The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Relatively) procedural nom per discussion on the talk page. Nothing significant or notable for this subject to deserve its own article. Already mentioned in The Illuminatus! Trilogy. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unsigned local band whose only output has been one self-released EP. I feel like a tourist (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was the result was delete as original research.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A morass of original research and synthesis from reliable and verifiable sources but suffering methodological problems, principally that of comparability across time and country. Worthy though it may be in itself, the way it's been constructed makes it improper to be a Wikipedia article, and its talk page already raises these concerns. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7--JForget 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Pole vaulter, cross country runner, lover, and a god among men." Nominated for speedy deletion per CSD A7 by Gtstricky, but creator objects. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 --JForget 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't a hoax, it's a wholly non-notable band per WP:BAND, no releases, some links to various MySpace pages. Descends into WP:BOLLOCKS. Delete it! Camillus 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable publishing company, no independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. A more detailed explanation follows.
Though AfD's are not a "vote," the numbers on the various sides of the debate are worth noting. I make out 19 keep !votes (a few of which are weak) and 13 folks in the delete camp (with a couple of those open to simply limiting the nature of the included content)—in other words, a fairly even split with a preference for keeping (some editors did not really provide a valid rationale for their view, but most did).
Predictably, the arguments in this AfD are much like those in other recent AfD's which involve BLP issues. Notability is not at issue here, and basically all keep voters are arguing that, because the topic is a notable one which we can describe with reliable sources, it should be kept. A number of the keep commenters make reference to the BLP concerns but feel the article is well-sourced enough to evade that problem. Most of the delete voters are not concerned with the issue of notability or verifiability, rather they are basing their arguments on our policy with respect to biographies of living persons (some with particular reference to the phrase "do no harm").
The debate here is a small part of a much larger debate (here, for example). That larger debate does not have a consensus as yet, and unsurprisingly neither does this one. There is clearly a sense among a large percentage of the community that these kind of articles are deeply problematic for BLP reasons and we need a different approach, however the specifics of that new approach have unfortunately not been worked out as yet. Until such time as a new way to deal with BLP articles like this one is implemented, and given the strong keep sentiment below rooted in valid policy concerns, in my view there is no choice but to close this as no consensus.
I would point out that, if our BLP policies are revised at some point, it would be more than appropriate to revisit this article at a future AfD if editors were so inclined.
While there is no consensus for deletion, the debate below was constructive and did produce some good suggestions and apparent points of agreement. It might be useful for folks who participated in the AfD to discuss some of the following issues since there will be some energy to do that (controversial AfD's often lead to article improvement), and working on this along the lines suggested below might alleviate at least some of the concerns of those in favor of deletion:
Right now is as good (or even better) of a time to work on this article as any, and a few days of discussion and changes might turn this into something far less problematic. And to re-iterate, changes in our approach to BLP-related articles could easily alter the outcome in future AfD's for this article, so partisans of Celebrity sex tape should be motivated to make it far more up to par than it is now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a massive coatrack which doesn't explain what a sex tape is but rather a list of celebrities that have been in one. Per [1] (repeated in WP:BLP, so don't bother pulling out Argumentum ad Jimboium), this article is the antithesis of the entire BLP policy - it's tabloiding of the highest degree, given how much some of these celebrities have litigated to get the tapes destroyed - and efforts to reduce it to an acceptable form have been ignored. I really want it to be an article, but my hand has been forced. Sceptre (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't scroll down far enough. Anyway, which part of this, exactly, violates WP:BLP or is unfairly defamatory to Streisand? You've gone a good job editing the article in the past, keeping out entries that were, in fact, unsourced and libelous, so I'm a little sad that you're arguing for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]Take that porno film I'm supposed to be in. When I first heard the rumor, I thought it was a put-on. But these people you never can seem to find were selling a film and claiming it was me.
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability seems doubtable; article tagged so since June 2007. Some users commented on the talk page that the topic is notable, but independent sources are still missing. In particular it's unclear why this warrants a separate article from Yoshukai karate. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted. Single sentence article about a certification offered by a non-notable business. No context and minimal content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable certification program from a n-n company (AfDed in November 2006) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V and WP:SOAP. Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 13:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Commission for Taxi Regulation, as I don't see anything to merge - Nabla (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently this position is not a sufficiently notable one that its occupant is a public figure (i.e., notable) at least sufficiently so that we don't know when or where she was born, nor does WP have an article on this particular office or the organization it heads. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 13:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 21:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete G7 by Ilmari Karonen, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like a how-to guide, and that is what WP is not. Looks unsalvageable as an article. ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its not only a how-to guide, but almost like an advertisement. Speedy delete would've have been easier, but this is alright too, just more work for Ukexpat. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band that I speedied under WP:CSD#A7 earlier. Recreated so best to discuss. Fails WP:MUSIC with just assertions of a future album. Pedro : Chat 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree. Fails WP:MUSIC, and is a MOS breach. Not very notable, I don't see any reason to keep this article. Maybe after the album is released and if it becomes popular, the creator might want to re-create. With, of course, references. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Lara❤Love 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British ska punk band. Tagged for speedy deletion a lacking an assertion of notability (CSD A7) by UnitedStatesian, but their discography seems extensive enough to me to constitute a sign of notability per se. Listing on AfD to obtain additional opinions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 13:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing improperly made AfD. Text at top of aarticle "Please remove this article because does not exist any structure deck with these cards." indicates likely hoaxness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requires significant coverage of the individual. The coverage of Malia, as has been brought up in the discussion, has been trivial. Also, as per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited, notability is not inherited, and as any coverage of Malia is currently only as a result of the coverage of her father, there is no assertion of notability. Should significant coverage of Malia be found in the future, there is no prejudice against recreating a suitable article. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the result of a challenged prod.[11][12] Malia Obama is the 9-year-old daughter of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama and as such has been mentioned trivially in reliable sources and the mentions have always been made in connection with her very notable father. Since mentions of her in these reliable sources has been trivial WP:BIO's basic criteria for notability and the primary argument seems to be that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and that she is notable because her father is notable. Neither of which, of course, are valid reasons to use to keep or delete an article. Bobblehead (rants) 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). WP:PROBLEMS are not grounds for deletion; editors are reminded to pursue alternatives before nominating an article for deletion. Skomorokh 15:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list has no definition on what it's supposed to list - while it claims to list precomposed Latin characters in Unicode, it actually contains many letters which are not precomposed at all (such as Ƃ) and even has an entire section on ligatures. Also, since it just uses the Unicode names, letters which are visually unrelated are grouped together (such as ħ and ł). Because of the lack of definition, I suggest that this list be deleted. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 10:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable scientific theory. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article, with all the charm and sublimeness of an EU white paper annex, violates WP:NOTDICDEF. It is little more, and could never be more, than a list of two- to four-letter initialism and their expansion into delightful educrat-speak. Pop Secret (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been tagged for a lack of references since September. Google turns up little that would even remotely qualify as non-trivial or independent, mostly Myspace, a couple of press releases, a geocities page and not a whole lot else. The band apparently did have a European concert tour, (judging by this), but it looks like the tour wouldn't satisfy WP:MUSIC I couldn't find any actual coverage of the tour (only this list of dates) and the fact that most of the venues were bars makes the whole article look dubious. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article on unimportant software. EL to company does not even work. Adoniscik(t, c) 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Independent sourcing noted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable software - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do not wish to see Wikipedia's very high signal-to-noise ratio reduced by unnecessary clutter, this is an informative article; the only one of the WP:DEL guidelines that seems remotely applicable is WP:N. I request that this article be kept until there is greater clarity on Wikipedia WP:N guidelines relating to software, and specifically to FOSS.
I've proposed that specific notability criteria should be applied to deletions of software articles on notability grounds and request that deletion / flagging as AfD of such articles be suspended until a consensus on an acceptable process is reached. ThomasNichols (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Linux Journal has much praise for the software. [20] I suggest that this qualifies as notable enough for a WP article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aylad (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:N, we should consider for deletion articles "whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" (emphasis added). Thus, notability may be shown by the content of the article, but equally to those familiar with the field the notability of the subject may be plain. By analogy, a very badly written and incomplete article on Thomas Jefferson would, I suggest, be unlikely to be flagged for deletion, since the notability of the subject is self-evident to those with any training in American history. Without such training (or in this case, without familiarity with FOSS development dynamics and the history of Linux music notation software) it could be considered to be just a personal family history page of the Jefferson family and appropriate for deletion.
Specifically addressing comments by B.Wind:
This cannot, I believe, be copyvio since a) there is no copyright in the HTML source of the NoteEdit homepage, and b) the software itself is issued under GPL. Furthermore, the article includes:
Although NoteEdit is still maintained, some of the current developers have started a new project, Canorus, to replace it, since the NoteEdit source code has certain limitations that make it difficult to maintain and improve. The original author Jörg Anders has also started a new WYSIWYG GTK+ musical score editor for Linux called NtEd.
This is exactly the sort of cross-project information for which Wikipedia articles are so valuable to the FOSS community. This is not just a copy of the home page.
"unrelated future plans" : much of the FOSS community is very alert to such plans. The original NoteEdit developer reportedly ceased development at least in part because of an unsubstantiated suggestion that the commercial Sibelius program, a competitor, was to release a Linux version. Although this subsequently proved inaccurate, it indicates that notes about future plans have direct relevance in such an article.
B.Wind: do you feel that there is an argument for removing articles which are of interest predominantly to FOSS developers? If so, I'd suggest that this should definitely be discussed on the WP:N talk page
Further discussion of 'cited independent sources' WP:RS and WP:V I will defer to the WP:N talk page, since I think it a more general issue, not solely relevant to this article.
WP:ILIKEIT is a valid justification neither for keeping any article, whether about FOSS or anything else, nor for favouring its deletion.
I am declining to make edits to this specific article to improve its WP:N ranking since as it stands it is notable from a FOSS-developer's perspective; I hope to encourage debate as to whether this measure of notability can be better aligned with WP:N.
ThomasNichols (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Sources Added. Since many people voting for deletion primarily cite the article's lack of sources, I added some. The article has issues, yes, but WP:DELETE clearly states that "if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." This is my suggestion. Failing that, I would like to add or merge with GNU LilyPond to my vote above. With respect to ThomasNichols, declining to improve an article on the grounds that it has inherent notability to a subset of Wikipedians isn't likely to help it, sorry. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Requested comment. While the Linux Journal source is good, my view would change if there was more than one reliable source (IT World doesn't seem to even be referenced elsewhere Wikipedia). If this article gets deleted and then more good sources are found, I am not oppsed to recreation. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Suggesting PROD next time for similar cases. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game/sport, presumably made up at school one day. Booglamay (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Paul Haig. The consensus was that this lacked sufficient notability for its own page. TerriersFan (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability for the artist, and thus the album also. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 12:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by TORCHOMATIC: I do not agree with you assertion that the Dub Organiser page sould be deleted. The article is suitable AND relevant as it is an important release in the career of Paul Haig. Deletion of this article would make his Wiki articles incomplete, which I believe is not what Wiki would like to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchomatic (talk • contribs) 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I cannot understand why this Dub Organiser page has been singled out. There are many music pages on Wiki which have less content and less relevance than this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.213.235 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close as article is already tagged by author for speedy. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 19:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
created by error Eli+ 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. per nomination.Renee (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Known" for being a middle school teacher (which he may well be) and a filmmaker, except the first three don't exist and the last shows no connection with his name. It's a TV show. joHn is a notable basketball player and/or musician, Jon appears to exist solely on wiki. Don't want to call it an out an out hoax since the man may exist, but no imdb listing makes me think, home videos rather than films. Oh and it's an autobio TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:OR. GlassCobra 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me to be a pointless contribution lacking any real value to Wikipedia. Could be wrong, however, so i've placed this for an AfD instead of PROD. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 19:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources. Renee (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. As the author of the article, I highly recommend deleting all those stubs that 'seem to be a pointless contribution' from a British point of view. Who cares if this type of information can't be found in other places and that makes these articles useful to many precisely because of that? Getting rid of this unsourced foreign stuff is clearly a healthy policy. I myself would have deleted my article before should I had known it was so pointless and intelectually annoying. Now I'd love to warn wikicops about two thousand unsourced stubs I've seen this month in order to keep Wikipedia clean and decent but I just don't have the time. Regards. --Estrolicador (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable family, apart from one or two of historical figures. MightyWarrior (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The consensus is clear but I must say I'm surprised at the result. The article has only one source (both current ext. links in the article are to the same story) which seems barely removed from a press release. Much of the content of that source is not actually about the organization but about different events and background on Taoism generally. All quotes are from affiliated members and founders of the association. If this was a USA association, I would categorize my perception of the source content as soft PR fluff. But that's just me and I'm just the AfD closer. Pigman☿ 04:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a recently founded association on China. We should wait until it does something notable. Damiens.rf 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Point taken. My view on keeping it: Because the Communist Chinese rarely, if ever, go out of their way to allow the creation of religious organizations. As for "independent" sources -- hey, we're talking China!Ecoleetage (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources provided, unable to find any. No evidence of notability. Oo7565 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to Daemen College. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated crystal ball article. As near as I can tell, this never happened as advertised, and the Gersh Academy has a relationship with a college, but does not have it's own college. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Very borderline, but looks like an expandable stub where most of the sources will be print. I will have a look at this one myself if no-one else does. Black Kite 07:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a clear case of a non-article ... it simply does nothing Oo7565 (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 13:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unref'd 1-line article about a nn book by nn author, article written by likely WP:COI editor Username shares same surname as the book's author. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 13:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research Dalgspleh (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Most of the keep arguments are based on the notability of Edgar_Sulite. The AfD on that article closed with no consensus, so I am bringing that result here, too. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughly non-notable; fails Google News test with only two minor mentions. Lots of stuff online, but nothing that appears to be neutral. Do we need a page for every single last obscure martial art? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, but what a mess. Obviously, we cannot have one article about two individuals that are completely unrelated outside of sharing a similar name. Needs to be split. As for notability, it seems from this discussion that the doctor is notable and the engineer is marginal at best. Strongly recommend an Afd or prod for the engineer article once split. If both end up kept, recommend either a dab page, or at the very least hatnotes. Nothing getting deleted ATM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable — Wackymacs (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to IB Middle Years Programme. GlassCobra 04:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an essay basically explaining that a personal project is required to get this degree - no context, references, or anything to focus what we're talking about here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
insufficient or questionable notability - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are better sources for notability, I'll withdrawl, but the prod was removed without discussion. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk
The result was speedy deleted per CSD A3: no meaningful, substantive content in a single sentence. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn book by nn author, no refs showing that this meets WP:BK Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge. Lara❤Love 01:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopeless confused mess of original research and trivia which has not improved in the year since last nomination. Maybe merge what little useful content is here into nudity or issues in social nudity.-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per recent improvements. Closed early by SNOW.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs to show that this one liner article is about a notable drug. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 05:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete and doesn't have any sort of specification as to who is included. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure listcruft. -Seidenstud (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software with no RS coverage and ghits limited to download locations, forums and other non reliable sources. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unverifiable shell script. -Seidenstud (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Local raconteur who doesn't kick up much on Google [26]. Was a doctor and a school board member, but without achieving the notability required by WP:BIO. Has two books out, but he paid to have them printed through Canadian vanity press Trafford; they both fail WP:BK. Appears to be a kindly old man, but alas, Wikipedia has not yet adopted the inclusionary guideline WP:NiceOldGuy. Qworty (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an essay, and smells like a copyvio as does this editor's other article nominated below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is this someone's term paper? -Seidenstud (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR. -WarthogDemon 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Miley Cyrus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an essay. Possibly a copyvio of the book sourced, though I can find no matches on google. -WarthogDemon 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small diving club without second-party coverage. How did this article survive for 3 ½ years? Punkmorten (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Czech Technical University in Prague, as there is no assertion of independent notability. Lara❤Love 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each faculty or department of a university isn't notable apart from its university - anything sourced and useful can be merged with the article on the uni, but this stand-alone shouldn't be kept - or we'll have hundreds of similar articles for each of the thousands of universities and hundreds of thousands of high schools... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:BLP1E applies here, and I am inclinced to close tight AFDs on living people with that in mind. If and when there is exceptional coverage (not "I think there will be") then this can be readdressed via WP:DRV. Neıl ☎ 10:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn criminal defendant accused of elder abuse - the rest of the more scandalous charges were dismissed - written very close to an attack page in tone but ultimately garnering little more than the expected publicity for a criminal defendant of this sort - i.e., not notable - so not notable we don't know when or where he was born, red flags of non-notability in a modern biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - speedy, A7. Classic example of something that appears to claim notability, but actually doesn't. Black Kite 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to not have played in a fully professional league or at the highest amateur level of her sport. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 10:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable? Prod'd, disputed, reprod'd. Let's let the public decide. UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not get fooled by the number of references in the article. Half of these references do not even mention Navneet Singh: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]
These references have exactly one sentence on Navneet Singh:
This reference has exactly two sentences about Navenet Singh:
It says "Navneet Singh’s associates were also involved in the abduction of Romanian diplomat Liviu Radu in the year 1992[12]to publicize their cause at the world level." But Navneet Singh himself was not really important in this episode. Please search for "Liviu Radu" and see if any of the news articles contain his name. The terrorists had kidnapped the diplomat because they wanted the Indian government to release terrorists who had murdered innocents[44]. When Indian government refused they still kept him to gain publicity. However, Radu was too unimportant a target for government to concede to their demands, so they had to release Radu unharmed.[45]
User:Singh6 is a Khalistani propagadist[46][47][48] and is trying to justify killings by terrorists. The article is written in a very propaganda manner to suit the needs of Khalistani apologists. The entire section "How he was affected by his surroundings" is synthesis of unrelated references that do not mention Navneet Singh.
If this article is not deleted, please mention that Navneet Singh Khadian was a terrorist (as clearly mentioned by all the references that mention Navneet Singh). 202.54.176.51 (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was who knows, so long as it's not delete. Pretty even split for keeping and redirecting without merging. I'll leave it to the article's editors to sort that argument out, but it's clear there's no call for deletion (except for the nominator's vote-instead-of-nomination, ho hum). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The text itself doesn't really assert notability, but since The Diplomats do (but I'm also going to add an AfD on that page next), decided I should use AfD rather than CSD. However, unless there is actual notability, speedy delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Oh for G... erm, delete. Obviously no point in wasting any more time on this. Black Kite 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per OTRS ticket #2008050110014031, this is a complete hoax that was created to support an eBay scam [50]. Amazon has no record of a book titled "Christianity and Me" by "Jan van Helsing" and Google was also unable to find any pages with those two search strings [51]. howcheng {chat} 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consists of original research and advice. Was previously a redirect page but author has reverted my attempt to return it to that. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus that abundant citations attributed to the subject satisfies WP:PROF. Moved to Michael Taylor (political scientist) per naming convention. WilliamH (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just another professor, fails WP:PROF. Herostratus (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 10:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:FICT, fictional location/kingdom within the Sailor Moon series. Article consists of plot and WP:OR sourced solely from primary sources and fansites. Half the article is on characters already covered in other articles and on the Silver Crystal, which is covered with sufficient detail in Sailor Moon (character). Collectonian (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Closed early per WP:SNOW. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an essay. "Medical Tourism" might have a place in Wikipedia, but to save this would require a complete rewrite. I feel like a tourist (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected and withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal essay, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Use of Wikipedia for class project. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economics of the Fifa World Cup. Staeiou (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fails WP:BIO as no sources provided. I could find no verifiable sources - other than WP mirrors/forks, which have propagated in the year since the article was created - to confirm the claims made in this article. KrakatoaKatie 02:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, begun as a vanity/auto-biographical page. SOme very strong claims to notability in the article, but after being tagged for a year as needing sources, nothing has surfaced. Google news gives nothing, google is largely unrelated links (not that this is the only source of references, just pointing out that I looked. Pastordavid (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Badly written article about a store of questionable notability with no links or references. Should this store be deemed notable, the article would need to be completely re-written. I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Television show that was on-air for two seasons. There are a couple of sources, but they do not seem to come up to the standard of WP:RS. No third-party coverage (that I could find) in reliable sources, does not meet WP:NOTE, and (although only a proposal) WP:FICTION. Is the lack of sources a question of age (i.e., recentism) or is it truly a non-notable show? Pastordavid (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Nominator withdrew nomination following clear commentary that the subject passes WP:MUSIC. WilliamH (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable future album by non-notable band. I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 13:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a horrible article, but I can't very much information about this company to establish notability. At best, this article needs a bit of cleaning up. I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Needs work, but not deletion. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic essay article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 10:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable play - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic essay. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've just notified the author of the article. Just because the prof isn't running the project well doesn't mean we should bite the newbies and not even inform them that the articles were nominated for deletion! Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Done. Can be restored to article as and when it's aired/has lots of sources to draw upon. Neıl ☎ 10:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL, this show, although it is scheduled, isn't gonna air until September, and casting isn't even done yet, as far as I know. I checked the criteria for speedy, and none of them really fit..... SKS2K6 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 10:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSIC, this album and its constituent songs never charted, therefore this album is not notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Green Party of England and Wales; redirects are cheap, and this is a potential search term. GlassCobra 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be purely self-promotional Jayen466 14:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The two references in the article are not reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this particular article. KrakatoaKatie 02:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums/demos/etc. are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources. (Technically, this isn't really a demo or unreleased album, but it's similar enough.) No reliable sources included, none found. (Prod expired but article was not deleted.) Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS (default to KEEP). To clarify. Article quality and COI are not grounds for deletion, but are issues which certainly need addressing, and should deflect a future nomination. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles fails WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article is an Advertisment and was created by multiple Promotional PR Accounts and IP's editing from Henry Ford Hospital;
Accounts have no other edits other than related to Vattikuti Urology Institute (Henry Ford Hospital related). Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.-- Hu12 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've substantially re-written the article, reducing, but not eliminating the reliance on primary sources. I believe the advert/COI issues have been dealt with and notability established. I'd appreciate it if you, Hu12, would address any remaining issues with the article Talk toCarithe Busy Bee 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a celebration created in 2005 by a group of people at a radio station. Google finds hits for things such as "Blue Star Salute Day", "Just Salute Day", "Madonna della Salute day", “Freedom Team Salute Day", "Israel Salute Day", and "Senior Salute Day", but no apparent matches to this celebration. The event is not even mentioned on the website for the radio station that supposedly started this event.[53] Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day unless proper sources provided to establish verifiability of article subject. --Allen3 talk 14:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I A7 speedied this once. It's back, with more information and references. But... despite all it says, the notability appears to me to be, at best, marginal. And when you get right down to it, it seems to me to fall below that margin rather than above. A hard call, but at this point I have to still suggest that it be Deleted. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article on a local radio host with no evidence or assertion of notability. Had been A7 speedied, but restored at author's request. --Finngall talk 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unreferenced, and the article's creator is unable or unwilling to address these faults, having removed tags twice -- the second time was after an explanation was left on his talk page. No point using WP:PROD first, as this editor has deleted prod on other articles without justification. Fayenatic (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn and snowball keep. Canley (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of 'Who wants to be a Millionaire' content, this show is just a national variant of the format. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show), Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show), Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Australian game show), Lotto Weekend Miljonairs, Qui Veut Gagner des Millions?, Stani bogat, Kaun Banega Crorepati, Milionerzy Kubek15 (Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX) 11:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is only half completed, and on top of that, there is no content of what this list is supposed to be of, as there are no external links (i.e. WP:V, WP:RS.) — Κaiba 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was NOT confirmed by any band member to actually be a single. The current sources are not notable. gracz54 (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 10:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability and reliable sources THobern 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The result was Keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied this as general nonsense but restored it after a request from the creator. Appears to be about a marginally-notable movie that's been shown on as many as three screens in Atlanta. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to 96T's, I also found this on the cast and this. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician, no reliable sources, and it fails WP:MUSIC. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rapper that falls WP:MUSIC due to google news and [56], where the latter just reveals non-notable mentions including myspace and forums. I see no significant coverage in second or third party sources. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per white fluffy items descending from the sky. No doubt about this one, I think. Black Kite 17:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essay about how to recycle, but contains no encyclopaedic information. PeterSymonds | talk 06:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article attempts to make the subject sound notable, but it appears that the closest thing to notability is a book that hasn't been written yet. Google doesn't appear to have heard of this person either. If someone else can find more info than I can on this topic, please do. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Non-notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly non-notable park ranger. No WP:RS whatsoever presented, though that's really beside the point since notability is not even asserted, therefore there's nothing to source to begin with. The article was previously extensively edited by a guy who's published a non-notable book about the non-notable park ranger with notorious vanity press Xlibris. He keeps re-inserting his personal spam into the article each time he edits it. User has received the usual warning for WP:COI, so let's hope he doesn't start warring on it. Qworty (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability, only 13 restaurants.Electricbassguy (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by User:Seicer. There's already one other Knuckles in the comics, so I can't imagine there being another. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a joke. FCSundae (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be nothing but non-neutral original research, and is not in the least bit encyclopedic.I feel like a tourist (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested speedy which has apparently been deleted before. I'm listing it here for more discussion, but removing the hangon tag (speedy tag had already been removed). I am neutral at this point, not having tried myself to find notability. Aleta Sing 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A speedy tag (not mine) on this article was declined. Upon my adding the reflist tag so that references could be viewed, two turned out to be blacklisted, the third is a personal page where the game can be downloaded, and the fourth -- www.tor.com -- returns zero hits for any link to the title. Similarly, there are precisely three Ghits. I will take no position here, having already been accused of bullying the article's creator, but leave it to the community to decide. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty new to wikipedia, but I dont think any discussion of RPG's is complete without mention of the underground RPGmaking by the gamers themselves (my own username is taken from the Flashinpon's Quest series) I admit I'm a bit of a newb when it comes to editing/creating wikipedia articles. I've read up on the deletion rules and everything they sent me, and still think this is a viable topic. Granted, most of my sources are e-sources, but we're talking about an e-phenomenon. Omitting this from Wikipedia would be tantamount to removing "Numa Numa" or other e-sensations that swept the globe, except this trend is still growing and has had millions of dollars poured into it. I have been accused of citing 'blacklisted sites' as sources, but reading up 'notability' did not provide any such site list. If there is such a list, I would appreciate being sent a copy so as not to make that mistake again.
It can be debated that the 'notable games' don't need their own pages, but to act like the entire subject is irrelevant to our time is sheer ludicrous. If gaming isnt your thing, maybe this will seem insignificant to you, but I guarantee you you've worked on some articles that I would find boring and pointless too. I dont know if this comes to a vote, or what, but that's the way I see it. Flashinpon (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added new ref, author's home page Flashinpon (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I already read up on the COI rules, and they explicitly state that having experience with a topic doesn't create a COI automatically. 2. Your claim that 'it is not true of all rpgs' could use some backing. Name a single RPG that doesn't involving questing, monster-slaying, or leveling up.(even if you can come up with some examples, a simple edit from 'all' to 'most' should suffice) Flashinpon (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Article needs some work, but that, in itself, is no reason to delete it. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a blatant puff-piece for a gonna-be-famous-sometime-soon film director, writer and producer; if kept, the article needs a massive tidyup.
I'm not familiar with how film biographies are usually handled, nor with the places to look for coverage, so I don't know whether this article should be kept or not, but it looks to me like someone who doesn't yet meet notability guidelines, but may do so if all his projects take off (see his IMDB entry). I may be completely wrong in this, but I bring the article here because I don't know what's left beyond the hype. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was technically delete, but the article has since been rewritten, moved, stubbed and merged, not necessarily in that order. Deleting it now would be pointless, so I'm just closing this as a delete of the original essay for WP:CSD#G4 purposes, and allow continued editing (or merging, or whatever) of the rewritten content. Sandstein (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay that's a textbook case of synthesis and original research. The article starts by forking from renewable energy, speculates on how this technology could be used in the third world, then looks at the potential pro's and con's. (FYI, this brought to you by the same university class). Bfigura (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW delete nancy (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-neutral essay that's mostly synthesis and original research. As a result of the tone, this ends up sounding like spam for surrogate mothers in Anand, India. Bfigura (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 02:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a defense mechanism in a fictional show. It has no notability whatsoever. In fact, the only time this topic would come up in any article would be in a plot summary. In addition, there are absolutely no third-party sources (let alone reliable sources) for this article. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 02:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW, as a WP:OR and WP:NPOV violation, as well as WP:RECENTISM. Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it has sources, it's an original commentary in violation of WP:NOR, and expresses the author's opinion in violation of WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) There is a half-hearted but very real consensus that the article demonstrates sufficient notability to meet our standards. Darkspots (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of reliable third party sources - I could not find any using Google News WhisperToMe (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability that meets WP:BAND, and yes, an administrator is telling you to stop. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND. Claim to notability is coming in second at a battle of the bands (despite equipment trouble...) Onorem♠Dil 01:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gamer9678 (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gamer9678 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gamer9678 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than amateur essays that have been posted on Amazon.com there appears to be no verifiable evidence from a professional publication that this genre of music exists. Article should be deleted as original research or re-directed to the parent Gothic rock article. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xr 1 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is already covered in the O'Reilly Media article. There is no point in having another article. I say delete, but a merge might be okay too. I don't know if there is really any information to merge though, as most of it is already on the one article. Undeath (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a Swedish games company. I've performed some searching, but I can't find any third-party reliable sources to demonstrate notability or verifiability. Gazimoff WriteRead 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info is rare, but it can be found. E.g. here http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_Sept_26/ai_78631854 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.18.42 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discounting the SPA that came here to vote, and taking in account that Undead Warrior prefered deletion if no other sources could be found, which has been since then, and also taking into account that verifiability is the issue, not if the article is currently verified by sources (which can be fixed without deleting the article), which reduces the weight of the comment by Coccyx, the result is keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability, and reasons provided in talk are unsourced/untrue Tenacious D Fan (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hoax article, on a google search cant find anything on this supposed award winning country singer and actress BigDunc (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable pro wrestler in a minor independent promotion. Judging by the article creator's username, it looks like self-promotion. Title is badly capitalized, to boot. — Gwalla | Talk 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs serious re-write I have heard of this person. Not a hoax. Badly written prose is not a criteria for deletion according to the rules. JerryVanF (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]