The result was Speedy keep. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 18:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This person is very Googleable and has published many textbooks (used in colleges across North America) which now appear on the Wiki alongside their ISBNs. He is also considered to be "A Veteran IT educator" at http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/blog/2007/11/27/skills-and-training-advice-from-jason-eckert/. I have personally read two of his Linux textbooks and found them to be the best on the market for Linux certification. Animalluvr5999 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Seems to fit Wikipedia criteria to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalluvr5999 (talk • contribs) 25 March 2008un[reply]
Delete There are 8210 Google hits for "Jason Eckert" but most of them appear to be about other people with the same name, including a digital artist in New Jersey and an instructor at Marquette University[1]. Most of the publications listed are courseware for use with a specific class at a specific school or otherwise not-notable. The article's lack of sourcing and categorization as well as a very weak assertion of notability make this a prime candidate for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They may be the best text books on the market but an article here is not warnted because it fails the requirements of WP:BIO due to the lack of secondary sources. - Ctempleton3 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game designer, no claims of notability, but my speedy tag was removed. Just a guy doing his job. Only 65 google hits, including facebook, linkedin, friendster, his own website, and other people with the same name. Corvus cornixtalk 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to American Idol (season 7) - Philippe 23:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) - She was only a semifinalist on American Idol (season 7) Aspects (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article which I originally nominated as a G11 speedy candidate - the sentence at the bottom pretty much states that the article was created to to promote the initiative. The project is not complete (and may not even be underway) and the build up/planning of the development doesn't seem to have recieved the significant coverage by reliable, independent sources required to establish notability. Once completed it is possible that the development may meet the inclusion criteria but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Guest9999 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge into Acalanes High School. Tikiwont (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The genre doesn't exist The-15th (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe 23:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pure Vanity. Ogranut (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress, related to notable people but not herself notable. Corvus cornixtalk 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure), with nearly unanimous keep/merge comments. The possibility of merging is left open to editors. Skomorokh 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to C (musical note) as per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep C. Sandstein (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a real musical term. Nrswanson (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term Low C is not a true musical term. I have a Bachelors degree in Music Education and a Masters in Vocal Pedagogy and I have never heard of this term. I have also looked in three different Music Dictionaries and the term is not mentioned at all.Nrswanson (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable (and incorrect title). It is one of hundreds of transistors. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence!article, incurable WP:ORG failure Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Pretty good discussion, with a narrow keep consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor league player in the lowest of the lowest minor leagues. Nothing in the article to claim notability, even being MVP of the minor minor league isn't that notable. Corvus cornixtalk 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to C (musical note). The consensus is not overwhelming, but the WP:V issues are not really addressed. The article is still sourceless. Sandstein (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a real musical term. It does not exsist in any music dictionary or other resource I can find. Nrswanson (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence is not an article, incurable failure of WP:ORG for local orgs. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The organization itself is somewhat marginal and probably fall short of the expectations of the relevant guideline. In any case, the article is written like an advertisement for the group's activities and in no way resembles an actual encyclopedic article. Pichpich (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kayak in a section at the end. There's not enough for a stand-alone article, but, as John says, this should be kept somewhere, per WP:NNC. Ty 07:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) per WP:SNOWBALL. The subject is obviously notable. Nominator does not seem have have a clear grasp on policy; all of his AFD's have been meet with a unanimous keep consensus. Possibly a bad faith nomination. -Icewedge (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly well referenced but incurable failure of WP:ORG for local organizations. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) per WP:SNOWBALL. The subject is obviously notable. Nominator does not seem have have a clear grasp on policy; all of his AFD's have been meet with a unanimous keep consensus. Possibly a bad faith nomination. -Icewedge (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly well referenced but incurable failure of WP:ORG for local organizations. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) per WP:SNOWBALL. The subject is obviously notable. Nominator does not seem have have a clear grasp on policy; all of his AFD's have been meet with a unanimous keep consensus. Possibly a bad faith nomination. -Icewedge (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nn unreferenced. Incurable failure of WP:ORG for local organizations. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unreferenced doesn't mean there are no references, as cab noted above. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although all settled communities are notable, they still need to be verifiable. I am unable to verify the existence of this village. Searches for the name turn up no results that support its existence. And a search for "Bakshi Mohammed Fazaal" is equally fruitless. The artcile fails to meet the policy of verifiability. Whpq (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a personal essay with no real context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was weakly kept.--Kubigula (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no assertion of notability in compliance with WP:MUSIC. αѕєηιηє t/c 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article des not meet the notability requirements of wikipedia. Nrswanson (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[18] Non-notable song - mostly aol video, blogspot, youtube, and various unofficial lyric sites. Fails WP:MUSIC for songs. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Future prediction of release non-notable song - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus; default to "keep" - Philippe 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable book. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected, editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable newspaper, no reliable sources cited. Prod was removed with a sarcastic comment by an IP. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Nrswanson (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (note that info on him already exists at Ryabko's Systema) - Nabla (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not apparently notable, based on what's in the article. CBHA (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of the game from which the character comes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[23] and [24] reveals no reliable sources that can confirm this upcoming film. As of right now, this is a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns here regard notability and verifiability. Presuming the accuracy of this information, this individual does not seem to meet notability guidelines for entertainers. The role does not seem that significant, as it (and its actor) don't even appear in the list of cast for the film at imdb (even though the bar of inclusion seems low, given that some of the appearances are "rumored"). There's no evidence of other significant work. The only link currently working in the article is to spotlight.com, which does not meet WP:V as It specifies that "The information in this CV has been provided by or on behalf of the client concerned.
Every effort has been made to make sure that the information contained in this page is correct and Spotlight can accept no responsibility for its accuracy." I could not substantiate this information through google in this search or this. This was a creator-challenged PROD. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
*Keep This article was just recently started, more time should be given to the creator to add references and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 25 March 2008[reply]
The result was Redirected. Pastordavid (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Originally a scheduled Champ Car event for this season, Champ Car has now merged with the Indy Racing League and the event was cancelled. Only a small Atlantics support race and a Rolex Sports Car Series event are scheduled to still take place, but neither of these series need or have race reports. The359 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Furthermore, this information would be much better presented as a table in the Conference National 1979-80 article. – PeeJay 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This game has not been announced by any members of the video game industry, it exists only because this user thinks that it will be released., unless a proper citation is found this page is under criteria for deletion.User:Kurowoofwoof111 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not meet the wikipedia notability requirements. Nrswanson (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak Keep The sources down at the bottom mention her as having performed Lucia with SFO, as well as performing Candide with the California Symphony (which looks professional enough to be notable...). The RS coverage the article provides is mediocre, but I feel like her notability could be better established if the article got some TLC. SingCal 00:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete I didn't realize how much leg work had already been done to satisfy WP:MUSIC. She's just not there, I guess. SingCal 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Two year olds? They have no specific or heavy press coverage and have a lone acting gig in their long careers. Lawrence § t/e 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus. —Travistalk 23:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PROD deleted - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V - nothing in this article that is not in album article. NrDg 17:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable soccer and lacrosse field of a university. Fails WP:N. Nothing to merge as main article already covers all relevant points. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is sadly not based on facts. The only cited sources are the movies; unfortunately, anyone's who's seen the movies knows that there are no dates provided for any of the following: Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, the flashback sequence in Alien vs. Predator or anything in Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem.
The only date that AVP:R provides is a character saying that it's not October. The timeline page, however, insists that it is.
On top of that, there is no evidence of where the Predators landed in the flashback in the first AVP. Obviously, they blew up the location shown and destroyed the temple. Yet somehow the page insists that it's Bouvet Island, where an intact temple is found; in truth, no location can actually be assumed.
That's really the bottom line. This is a page of assumptions and fan synthesis. It can't rightly be called "original research"; it's more accurately just fan fiction. And wikipedia is not a fan fiction page. It's impossible to cite any kind of dates for the events mentioned; with more than half the events listed therefore having no possible dates, there's no possible use for a timeline. --Bishop2 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...so if you have actually watched the Predator films and the Alien vs. Predator films then you should know the dates. As for the Alien films, you have to listen good to understand the time table. --Tj999 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: If you have noticed in the timeline I have marked Aliens as a reference to Alien and Aliens because there is no time told in the first Alien film. --Tj999 (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No_original_research
What on Earth is this? I've never heard of this use of the phrase Anglish before. The only times I have heard it is with respect to the Angles or very occasionally amongst Northumbrian/Geordie nationalist types. The main source is a geocities page, total OR.--Him and a dog 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a3 and WP:SNOW, no substantive content, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She was tried for the murder of her husband (unsurprisingly it was reported in the newspapers) and she was er.....acquitted. Why should we care? Docg 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Article remains without significant WP:V or WP:RS at the time of closing, 8 days after this AfD nomination began. Pigman☿ 03:34, 3 April 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)) . |
Fails WP:WEB. All but one of the "sources" fail WP:RS, with most being nothing more than personal blogs. No assertion of real notability per WP:WEB and WP:N. Note: previous AfD was speedy closed by a non-admin due to issues with the nominator, and as such the article is eligible to be nominated.
I am also nominating the following related page because it is a completely unnotable piece of freeware software for exclusive use on the MyAnimeList website. Fails WP:N and seems to be little more than an advertisement:
Collectonian (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions nothing about the number of sources. Kei-clone (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]
"Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.
Therefore you can't simply cite the fact that it has only one source as its only rationale for deletion. Kei-clone (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Multiple sources are generally preferred.
The software can also be used without a MyAnimeList account in offline mode, as it has a few specific functions for such purpose, such as tracking anime being watched in the user's computer, send the current playing information to mIRC and MSN, find and open next episode of current watching anime, find next episode in torrent websites; all of these features do NOT require an account in the mentioned website. Kotori (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC) — Kotori (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As for notability, MyAnimeList I feel passes. It's been "addressed in detail" by a reliable source. Saying that the source isn't reliable enough is putting a subjective spin on it.
Also, "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This statement from WP:N doesn't apply to the article in question, as it does have a reliable third-party source. CanadaAotS (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability. Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom's fine summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). WilliamH (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no WP:RS cited. Bstone (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, didn't assert notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Whether or not to merge can be decided elsewhere, without the need for AFD discussion. — CharlotteWebb 21:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability beyond being involved in the production of a number of games. -- Mark Chovain 04:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Notable only for being the biological father of Steve Jobs and Mona Simpson. Sources are so scarce that the article was first assumed to be a hoax. Those that do exist mention him only in connection with Jobs or Simpson. His academic career does not seem to have been notable, and according to the Fortune article, he is now a "food and beverage director" at a Reno casino. Jfire (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been deleted before under a different name, see notice here Schmloof (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a barely recurring joke from Penny Arcade and thus has not been covered by any secondary, reliable sources. The page is fairly deceptive in that there is a phony reference listed as well as unrelated external links. Wickethewok (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep due to his professional debut. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTYN as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Playing in a professional-level game is not the only way to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. A sports league can be professional or amateur. An individual participating in a sport can be professional or amateur. Football is not a "professional sport" - in fact, there are few sports that can be exclusively described as professional, and football isn't one of them. In North America, there is professional football - such as the MLS - and there is amateur football - such as the NCAA. As a result, a football player - or hockey player, or baseball player, or basketball player, or American football player - has two ways in which they could satisfy WP:ATHLETE.
Also, regarding the concern raised above that allowing this article to stand will set a precedent, assuming that we can satisfy that adequate secondary sources exist, the precedent has already been set. Within the last several weeks, articles on Sean Franklin, Patrick Nyarko, Pat Phelan, Chance Myers, and Julius James were all kept following Afd discussions, and that's kept, rather than closed as no consensus. These articles have several similarities, not least of which that all the players involved are 2008 MLS SuperDraft selections from the NCAA. They all survived Afd largely because members of the community were able to demonstrate sufficient secondary sources to satisfy the second point of WP:ATHLETE. Yes, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a dirty word around here, but sometimes it's a valid consideration.
Unfortunately, until we can get a general understanding that WP:FOOTYN, while an extremely valuable starting point and a valid framework for that project, is superceded by the broader guidelines of WP:BIO, this exercise will repeat itself every year. There will be a 2009 MLS SuperDraft, articles will get created about many of the top choices in that draft, all of whom will likely have sufficient secondary sources to establish notability despite the fact that they haven't played in a professional game, they'll all get tagged with a prod or an Afd, lather, rinse, repeat. Sigh … Mlaffs (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable private school. Only a handful of relevant Google hits. Only one source cited aside from Wikimapia and the school's own web site. Very promotional in tone, though it's better now than it was at first, but that doesn't fix the lack of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I missing something? When did high schools become notable just for being high schools? Is there a Wiki policy you can point me at so I can see for myself? Dreamspy (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NACwall article is primarily marketing for Network Clarity Inc, who hold the trademark on the term 'NACwall' and own the nacwall.net site. The term NACwall is not widely used in network security. A Google search as of March 24 for NACwall finds only 22 references, all of which are either Network Clarity marketing or unrelated. After the article was proposed for deletion on March 24th, Network Clarity revised the article to remove some of the marketing spin and moved the focus to "NAC firewall". Whether or not that is a valid article for Wikipedia is a separate discussion Bregence (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been tagged as non-notable since April 2007. A recent PROD was removed, but the notability tag still applies. Procedural nomination to resolve. —BradV 15:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
complex solution integrated throughout an enterprise monitoring and controlling all resources used in the manufacturing process from cradle to grave and touching other enterprise systems
— the word solution is used inappropriately, one can't escape the suspicion that this is stealth spam designed to promote a business or consultancy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many different articles for the Australian TV series Mcleods daughters, these articles include an article for each season, it is not un-common for a tv series such as Lost to have an article for each season but these articles go into depth about each season unlike these articles that are nominated for deletion. The reason these articles are listed for deletion is that most of the content listed in these articles can already be found in one form or another on the Mcleods daughters page, and anything from these articles that isn't included in the main article can be merged easily enough but i personally don't think there is. There is no need for these pages and it just makes the whole subject matter a mess as it currentlly is, im working on it, but it will take me a while. Printer222 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles that are nominated in this deletion request are
The result was speedy deleted as vandalism. DGG (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete hoax article. Admitted by the author of the article (who is a sockpuppet) here Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a propaganda site. Ultra! 15:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Despite the addition of some more sources since most opinions below, they are not WP:V or WP:RS. Pigman☿ 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
subject fails WP:CORP; uses only one source, and was started by a promotional name account. New user editing removed prod without discussion. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak claims of meeting WP:Notability. Person gets 5 non-wiki ghits, 4 of which are used as sources here. None of the 5 hits show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable English football team. Never played above Central Midlands League Premier Division (what is now Level 12, and the usual split for notability has been Level 10 in the past), and they're even lower now (they pulled out in 2006, and now ply their trade in the Midlands Regional Alliance Division One) fchd (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was selectively merged to Bill Clinton#Sexual misconduct allegations (i.e., one sentence about the women not yet mentioned there). Sandstein (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like a POV fork, created earlier this month. Clinton's sex scandals are covered in exhausting detail in several other places. Each of the women listed here has their own article which covers these issues in depth. If this is kept, all those should be merged and redirected here. I don't see a clear rationale for having yet another layer of coverage of the same issues, but I see real potential for maintenance and BLP nightmares. AllanBColson (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Lord knows, there are reams of coverage and commentary about Bill Clinton's amours. Still, Clinton is remembered for other things besides them, and as such having an extensive listing in his article in chief may well be giving undue weight to this aspect of his Place in History. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure), Closing AFD after speedy deletion (G11: Blatant advertising: nn) by User:Jimfbleak Whpq (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Very little found on the Web. Very little in accomplishments. Kingturtle (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted, no tp references. ukexpat (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost speedyable as unintelligible nonsense. Virtually no Ghits for this "project", and does not appear to be verifiable. Prod removed without comment by article creator. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Singing group that has released one single (and one radio "buzz" single—whatever that is). Their song spent only one week on the charts at #99 (out of 100). I'm usually pretty liberal in my interpretation of the "had a charted hit on any national music chart" criterion at WP:MUSIC, but one week at the bottom of the chart just isn't a hit. Google doesn't turn up any non-trivial coverage and the article's only references are the record label's website (which just bounces you to the group's own website) and their MySpace page. Their debut album has been pushed back multiple times—the way the industry works, the likelihood its release is dubious at best. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), WP:SNOWBALL closure on my own nomination. I disagree with having these sorts of articles, but if this is Wikipedia policy to keep, it should of course stay regardless of my opinion. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 08:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft and completely superfluous to having a category. Besides, there already are articles such as List of Turks by net worth, List of Turkish diplomats etc. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 13:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Merging, (if warranted), is a non-AfD decision better warranted to talkpages of articles/relevant Wikiprojects. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most probably a non-notable bridge in Ljubljana.[45] Eleassar my talk 13:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. --Eleassar my talk 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this saveable from Original Research? Has existed since 2006 and hasn't come to much. Camillus (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable YouTube host. While he seems to have gotten himself into hot water with a couple of various "bad taste" humour sites on the web, there are no reliable secondary sources that attest to his notability. Note that the article on his YouTube programme Irate Gamer was speedied CSD-A7 on March 19. Prod tag removed without comment by IP user. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable bridge over Ljubljanica in Ljubljana. Eleassar my talk 13:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable bridge over Ljubljanica. Eleassar my talk 13:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this make it worth an article? Under which criteria? --Eleassar my talk 12:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nicely improved.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not notable, doesn't seem to physically exist, the sole findable reference is the one cited in the page
The result was
Not notable person, only hit from google was for this wiki page. All others not this Peter Shaw. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - no WP:RS, no evidence of notability, per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This survived a VFD in 2004 (see talk) but I just can't see the notability. He seems to have gone to prison for his part in a riot, but beyond that? NB I removed the unreferenced prison allegations per WP:BLP (plus a lot of speculative psycho-analysis about his distrust of men) but if this is notable the prison stuff could be replaced if sourced properly. I'm also suspicious of the PD nature of the image. Docg 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unimportant bridge crossing Gradaščica in Ljubljana. Eleassar my talk 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and I think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unimportant bridge in Ljubljana. Eleassar my talk 12:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unimportant bridge over Ljubljanica. Eleassar my talk 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It would have been decent if somebody had told me about this. I stubbed a few of them believing some SLovene users could expand them but according to Eleassar it isn't notable so delete ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the bridge on the highway ring, right? Out of those nominated in the series, this would maybe be the most noteworthy but without proper references it's hard to say. The best solution would indeed be a list of bridges with photos. --Tone 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one with the pillars is Čevljarski most, the one up and down is Tromostovje and the one with the arch is the Dragon Bridge. The others are Prule, Moste, Šentjakob and Šempeter bridges. --Tone 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, this bridge is not located on the highway. I have provided a link where you can see it.[49] The article you have provided is a copyvio of what has already been found.[50] I am very much for the articles Čevljarski most, Tromostovje and Dragon Bridge etc. but some others are simply not worth to have an article. I think it is best to have a list of bridges with photos, as has been proposed. --Eleassar my talk 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crossing | Location | Built | Coordinates | Image |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ponte Romana Sertã | somewhere over the rainbow | 120 CE | ![]() |
- Denimadept (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unimportant bridge in Ljubljana. Eleassar my talk 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unimportant bridge in Ljubljana. Eleassar my talk 12:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:CSD#G7 (only one author contributed substantially to the article and that author has requested here that it be deleted). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Viev (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Thank you for your comments, Mr Epstein. You had nothing to offer useful. It's the author's right to request deletion of the article. For the benefit of anyone so interested, if RHaworth may interpret chronology in one way, who is Epstein to interpret it differently? Who is Epstein?
The edit summary to this edit is tanatmount to an admission that this is original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) as there were no !votes to delete; possible merge pending talkpage consensus. Skomorokh 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A largely self-sourced article on Lew Rockwell's website. Rockwell is notable, is his site independently notable? Doesn't look it to me. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability
The result was Delete as there is, on inspection, nothing to merge, and the merge target is not unambiguous. If there is a disambiguation page for Tindals, one could mention him there with links to the two elections, but perennial losers have to do better than this to achieve independent notability. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable candidate for Canadian Federal parliament. Fails Notable politician criteria. This person is already mentioned in Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election but additional text could be merged from this article into that one. Suttungr (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Inadequate reliable sources to make an article Mr.Z-man 23:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no claim to notability. Murderbike (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, with the fate of the content (merge, transwiki, cleanup, etc.) decided later. `'Míkka>t 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced original research. Dictdef. Mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 00:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article covers only usage of "Jesus H. Christ" when it could cover usage of "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" as a more profane term as well. Propose deletion or move to Jesus Christ (profanity) or similar. Suggestions encouraged. . — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 10:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a list relating to the features of a game/fictional scenario, and is incomplete to boot. Deb (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Mahopac, New York. Closed per WP:SNOW as clearly, the content of this 3 sentence article was duplicative of the far more expansive target. Probably could have been a CSD G6, but redirect preserves a plausible search term. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article on Mahopac, New York already exsists. Also the link for Mahopac Falls, New York in the Mahopac, New York article links to the Mahopac, New York article and I believe there used to be a seperate article for Mahopac Falls. I believe this article may be vandalism because the a link for this article was inserted where Mahopac, New York used to be, but I already fixed that.EMT1871 (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --jonny-mt 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no attempt to assert verifiability or notability. The lead paragraph states that the subject "was an unconfirmed release for the Sony Playstation 2". The game was never released. The rest of the article is a list of classic arcade games that would possibly have been included in the release. I feel that the article is listcruft, crystal-ballism, unverifiable and not notable. Gazimoff (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt make sense Hot200245 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --jonny-mt 08:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that refs can be provided, is this guy notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Not a single delete vote. (Note: For mergers please use ((merge)), and possibly Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, not AfD) - Nabla (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chiranjeevi page. This comes under WP:BIO1E. Notability only for one event. Furthermore, the subject cannot inherit importance of her celebrity parent. Mspraveen (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Google hits over 40000 exclusively about her.[55]and in Yahoo [56] She is a household name in Andhra Pradesh and known in India.feel enough notablity for a person clearly passes WP:BIO and WP:N for an individual.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chiranjeevi page . there is not enough information provided for it to stay as a independent page , if the page is rewritten with more about the person in particular then a separate article is indeed necessary . but right now seeing the contents its better to Merge with Chiranjeevi .--Pearll's sun (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment but if this article is rewritten and some more infos are added then im ready to change my vote .--Pearll's sun (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (no consensus) - Nabla (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable original research on a non-notable neologism. Original prod was disputed --Farix (Talk) 10:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, with suggestion to merge to Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. - Nabla (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a memorial. This person appears to be no more notable than children who are notable for being murdered. Grahame (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD about a footballer who plays for Hamburg's reserve team and never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. The PROD was contested under the claim he meets WP:FOOTYN#4, which is a bit weird since it is about "Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers", which is definitely not the case. Angelo (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was proposed for deletion with rationale: "Non-notable stunt actor." PROD was contested with request to list on AfD. Procedural nomination, I abstain. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DGG raises an excellent point below--as laymen, we are uniquely unqualified to evaluate the quality of a given professor's work. However, their relative importance and general notability in the field they work in can be evaluated, and based on the discussion below it is clear that the good professor is not noteworthy by our standards.
It should be noted, though, that a change in status or the coming to light of relevant sources could impart new relevance on the topic and that any creation of an article based on these factors would not be subject to speedy deletion. To that end, if anyone would like the text in order to userfy and work on the article a little more, I will be more than happy to provide it.
Finally, with regard to the renomination of the article, I agree that a month seems to be a sufficient amount of time to improve on the article. --jonny-mt 08:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is little more than a padded resume. The article has been tagged since December as having notability problems, and the first AfD resulted in No Consensus. There's been no subsequent improvement of the article. Let's get rid of this thing now. An editor with a similar name did some work on it, so it may be autobiography, and the sources leave much to be desired. Qworty (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Unless a person has at least some vague knowledge of the field it is certainly not possible to evaluate whether this guy has achieved anything based on some pseudo-scientific numerological method of evaluation, and/or award counting. The citation evaluation methodologies you are quoting and using aren't even the best. And the best are nowhere as valuable as the evaluations of the top scholars in the particular discipline and sub-discipline. Numbers, do, of course, look impressive. They do impress the ignoratti. --203.214.15.223 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per lack of notability. --jonny-mt 08:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very sloppily written self-promotional article. User who created it has the same name as the article. No notability whatsoever established. Qworty (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article has been rewritten. Kai A. Simon (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (criterion A7: unremarkable person). Waggers (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable sports person and public speaker. A google search turns up no reliable sources Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
&Delete - A search with "australia sport" added returns NO hits whatsoever. Camillus (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'll be more than happy to provide the deleted content for another article or project in the future. --jonny-mt 08:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable convention held sporadically by a non-notable club with exactly one chapter at one college. Qworty (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --jonny-mt 09:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly non-notable hip hop group. There's little to say about them in this nomination, and there's even less to say about them in the article. Qworty (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete, which defaults of course to Keep. The article needs some serious TLC, so I'm marking it for post-AfD cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected the speedy A7 on grounds of the mentioned award. Procedural nom, I haven't done any research on it yet Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of the Norweigan hits look like reviews and semi-professional based on format. Can't read the language. Can't verify the award in English ghits. Anyone know a Norwegian reading editor? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cup competition for a select number of university teams. Only possible claim to significance is the age of the cup itself, though there are no references or sources to back this up (attempts to get an editor to provide sources merely elicited facetious comments and abuse). Was originally prodded, but was removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Waggers (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mixtapes generally fail notability per WP:BAND, and this one doesn't appear to be any exception. faithless (speak) 09:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom. The article was speedily deleted twice in two days by two different admins per A7 under the name Earthoid. The creator then gave it a slight name change seemingly to avoid detection. I have no real opinion, but since several editors felt that the article was inappropriate already, I figure it should at least be brought to discussion to see if that is the consensus. It does seem slightly spammy. No real assertion of notability. faithless (speak) 08:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was move to a serious subject. `'Míkka>t 00:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To these eyeballs, this looks like a definition, and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 00:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (WP:CSD#A7). WODUP 08:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the few diffs that I analyzed none of them seem to establish this person's notability, the two given sources seem to be of questionable reliability, also given the sourcing problems BLP issues seem to frequent this article. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mass account deletions by the player community, Successfully destroyed Ultima Online (former largest MMORPG), Currently is in the process of ruining WOW and if you disagree check out the deleted accounts since 2.4 patch.( possibly most unwanted patch ever). This guy is HATED by millions of gamers and they still hire the guy.. I guess they.. eh .. I don't know why. Keep him though in history no one in this industry is more loathed and hated. . . and wiki should reflect that more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.109.27 (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already deleted by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA); G11. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, both due to consensus below and because the debate has sat for a month or so without resolution. (!) UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article being used to promote author's book (and his promotional article about it...). Subject fails WP:NOTE and all references to him seem to be FROM him. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems non-notable. I see no assertion that makes them notable per WP:MUSIC, does anyone else? αѕєηιηє t/c 06:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable stub — TAnthonyTalk 05:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod, prod was concerned about the notability of the subject. Myself, I'm pushing for "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". And there's lots more reasons too. Join the fun, find your very own reason for deleting this "article". UsaSatsui (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual does not me WP:BIO criteria Ursasapien (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Super Very Strong Delete with purple clusters, gold bars and silver bells but if not delete then merge – There are criteria for inclusion. The DD entry doesn’t meet the criteria. But clearly, DD has some fans. I suggest they copy the entry and start a fan club. The fans seem quite fanatical. I do not deny that he has fans and friends, and a flare for self promotion. However, claims for inclusion are exaggerated and show that fans and friends either have not read the guidelines or feel strongly that an exception should be made for DD. As for the awfully dramatic claim of 10,000+ Google hits… So what, even if they are all his (and they are not). John Smith gets about 4.7 million hits (and a statue). The fan club’s Denis Dutton is not the only Denis Dutton. The Google hits are not references to him alone. For example, there is a Denis Dutton at here who was nominated for two Primetime Emmys. Clearly more notable but without a Wikipedia bio, and I would say, also not notable enough. Another Denis Dutton is at here. There is also a disturbing element of parochialism in the special pleading for retaining the DD entry. NZ is a small country, 4 million people. International standards should still be used. There are lots of notable academic NZ residents and NZ born who are not in Wikipedia. And those that do have relatively tiny entries. Take Peter Phillips, one of the world’s best econometricians, for example (see [74]). Instead of wasting time with all these Facebook entries, and DD is not, by far, the worst I have seen, why not spend the effort on adding people who are notable? On the parochial topic, the NZ system of academic titles is the same as is used throughout the Commonwealth. NZ Professors are the same as Australian Professors and British Professors and those in HK and South Africa and so on. They are equivalent to Full Professors in the American system. They have chairs. They are not Super Professors. And associate professors, readers and more senior lecturers are about equivalent to the American Associate Professor. Lecturers and some less senior, senior lecturers are about equivalent to American Assistant Professors. In the last twenty years the status of academics in NZ and Australia has declined as various, previously non-academic, institutions have been turned into Universities and their staff given various academic titles. The new competition has necessitated ‘old’ Universities promoting more staff into higher titled positions. The Salon article is over the top and is not exactly written by an independent party and does not make DD notable. As for the claims about DD’s contributions to evolutionary psychology, lets hear an expert say that he has made a significant contribution. If he has, where are the refereed academic articles, in good journals, to support the assertion. I have never met DD. I imagine I would like him. I imagine I would be happy to have a beer with him at the Bush Inn. Now, have I been there or did I just find it on the web? He seems like a entertaining rogue. But notable? Not. Let’s maintain some standards folks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Note, this is 203.214.15.223'd 300th delete !vote in this AfD. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is all very amusing. I came across the DD page having seen many other pages of people who are not notable including some people I do know. DD I don't know. But a little investigation shows that he is not notable either. I tried to clean up his page, consistent with Wikipedia standards, admittedly I did add a bit of humour because a page on a non notable person invites humour and then I am accused of being a fan of Prof Butler's, someone else that I have no knowledge of. For someone who cleaned up the DD page to remove slander, you seem remarkably free to slander yourself. There is no personal animus. And if it was palpable your comment would not be required. Have you heard of argument ad hominem? Whether someone is anonymous or not it is their arguments that should be evaluated, not their alleged motivations. I am sure you can find this principle explained elsewhere in Wikipedia. As I said this, DD's entry, is not the worst example I have seen in Wikipedia of a non notable person entry. Some of these entries are written by the people themselves. I have seen pages clearly written by the person who uses their name to write them. These entries are a joke. Overall Wikipedia is a great concept and a great resource but surely it is not and should not become Facebook! The people who contribute are, overall, doing a great job. However, many of you do take yourselves far too seriously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk • contribs) Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluating the notability claims Everyone is notable to some extent, in the same way that everyone is special. The important question to be determined in this discussion is, is DD notable within the commonly accepted meaning and within the Wikipedia criteria for a biographical entry? I suggest that he is not, so let’s examine the claims for the areas in which it is suggested he is notable.
First, is DD notable as an academic? No.
He has a rather pedestrian academic publishing record for an associate professor and is not recognised as having contributed any notable ideas in any area. This can be ascertained simply by looking at his own list of his most important publications. If this is disputed where is the leading scholar who says differently? The journal he founded and edited is not notable amongst academic journals. Indeed, it is more a magazine than a serious academic journal. If this is disputed where is the leading scholar who says differently?
Second, is DD is a notable web entrepreneur? No.
Admittedly Arts and Letters has a following but so do various community newspapers, specialist publications, webpages and blogs. Arts and Letters aggregates and provides links expected to be of interest to the webpage’s readership. In this respect, it is much like any of a very large number of local newspapers which consist largely of material created not for the newspaper but by others, elsewhere, and initially, for others. Also, not exactly unique as a webpage. Meritorious yes, but notable no.
Cybereditions is not a new or original idea, has not been a roaring success, does not have an impressive list of titles, and has been done better and more successfully by many others - Amazon.com, for example.
Climatedebatedaily is but one of a myriad of other such offerings and only started recently, at a time when that debate, in the mainstream at least, is well and truly over. In comparison, AnswersinGenesis [85] covers another area where rational debate has concluded but is more notable because a large polity in the USA seems wedded to the irrational side. It is also a leading site amongst Creationism exponents.
DenisDutton.com is not at all notable, there are an obscene number of such offerings, and blogs, on the web.
Third, is DD notable as a notable libertarian media commentator/activist? No.
There are plenty of notable libertarian media commentators/activist that are, and were, notable for other things before they became commentators. Gary Becker and Richard Posner, for example, to name just two. As for media commentator/activist, or commentator/activist, starting a few organisations of little if any note, there are so many people, even in NZ, who have done this that this is just not notable. Being on the board of RNZ is no big deal. Writing a report criticising alleged failings of a public broadcaster is also not notable. Allegations of bias and of failings made against a public broadcaster (and against private media) are so common in any country that they are certainly not, of themselves, notable.
Fourth, is DD notable for controversy or some controversy? Not really.
This is an area in which DD appears to have worked particularly hard in to try to become notable. The ‘bad writing’ contest which seems to be what DD is most well known for, did, apparently, ‘briefly become a cause célèbre in the world of academic theorists’, although still not sufficiently to make him notable.
On the topic of ‘bad writing’, criticism and controversy, now I am not going to claim that the following analysis is not a cheap shot but it does show that the game of simply critiquing is one anyone can play, and is rather easy. Take for example this sentence from the first paper in the online sample (Philosophy and Literature 29.1 (2005) 1-23) of the journal DD edits:
First, the sentence is long, just as the Butler sentence is long. But more importantly, isn't it possible to make a similar point to the one 'George Meyer' makes in an episode of the Simpsons: "Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?" Don't "larger, more comprehensive vision", "genuine and valid interdisciplinarity", "connected, coherent, cumulative, and relentlessly self-critical body of knowledge", "dilettantish smorgasbord", "genuine historical vision", and "immediate and long-term causal factors", although grand sounding, involve rather vacuous descriptors? Do they tell the reader something or are they so vague that they are open to claim that they are just meaningless phrases that dumb people use to sound important? Isn't the sentence really equivalent to "I don't like Lacanian psychology and associated critical theory?" And if it is, so what? Does this qualify as academic scholarship? I think not.
Rather than publishing this paper in an obscure, non notable, journal, shouldn't the editor (DD) have nominated it for a 'bad writing' award?
Butler, in her NYT response to her award, accuses DD of using the 'bad writing' award to take pot shots at those whose political philosophies he takes exception to. The evidence suggests that she is right.
Now it so happens that I am far more likely to hold views more in common with DD than Butler (for example, I am not a great believer in relativism, and when I was a student I was frequently accused of being ‘to the right of Attila the Hun’, whatever that means, and I used to enjoy ridiculing the vacuous arguments of those with a 'left' orientation, a bit childish I admit, given they are such easy meat) but academic scholarship is supposed to involve more than "I don't like x". It is supposed to involve original contributions, original ideas, supported by tight arguments and evidence - more than simply the recycling of derivative ideas, and empty invective against ideas or people you don't like. Now just because my political persuasion is somewhat different, I think it only fair to give Butler her due, clearly she is one clever woman and although I do not have the requisite knowledge to understand the technical material she writes, I would be very surprised if it does not count as scholarship. If it does present serious ideas that one disagrees with, one should engage and critique them with serious analysis. If it is all nonsense one should demonstrate it. Simply saying it is all nonsense is rather lazy and is not good enough for academic scholarship.
Within critical theory schools, which I really know nothing about, I imagine that there is a deal of pretension. I think the efforts of Alan Sokal well and truly demonstrate that. (In fact I intend to get around to purchasing and reading his book, which I expect to enjoy.) But, to be fair again, there is considerable pretension throughout the 'Arts' and beyond. I am not blind to considerable pretension amongst those who have views similar to mine, and even occasionally I manage to see my own pretension. Being able to see flaws and pretension in your own arguments and in the arguments of those whose conclusions you agree with is an important part of critical thinking.
To summarise, DD is not a notable academic, not a notable web entrepreneur and not a notable libertarian media commentator/activist. He is not notable as a jack of several trades. Plenty of others, Herbert Simon for example, are notable in several different areas, so there is no need to make someone who is not notable in any area, notable, simply because they do more than one thing. In short, DD is just not notable.
And just because you like someone, or like their views, or think they are a jolly good fellow, does not, in itself, make them notable.
--203.214.15.223 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply "To judge by what we personally think of the work would show ignorance of encyclopaedic [proportions]. We are laymen, and we accept the demonstrated judgment of the experts in the field (just as we accept the judgment of reviewers for books, of critics for actors). and What anyone here may think of his political or philosophical or literary views is irrelevant."
My points exactly, and what I have been consistently arguing throughout. Where we differ is on who we think are experts. Journalists are not experts simply by virtue of being journalists. They may be experts for other reasons. Newspapers, magazine, and various other media are by no means authorities. Although their believability does vary, even the best contain fanciful nonsense and are regularly deceived by those who have an agenda. Plenty of people earn a very good living principally for the services they provide in deceiving the media. I must admit that when I was young and more callow than I still am now, I used to think "if it is in the newspaper it must be true".
As for the often pseudo-scientific methods used to evaluate citations... They are, indeed, laughable. Eight or nine years ago a friend and I decided to have a look at which economics journals the Social Sciences Citation Index ranked as being the best. We were most amused to find that the clear and easy winner, based on their formula, was The Economist magazine! Now although The Economist is a good read, it too frequently contains nonsense and, more importantly, it is not even a journal. Any citation in The Economist should be given a relative weight close to zero. Following this discovery, we took the data on citations from articles in one journal to another (including those involving The Economist) and we used what appears to be the best method for numerical evaluation of citations to estimate weights of journals based on the implicit hierarchy in the data. In the journal ranking based on this, The Economist had dropped from sight. The ranking of journals at the top made sense and were relatively consistent with the ranking evaluations of experts. Unfortunately, even this apparently best numerical method is not foolproof. We tried it on some other disciplines and found that there were cases where the ranking results were complete nonsense.
On a similar point, in the past, when I have had to do a literature search, I tried, a couple of times, to use our librarian (I always prefer someone else to do the work where possible). The results were several inches thick of printouts, almost completely dross and the few nuggets found not worth the effort. As a consequence, if I do need to do something like that now I always do it myself. When people who don't know what they are doing try to evaluate things where they don't have the requisite skill, or knowledge, or capacity, the result is always amusing. Once I had the pleasure of watching someone who is colour blind sorting bottles into green ones and brown ones. Unfortunately, the bottles he was attempting to sort had already been sorted. They were all brown. He had seen other people doing similar sorting, and, although he is colour blind, he thought he had worked out how to do it. Most amusing!
As for who I try to convert, I don't try to convert anyone. I don't try to convince my opponents and don't try to convince the audience. Whether they are convinced or not is not entirely in my hands and if convincing them was my objective I would use sophistry, not rational argument, as sophistry is more effective. That said, I do hope to convince any independent, intelligent, disinterested person. Debate can be fun, as long as you don't take it, or yourself, too seriously. --203.214.3.114 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and merged into the Portage, Indiana article. The consensus is that the article was not notable and not deserving its own entry. The parent article has a subsection on Parks, and so the information has been moved there. Keegantalk 06:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not a notable location Metanoid (talk, email) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, author request. Canley (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable third party sources. WP:BALL: I'm living in Vietnam, but there's no information about this building , PetroVietnam Twin Tower is described only on Wikipedia (Vietnamese version and English version) and a Internet forum. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Magnifier (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bar band. The article was previously speedied [92], then it was immediately recreated, so it should be deleted and salted. No third-party verifiability presented at all. Qworty (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, based on consensus that the subject and album fail to qualify notability guidelines. Keegantalk 06:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completing unfinished nom for Beeblbrox (talk · contribs), apparently Twinkle choked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"". They are a notable UK band, relevant to US labels that have worked with them. Also, sources such as Last FM or similar are not always reliable in the punk genre. - JoeThird —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeThird (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted. Grandmasterka 03:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article shows no evidence that the subject is notable due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. I don't think that such sources exist for this topic. Guest9999 (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game with no references played by one group of friends. Somno (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable autobiography. This rapper does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. I was unable to locate any reliable sources that discuss the subject, and none are present. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, no evidence of notability. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SNOW-delete.. WODUP 06:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely non-notable, COI vanity piece twice put up for speedy, uploader (subject/author of article) removed the tags. Okay, we'll do this the long way Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, redirect to Memorandum. Singularity 00:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable music group. No independent sources provided. Does not meet WP:BAND Mattinbgn\talk 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as full of lies. DS (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax. The 'references' provided do not mention any 'Ussuri republic' or 'Battle of the Ussuri River'; Google does not return any results for either apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Reading the article for Mikhail Frunze, it seems quite unlikely he was in the Russian Far East in 1920, since he was involved in battles elsewhere at that time. This calls the accuracy of the whole article into question. (It was created in its entirety on January 18 by User:Ussri Bobby.) If the information in it cannot be verified, it should be considered a hoax and deleted. Terraxos (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 00:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable book. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep consensus is that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable mayor ButtonMyShirtImGay (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close Closure made by nominator, who forgot to place closure rationale at the top so I'm doing it for them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually no content, no sources, and only assertion of notability is the claim that it is important. Very few edits in three years. Redirect to feminist history. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously You are, of course, right. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotability and nonverifiablity bordering on hoax. Created by a new account user:Yung Smile which look like an old nuisance to me, who creates various fictional and noonotable rap artists for quite some time. `'Míkka>t 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - Philippe | Talk 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to tag this article for speedy deletion but I decided to play it safe and list it here. The band seems to fail the WP:MUSIC criteria, making them non-notable. They're not assigned to a major record label and they don't even have their own website, only a MySpace page. On the other side Contribs|@ 01:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about an actor, but no page on IMDB; unverifiable in reliable sources and fails WP:BIO. --Snigbrook (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that WP:WEB is not met.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Website which fails any fair test of notability, be it WP:WEB or WP:N. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreement - Website is well-documented for notability, as witnessed by multiple references included on page Wkreth (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, fails the relevant notability guideline due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable company Gray5512 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website Gray5512 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Nom is a brand new editor, likely vandal or sock. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable website, service. Gray5512 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. With few exceptions, the "keep" arguments are weak, as noted by WLU at the end, and do not address the notability guideline issues that have been highlighted by several editors. Sandstein (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. The research indicated is only an article from a PhD CANDIDATE and was not published in any journal. As for the AOL mention, if AOL was to have a page detailing the top 20 fan sites for every TV show out there, 99% of them would be rejected outright as NN. It should be considered a link directory, which means it cannot be used to satisfy #1 Nick Catalano contrib talk 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 18:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced sub-stub article on a non-notable local district councillor; fails WP:BIO. It has been tagged as a stub for two years, but unchanged for 18 months. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge article to concurrency (road) (seems to have been done already), Delete the list. Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. Tagged Unencylopedic for a six weeks with no changes to the article. Pure Trivia and worse a neologism. A google for "wrong-way concurrency" site:gov shows ZERO hits. KelleyCook (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 00:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:BIO. Does not assert importance or significance. Taroaldo (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure), deleted as (G11: Blatant advertising) by User:Orangemike. Whpq (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns about notability - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]