crystal-balling, but no hard, verifiable, third-party sources. Qworty (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has copied the church schedule from the church bulletin board and posted it here, trying to pass it off as an encyclopedia article. The article was created by a Single Purpose Account apparently connected with the church: [41]. I'm sorry, but in terms of notability, it's simply not enough to be "the second oldest adventist church in the country of Trinidad and Tobago." Qworty (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Even putting the sockpuppeting issues aside, none of the keep comments advanced any policy-based opinions. See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF for more information. --jonny-mt 04:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A jack of many trades who has failed to achieve verifiable, third-party notability in any one of them. The article was created recently by a Single Purpose Account. Possibly self-promotion. And may be associated with self-promoter Tymm Hoffman, whose article is offered for deletion below, and who tried to insert himself into the Frankie Loscavio article. Qworty (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - this is not self promotion it is historical regarding the sport of rollerblading. The people mentioned in this article where also influential professional aggressive skaters who helped create the sport of aggressive rollerblading. I did some checking and can some one please tell me how FL Studio is on this site and not self promotion amongst many others I have found. I am simply trying to document the history of aggressive rollerblading. I think you may be assuming you know about this history when in fact you don't and based on the searches returned in google how are you supposed to know this since you have never participated in this historical movement? -
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-wikipedia-governance-processes/2008/01/07
((Frankie Loscavio|65.83.231.100)) 20:03, 25 March 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.231.100 (talk • contribs) 21:03, March 25, 2008
*Keep- I was a pro skater for Skatepile.com and Frankies contribution changed the way we handled our culture and commerce in rollerblading. Since Frankie has left our sport, there is not another online shop that has been able to replicate the simplicity and consistency of Frankie design and marketing.— Kingdirty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:21, 25 March 2008
*Keep - I've been a professional rollerblader for over 10 years now. Frankie Loscavio is a pioneer of our sport, and has set some of the ground work for what has become known as rollerblading today. As a valuable part of our history, I don't think there should be any discussion in reguards to deleting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.163.219 (talk • contribs) 23:19, March 25, 2008
*Keep - Would you pull the Dogtown Boys and Tony Hawk out of skateboarding history? Of coarse not. This is a solid piece of rollerblading history. Plus, there is no benefit for him to self advertise, as he is retired from rollerblading and skatepile has changed owners.— 24.152.163.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
*Comment - Then how can a page like this Tony Stokes be allowed? Did he contribute to the foundation of football industry like I did for the rollerblading industry? Appears not based on the historical data displayed on your wiki. I am really astonished at this process. What will allow this post to be accepted? I recently added a new reference and there will be more to come and yes from REAL people like the ones commenting before me. I'm not sure how to be a part of this club but in all fairness I was only trying to state historical data here. But maybe Tony Stokes knows something I don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.231.100 (talk • contribs) 00:02, March 26, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mYeNXh45Y&feature=related
. This was also added as a reference as well. Other credible sources will come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshoes (talk • contribs) 00:10, March 26, 2008
*Comment - I will get those reputable sources to post soon. ie Daily Bread Magazine. Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Cherokee Tribune, Video Groove Magazine and so on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.231.100 (talk • contribs) 00:37, March 26, 2008
This man is an absolute legend in Rollerblading. You aren't going to change Wikipedia into the Britannica. Let Frankie Loscavio has his stake in something that is rightfully his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestonAldridge (talk • contribs) 01:21, March 26, 2008
*Keep - Frankie Loscavio is one of the original professional rollerbladers. Just search google for Frankie Loscavio Rollerblade and you'll see for yourself. The sport of rollerblading is so young and niche, that a lot of early innovators like Frankie don't get the credit and coverage they deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.224.22 (talk • contribs) 02:31, March 26, 2008
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant self-promotion, admittedly started by the subject himself. This was speedied [43] shortly before it was recreated. Let's give it a very good salting this time. Qworty (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Wizardman 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable middle school, doing what a middle school does, article's author knows the article is unnecessary, as they wrote the merge tag and source tag right into the article when they wrote it! (that's a new one). Wikipedia is not a directory, and if the author wanted it merged, he could just have made a redirect tag. I'm in favor of flat deletion. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Band does not pass formal notability criteria (zero media coverage, less than 2 full-size album released). "References" section is just a link to their MySpace site. I nominate this article to be deleted according to WP:NN, WP:SPAM GreyCat (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge (and redirect) into the appropriate character lists where I am assuming that this is done by someone familiar with the series. Tikiwont (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article and all other articles nominated in this deletion discussion do not meet WP:FICT. The guideline states "fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this article does not meet this. For similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) and all the other fictonal character pages that were deleted as they wern't considered notable (you can see all of them on that deletion discussion page) this is an issue of the relevant wikipedia policy, and in my oppinon this article does not meet WP:FICT and hence should be deleted. Printer222 (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following related articles are also nominated for deletion for the exact same reasons as the original article is being nominated for. These articles include
The discussion regarding the deletion of all these articles should take place here. Printer222 (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul20070 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a1 for lack of content -- all it says is "this is a software program that hasn't been written yet". NawlinWiki (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software, under construction or not. "Whiteboard is in its construction stages.". Corvus cornixtalk 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. nomination withdrawn. Bduke (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Springnuts (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (non admin closure) CenariumTalk 01:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google search yields no relevant hits. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Thaurisiltc 06:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A gymnasium for a public university. Non-notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsanders (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of WP:NOT; just a list of mechas in the show Vision of Escaflowne without any real-world relevance to them. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (non admin closure) CenariumTalk 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not seem to be very notable and there seems to be very little biographical information on him. Illinois2011 | Talk 06:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting but there is no compelling assertion of notability apparent in the article (fails WP:MILMOS#NOTE), limited independent coverage of subject. Appointments, rank and medals received don't appear to merit an entry, which is unfortunate as Wikipedia has been inclusive to a fair bit of cruftiness of late ;-). Is the Bronze Star and Legion of Merit particularly significant awards in the US order of precedence? Are they comparable to, for example, the British Military Medal (awarded to over 130,000 people! At least according to the article)? SoLando (Talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability, no references; it sounds like this guy has had about 2 stories printed. Brianyoumans (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary Rick Block (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete; discussion indicates that the subject is not covered in reliable sources as required by the policy on notability. --jonny-mt 16:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor political party. Sources provided are for the most part it's own web site. Article admits to virtually no coverage from the press. Ninety members out of millions of voters is hardly an accomplishment. DarkAudit (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that notability should not be an issue in any case. This is a party registered with the Electoral Commission in the United Kingdom: the party exists and the fact that the party exists is documented in the records of the UK state. I don't quite see how Wikipedia can pretend that it does not exist, for that is what is occurring here.
Is Wikipedia aspiring to be a proper encyclopaedia or is it merely aiming to be an aggregator of what is popular? If Wikipedia denies the existence of this party, despite UK state records to the contrary, then it is merely a populist aggregator, not an encyclopaedia (and should therefore remove "The Free Encyclopedia" tag from its logo.
The party has hundreds of mentions across tens of political weblogs. Whilst I am aware that blogs probably carry no weight with the Wikipedia's editors, they nevertheless testify to the party's influence throughout the UK political blogosphere.
As I say: the party exists and it would be perverse to deny that fact (and even more perverse when Wikipedia has articles on far smaller and less significant parties). Devilskitchen (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPA Activities Report. Devilskitchen is an SPA designed to promote minor blogger Chris Mounsey and the minuscule British Libertarian Party. It is no coincidence that Devilskitchen has the same name as Mounsey's blog. Chris Mounsey is also up for deletion, btw[50]. The SPA evidence is here: [51]. My guess is that Mounsey and the British Libertarians, who have failed thus far to get national, well-referenced notability for the minuscule party and its tangential blog, are now determined to confer notability upon themselves by hijacking Wikipedia toward that purpose. Both this article and Chris Mounsey should be deleted forthwith, then salted if recreated. Qworty (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.
This delete argument is doing just that -- promoting bias towards larger organizations. Never mind the fact that the mainstream media selects for itself what organizations are deemed "notable". I'm not sure why anyone would think that the MSM -- which is in a serious nosedive as far as revenue and readership is concerned, compared to internet news sources -- is a reliable indicator of notability. Further:
"... for political parties, very small has usually been considered good enough if there's a real party, and not just a group of like-minded friends. In this case it seems to be five, individually named, like-minded friends. Maybe they'll get support. Then there can be an article.
I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning. The five members as stated were merely the party's founders. A party officer says there are currently ~150 contributing supporters -- in the face of a MSM blackout. 150 is more than 5, and those certainly 150 "support" the party. If one were to visit, say, the Labour Party page, there is only one leader (Gordon Brown) listed at all. Is there some standard by which the UK Libs need to list the names of their 150 members to have even a shot at being considered "notable", and some other standard by which Labour only needs to list its one leader? If this is the case, perhaps this should be clarified in WikiPedia's policies.
I was the person who established this iteration of the article back in January. I was unaware of the deletion of a previous article on the group. I would agree that some of the large number of edits from one individual have added what may well be irrelevant material, but the article itself is certainly relevant. -- MarcMontoni (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, it's up to you guys. There really isn't a promotion motive here: average referrals from Wikipedia come to about 3 a day out of a daily average of 300 uniques. Wikipedia is surely about finding information and that is what I volunteered. Oh, and I never suspected a political motive, DarkAudit. Devilskitchen (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
probably vandalism since "Skinaladoa" does not exist on the entire Internet outside Wikipedia Warut (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Description of circumstances under which this child disappeared in 1999. Sadly, there is nothing notable about either the child or the circumstances of her disappearance. No references, and Google-hits are essentially limited to child-find websites with varying and sometimes contradictory stories, and Wikipedia mirrors. Risker (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page was blanked by an IP who said in the edit summary, "Alpha Point Security does not exist, other than its (poorly made) website, it has NO list of past clients, and no other sources mention its existence" and on the talk page, "This page should be deleted, Alpha Point Security is clearly a hoax and the record needs to be cleared." There is indeed no coverage, significant or trivial, in reliable sources hence it fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn with nobody calling for a delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong -- "Love Don't Live Here" is my favorite song on the country charts right now. However, there is virtually no information out there on the 'Net regarding Lady Antebellum's debut album; all I can find is trivial mentions stating that it will be put out on April 15 on Capitol Nashville. The only verification I can find for the track listing is Amazon, which I don't think qualifies as a reliable source. Therefore, I believe this page violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn, I wasn't aware that the track listing was on Lady Antebellum's website (and yes, I did check). That may be a primary source, but it works for now -- and besides, the album's gonna be released in a couple weeks anyway, so this isn't doing any harm. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism in the form of an obvious hoax). Salting. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this is nothing more than a hoax. Obviously, he was never married to Tonya Harding. The books exist, but their publisher, Lightnin Ridge Press, returns exactly ZERO Google hits, which no doubt means they were self-published and therefore do not meet WP:BK. Apparently this has been speedied several times [53], so it should be salted. Not much more for me to say. Read the article for yourselves. Qworty (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-winning reality show contestant. Appearance in People only because of his stint on The Apprentice, and then just as part of a list, not a feature. Not notable for anything else. DarkAudit (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax = vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious hoax, editor removed speedy tag so I'm listing it here. Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor political blogger, and there are hundreds of thousands of them throughout the world. In terms of his blog, he gets a grand total of 74 Ghits, most of them self-generated or links from other minor political blogs [54]. The article was created by a Single Purpose Account devoted to editing about the blog and its libertarian interests: [55] As a consequence, the article was red-flagged by our COI bot as a possible violation of WP:COI. It smacks of pure promotion, and the "references" provided don't pass the bar of our standards for third-party verifiability. In short, this is weak stuff for a number of reasons. Qworty (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially no information available. Article was a collection of rumors from blogs, and once those were deleted, the article was essentially empty. Article should be deleted until there is real information. Titles Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album and Vanessa Hudgens Sophomore Album should be protected until real information is available. Otherwise, we just have another rumor-magnet article serving no real purpose Kww (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protection - Redirect to Vanessa Hudgens and protect the article from people editing it until the article is notable enough. Surfer-Boy94 (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, possible OR. ukexpat (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. krimpet✽ 18:05, 23 March 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)) . |
Nominating per WP:BLP and the precedents from Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and Rand Fishkin. Basically I advocate a generous opt-out for biographies of living persons: if no paper-and-ink encyclopedia runs an article about the individual, and they ask for their biography to be deleted, then I'll nominate it for deletion. All three of the examples listed above were nominated successfully on that basis. Policy allows the closing administrator to bear the subject's wishes in mind, and I ask fellow Wikipedians to weigh this as well: a Wikipedia biography is virtually guaranteed to be a top Google return, and may be targeted for vandalism by business rivals at strategic moments, and the page's existence and content makes far more of a difference to the article subject than to anyone else.
As many of you are aware, this article was recently restored at DRV. Please bear in mind that the opinions of many editors were based upon process concerns for that particular deletion (which wasn't related to any recent AFD discussion). So that outcome shouldn't prejudice this nomination, I hope. Let's delete this, get it out of everyone's hair, and move on to more important tasks. DurovaCharge! 01:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion may get heated, please try and remain calm. Please do not post any material which is likely to contravene the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Links to Wikipedia Review are acceptable here provided they are directly relevant to the case. Nick (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
|
Please note that whilst I'm going to allow the two identical comments from two different anonymous users to stand, any further identical/substantially similar comments from anonymous users will be removed. Copying and pasting doesn't really contribute anyting to the discussion nor does it really help determine consensus. Thanks for your understanding. Nick (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. There is a note at the top of Heather Mills which directs people to Heather Mills (journalist), if thats what they are looking for. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unnecessary, as we only have 2 people of this name. The primary article for Heather Mills has a "see also" referring to the journalist. Nothing links to this page. If we ever get a third Heather Mills we can re-create this page easily enough. PatGallacher (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Sengkang New Town#Primary schools. As for merging, the content will remain intact in the redirect's page history, although there is nothing in the article that is sourced, and is mostly spam Looking at the NewTown schools section, it would seem out of place to have only one school with "details" about how great it is. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A primary school, which according to the concensus around here is deemed unnotable brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails pretty much all of the general principles stated in WP:MOVIE, therefore making it non-notable. Also lacks references. On the other side Contribs|@ 01:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. This has been open much longer that it should have been, and nobody other than the nominator feels it's not notable. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unsure about this book's notability. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete with no prejudice against re-creation should he win the election. DS (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several reasons to delete this short biography. As a politician, he fails the politician notability standard as elucidated here: [60]. He is neither an office holder, a major nominee, nor a notable person in any other sense. He has a total of 10 Ghits, two of which are Wikipedia. The article was created by a Single Purpose Account calling itself FelixForHouse, the SPA history of which can be found here [61]. As a consequence, the COI bot immediately identified this article as being potentially a violation of WP:COI. Finally, there are no verifiable third-party sources provided to assert notability. Thus, this article fails notability for several reasons. Qworty (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable ski area. Originally listed for speedy, but upon close inspection it isn't G11 material and I don't think that A7 covers ski areas. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 01:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A college radio show on an extremely low-wattage station cannot, in good conscience, merit inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition to the lack of notability (Fails WP:NOTE), the article is poorly written and filled with inside jokes. Burghboy80 (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC) u[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying this won't be notable at some point, but aren't we jumping the gun a little here? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At that same point we're only 2 years out, it's not horribly far in advance. And look at the Olympics, they have pages out to 2024, and NCAA has them out to 2011... This is such a small page, it doesn't hurt anyone to have it up there, and it's not crystal balling because it is not predicting any winners or teams that should be there. It is commenting on the tournament bid.Moonraker0022 (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article reads like a personal essay into the claim by some hedgehog fans that the Romans had a Hedgehog day upon which Groundhog Day is based. It appears to conclude that the claim is unsupported. It is possible that this be trimmed and redirected to a footnote on the Groundhog Day page, or simply deleted as a bit of nonsense. SilkTork *YES! 00:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. ChetblongTalkSign 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Prod reason was "Looks entirely speculative. If there were a title or a full track listing available from reliable sources, this might make sense, but right now there isn't enough to hang an article on", with a prod2 of "Pure crystal ballism with no possibility of verifiability." Although a few links were added after I placed the prod, only one of them even makes reference to the possibility of an album. There are a number of facts in this article which appear to be vandalism (I doubt Furtado is going to release a song titled Minge For You, for instance), but it's impossible to separate them from speculation and unsourced statements here. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable journalist: he wrote two travel books, one peer-reviewed article and he works as a journalist for a small local newspaper. The references don't really provide the notability and I suspect the article was written by Ivanciuc himself.
He participated in a few "photo competitions", like Guardian, National Geographic, but everyone can participate in those competitions, it doesn't make one notable.
Then there are a few article written by him, a few sites of him, a few forum posts, two libraries and a bookstore which have his books. Nothing to prove that he's truly notable. Mladen Vikić (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the Harold & Kumar series (if it can even be called that) is notable to an extent, that in no way grants the characters enough notability to merit their article. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been gaining popularity lately. I am only giving input, but I think this article shall not be deleted until the second installment of Harold and Kumar is released. Then it will be easier to decide if this article has a future or not. So I conclude, under my own imput, that this article should not be deleted untill some time after April 25 when Harold & Kumar 2 comes out to theaters. --Tj999 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the character bios could easily be expanded, there are just too many minor characters with no backstory at all to even be close to considering this a useful article. Captain Chiill (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]