The result was delete. Wizardman 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert PROD to AfD as described on Talk:Pride in Paisley Party: Non-notable political party: only contested one election, where it received 1% of the vote, and made no press coverage or lasting impact. Political party notability is not yet at a Wikipedia-consensus. Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Political Parties...3F for some editor's opinions of what is and is not notable in a political party. I replaced the PROD with an AfD to help stimulate discussion on notability of minor political parties in cases where Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and related policies don't provide clear guidance. This is not a vote. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a telling source: [1] zero campaign expenditure in 2005. I will add a source for the results to the constituency article .--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is a pro baseball team's 1st base coach notable? I don't think so, but may you all do... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 03:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This a horribly incomplete list only lising three dams as the "largest" dams. However, the article fails to mention the definition of largest: it could be the size of the actual dam, the amount of water it holds, or even the area it occupies. The list has also been tagged with a factual accuracy tag. There already is a List of world's tallest dams which could be a possible consensus to merge the two lists. Tavix (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted along with the other spam --Stephen 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Independently released album. Fails WP:MUSIC. Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baritenor is not a real musical term and this article is a product of original research. I have searched in several vocal music/ vocal pedagogy books and found no reference to the term. Nrswanson (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Entirely gameguide material. Black Kite 09:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet the WP:GNG general notability guideline, since there are no reliable sources that can assert the notability of this article that are independent of the subject itself. Randomran (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge with List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters. However, as the vast majority of information in the current article is already present in the merge target, I will simply redirect the current article, leaving the history visible in case anyone wants to expand the merge target down the road. --jonny-mt 08:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet the WP:GNG general notability guideline, since there are no reliable sources that can assert the notability of this article that are independent of the subject itself. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N - nominal Ghits are Wikipedia mirrors or sites like Geocities. Last substantive edit was March 2007 (at creation). Cricketgirl (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax. No references at all. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Not only is this total nonsense, the percentages (85 and 40) add up to more than 100.evildeathmath 16:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.-Wafulz (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of this, little bit of that, but at the end of day this person doesn't add up to the WP:BIO notability standard. Nothing much in Google News. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Renata (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the A7 on this one, but it looks quite unlikely to clear WP:BAND, with just one minor third party reference in the article at the moment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles..."
2. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..."
The result was keep. Renata (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeopardy contestant; fails WP:N / one-event notability. slakr\ talk / 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to Delete. I second Reywas92's decision to recreate in case Larissa does very well during the Tournament of Champions. Iamwisesun talk 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 03:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a regurgitation of plot elements from various episodes of Star Trek. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). None of the parties to this discussion disagree that there are multiple sources in independent publications about Rebecca Snyder; the question of her notability hinges on whether those sources are trivial mentions only related to one client, or if, instead, they demonstrate clear, durable notability. A strong consensus is established below that the coverage does in fact add up to notability that exceeds the standards of WP:N. This article is currently not a coatrack for Khadr; despite most of Snyder's notability deriving from this one event, the article is focused on her. Darkspots (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is not notable, per WP:N. Bstone (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like promotional material, plus I don't see how the tour in of itself is or will be notable. The tour is also covered in List of Gloria Estefan concert tours, which seems sufficient, if still even necessary. I'd boldly redirect, but with the name of this article, it would be pointless. Wolfer68 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 03:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Random non-notable public school. ~~ N (t/c) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was AFD'd previously and still asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just plot repetition. As such, it just repeats information already found in episode articles and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely a hoax, can't find any source that notes Nicholas G. Prodzenko Boccobrock•T 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already been deleted under G5 as it was created by banned User:JB196. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small time wrestler in small time promotion. No third party coverage. Fails WP:N. Nikki311 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This website, while useful, fails WP:WEB and lacks non-trivial references by reliable third party publications. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm actually surprised it wasn't speedied under WP:CSD#A7.-Wafulz (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable blog ju66l3r (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per the inherent notability of the topic as well as an apparent WP:HEY job by User:Wasted Time R. --jonny-mt 02:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song; fails WP:MUSIC. Unreferenced since June '07, full of original research/fancruft ("ominous fashion"), et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to List of treaties in Star Trek. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just a repetition of the plot of several episodes of the Star Trek series, and are adequately covered in those articles. As such, this is duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Results was speedily deleted. GBT/C 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. No reason to believe this neologism has any but the most limited usage (a single bar), no reliable sources or notability Accounting4Taste:talk 19:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 03:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced one-line bio: she won an awared signifying that the was at the threshold of stardom, but alas never crossed that threshold apparently. No other claim to notability is asserted. She's so, nn we don't know when or where she was born, or even whether she's still alive ... Red flags of non-notability in a modern bio. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Non-notable company, article created primarily by its own president who has also been linkspamming as well as removing links to his competitors elsewhere on Wikipedia (see contribs for M2arman (talk · contribs) and 72.151.108.254 (talk · contribs)). Mikeatsc (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That team don't exist.. you can see in [4] and [5]. That team is not listed in any level of Mozambique football leagues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Singularity 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's written a few singles for notable acts, but I am unable to find any reliable third-party sources pertaining to his notability. (Shame, since he's a hell of a songwriter, at least from the songs of his that I've heard.) A search is turning up only false positives. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable 3rd party sources show up showing that he wrote x, y, and z. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect to Take a Bow (Rihanna song). Non-admin closure. (P.S. If you want an article to be merged or redirected, then be bold and do it yourself.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contains nothing that Take a Bow (Rihanna song) does not. Asenine 17:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Product which fails both WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE, I am unable to locate reliable and non-trivial third party publications about this one. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete for the third time by Gwen Gale . Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge into Brunswick School, but the relevant article does not exist. Asenine 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The result was Nomination withdrawn, see below TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability of subject and is unlikely to do so in the future. Withdrawn Per my comment below, I hereby withdraw my AfD nomination of this article. DachannienTalkContrib 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 04:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). While the article has been in substantively the same form since 2004, actual published sources (most unavailable to Wikipedia editors) were only added in 2006 - coincidentally, right after a blanket AfD was filed on these articles, and identical to the Marchese Drago article, also up for AfD - and the sources upon which this article was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. Ravenswing 16:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:BLP nightmare: Non-notable person whose only claim to notability is that she's been involved in a disciplinary action over her work as a judge (in a minor US court), with a some negative coverage in local media. The fact that judges in Nevada are elected for office unfortunately causes much of her personal information to be public, so there are plenty of "reliable sources" around – but no notability that I can see. This article serves no other purpose than mud-slinging. It is precisely the kind of topic that Wikipedia really, really should have no business dealing with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just editing the article because I followed a talk page entry, and was intrigued. Meh, it's either way as far as notability goes. The only thing notable about her is the accusations imo. I'd also like to note that I hadn't heard of her until I saw the article. I think that we can do the article and follow neutrality easily, using WP:Policy. Although it appears there are editors who are personally involved with the case... I think I can, with policy on my side, create a neutral article. But really, I don't care, I was just intrigued. I won't stand in the way of deletion, that's for sure! Beam 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, no consensus on redirect. Singularity 04:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album, no reliable third-party sources, no cover art, no reviews, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not appear to even assert notability (I'm not tagging for speedy deletion as previous versions may have asserted notability). No third party sources at all. A Google search didn't reveal any independent sources (However, I can't conclude that there aren't any, as "Young Muslims" isn't a sufficiently specific search term :) ) Has been tagged with ((notability)) and ((primary sources)) since April. Rami R 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contesting the CSD nomination. I can't say it should be kept, but it's not eligible as a speedy. 9Nak (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). While the article has been in substantively the same form since 2005, actual published sources (most unavailable to Wikipedia editors) were only added in 2006 - coincidentally, right after a blanket AfD was filed on these articles - and the sources upon which this article was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. Ravenswing 16:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Singularity 06:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced article article that appears to be part non-notable, part subtle hoax. PubliusFL (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons: no sources and the appearance of an elaborate attempt to create the impression of notability where none exists:
PubliusFL (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another in a line of rambling essays on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). The article has been in substantively the same form since 2006, and the sources upon which this article is based are centuries out of print, if indeed they are legitimate. A major WP:COI issue, as with an uncomfortable number of these Maltese nobility articles, is that that the alleged holders of this title is the creator's own family. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:COI. Ravenswing 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Child actor, with no major roles. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
notability issues, not referenced Eli+ 14:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
notability issues, no references... Eli+ 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). The article has been unimproved since creation, and the sources upon which this article was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." A major WP:COI issue crops up in that the alleged holders of this title is the creator's own family and the alleged current claimant is the creator's mother. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:COI. Ravenswing 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Whether this deserves mention in United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest article is another issue. For the sake of convenience, I am going to also merge the meager amount of current content as a subsection to the UK article. No prejudice to re-creation should Scotland ever actually enter the contest.. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a rare possible entry into the Eurovision song contest therefore violates WP:CRYSTAL. There is no Broadcaster who has yet confirmed that they would like to enter for Scotland. Plus it has already been confirmed the the UK will be entering, therefore making it not possible for Scotland to enter as they would be able to vote for two countries. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that is a reliable source. Further, there are similar articles of countries that are not part of the EBU, why not this one and the other yes? Besides the issue was discussed in the scotish parliament, is not a rumor either. Goddess (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you seem to be more interested in judging the votes of the other users than the article itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.111.67 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). While the article has been in substantively the same form since 2005, actual published sources (unavailable to Wikipedia editors) were only added last year, and the sources upon which this article was actually based are the creator's own website and "unpublished research papers." A major WP:COI and WP:COATRACK issue crops up in that the alleged holders of this title is the creator's own family and the alleged current claimant is the creator's father, whose own personal article is up for AfD. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:COI. Ravenswing 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Non-admin closure: speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable preschool. ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary and arbitrary list. Created by user repeatedly trying to include listing for Populaire Group Pte. Ltd. or Populaire Group. ZimZalaBim talk 13:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another in a line of articles on alleged titles of Maltese nobility created by User:Tancarville (see discussion here). This article is sourced only by a genealogy supposedly published in Spain in the 18th century and by a second source dating from the 15th century and purportedly held in the National Library of Malta; the title of neither registers on Google Scholar, in either case is unavailable for verification, and could provide no sourcing for the most recent couple centuries of this genealogy. The article has been substantively unimproved since 2004, and a major WP:COI issue crops up in that the alleged holders of this title is the creator's own family. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI. Ravenswing 13:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Michel Fournier (adventurer). For the record, when bundling nominations together, please follow the directions at WP:BUNDLE. --jonny-mt 08:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a future event which failed to happen. As of now, there is no announcement if there will even be another attempt. The article now fails WP:FUTURE because it does not meet the almost certain to take place criteria. The same logic goes for Michel Fournier (adventurer) as well. If the jump ever does happen, the article(s) can be recreated then -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default to keep. Several users agree that Dodgson's proposed method should be documented somewhere on Wikipedia. There is also agreement that Smith's interpretation and coining of the term "asset voting" is not widely recognized, being mentioned only in self-published materials. However, since Smith's work is not the only analysis of Hodgson's voting system, there is sufficient basis for an article describing the system itself. Concerns over promoting Smith's neologisms could be addressed by renaming the article or merging its text to a fuller exploration of Dodgson's work in the field. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Neologism. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Software development process. --MCB (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No references at all; has the tone of original research. It was tagged for lack of references in October 2006; yesterday I came upon the article, added tags for OR and uncategorized, moved the refs tag up to the top and cleaned up a randomly placed sentence at the bottom, and then I noticed that random sentence had been placed in May 2007, which was the last time this page was edited. Given that the page has basically been vandalized for a year, and tagged for references for eighteen months, it seems unlikely that adding more maintenance tags is going to prompt improvement. Propaniac (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Few if anyone uses the software, it hasn't been updated in two years, and it's just a theme. I don't think it's even notable enough to include in the small Alex Albrecht article.--Theymos (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep non-admin closure ——Ryan | t • c 06:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is about a possible entry into the Eurovision song contest, and thus violates WP:CRYSTAL. There is one source listed, which states that the broadcaster would like to enter, but isn't sure if it is eligible.TN‑X-Man 11:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because Scotland is entering Eurovison as the UK. Therefore that article is not needed. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD (G12). Tikiwont (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a dicdef of what appears to be a specialized economics term; it doesn't look approriate for Wiktionary and might very well be an attempt to spam on the part of article creator Liminzhong (talk · contribs). Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined G11 speedy deletion nominee, but still appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Bearcat (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COI. Article was created by an account who spammed links for their employer, R. T. Edwards Publishing, Inc (Publisher of Journal of Forensic Accounting). Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. This is a peer-reviewed academic journal, perhaps suitable as a source (in an apropriate context), however not as its own article. Has a few links but they seem to be self-refereces and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement for R. T. Edwards Publishing, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable novel by non-notable author Rapido (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography, evidence is creator's userpage is "User:Mtadros". This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe Sgt_Pikachu5 08:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local fraternity. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as recreated content, A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of wide and independent coverage
Delete Ordinary, wonted, big building contractor, no meaningful independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This group bought out a Javanese Contactor named Graha Utama that has build hundreds of homes around the older Eastern areas of Surabaya (Galaxy / Dharmahusadah, Kertajaya and others) as well as many notable homes in the Western suburbs of Surabaya (Bukit Darmo, Graha Family, CitraRaya and Pakuwon). Will update the article to link to more of these notables.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumbo mike (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. This does not rule out a merger or redirection to a parent article, if consensus later determines that, as suggested by some editors, this content or topic is currently better suited for inclusion in another article. Sandstein 21:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally created as Slavery in Tibet by a single user, Foxhunt99 and his sockpupppets to advance the fringe view of the enslavement of the Tibetan people prior to the invasion of that country by the People's Republic of China. The article originally appeared as that user's essay on the evils of the Tibetan government and reverted any and all changes that did not reflect their highly charged, nationalist POV. Article's sources are dubious, unverified and highly biased. Anna Louise Strong is heavily quoted as an authority on the subject, though she is a known sympathesizer (and alleged agent) of communist China. All other sources in this article are cited to books which have either not been verified, or do not support the statements to which they are sourced. It is doubtful that any reliable, unbiased sources exist for this topic and there are certainly not enough to warrant an entire article on the subject. As a fringe topic, this information also shouldn't be merged into Tibet, as it is highly POV. If the vote for deletion is successful, Slavery in Tibet should also be removed because it is a highly biased POV title and neither one of these articles should be redirected to any article relating to Tibet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart Gelder and Roma Gelder were travellers to Tibet too. The double standard of resource choosing is amazing. The first sentence, of the article
"Prior to Communist takeover, Tibet was a feudal society[citation needed]. ",
someone put citation needed by Tibet was a feudal society, I don't see people put citation needed in other article about feudualism. Also, many of the resources on Tibet human rights articles are from Tibetan websites, why is that ok then, by same standard only third parties are allowed. We may well delete this if the double standard keeps up. I will try to merge this into the history of Tibet part.Centrallib (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quzhen was still young when the Chinese government took control of Tibet in 1951 and ended its feudal system. Quzhen's parents were "chabas," landless serfs who worked on a feudal lord's manor.
The real Tibet has little to do with the West's aspirations for it. The line of Dalai Lamas achieved its pre-eminence off the back of the Mongols' military brilliance. Execution, torture and repression were all features of Tibet's feudal theocracy, despite the presence of powerful religious masters who lived the Tibetan Buddhist ideal of nyingje - compassion.
The result was delete. If further coverage occurs, WP:DRV may be a valid option. — Scientizzle 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:COPYVIO. Non notable letter/one time advertisement in one British newspaper. No different from any other open letter in the paper all the time, for all sorts of political views, it should not have an article. Notability is not attested. The article claims "the letter stirred much controversy in Israel and in Jewish communities worldwide" but the source for that is just an article discussing what the letter is about (WP:OR). There are almost no sources on Google News other then from the actual newspaper (The Guardian).
Wikipedia is not a news site or a place for soapboxing one's political views. The article goes on to show the entire letter (WP:COPYVIO), and then link to several unrelated anti-Israeli articles at the bottom.Epson291 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC)
Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.
The result was delete. Singularity 06:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed as hoax by IP editor - supposedly a character in Will and Grace TV show -character name gives no Google results in connection with show except to Wikipedia. Note: if it is a hoax then parts of other Will and Grace pages here need sorting to remove references to it. Hunting dog (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be just another non-notable blog Grahame (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Violates WP:NOR and WP:NOT. This is a student essay, which seems not to be fully WP:NPOV either. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 06:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable residential apartment block like millions of others around the world. Harro5 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to meet the general notability guideline of independent coverage in reliable sources. No references exist to assert notability. Only sources about Ultima games in general. Thus fails WP:N. Randomran (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. While there are a number of calls for merging the content to Vulcan (Star Trek), there are also a significant enough number of comments in support of keeping or deleting it outright. Since it is clear from the discussion below that there is no firm consensus on what to do with the content, the default result is keep.
However, since this decision comes from a lack of consensus rather than a clear mandate, those in favor of merging the content can certainly pursue this course through the regular merge process. --jonny-mt 07:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just plot repetition from the Star Trek articles. As such, it is purely in-universe duplication and is already covered in the article on Vulcans, the Vulcan characters, and the episode articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violates wikipedia's policy on notability, particularly the general notability guideline that calls for coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject itself. Mammoth Tank has not received coverage outside of Command and Conquer, and should thus be deleted. Randomran (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1 (not enough context to identify subject). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A nonsense article that provides no context, no assertion of notability, and no references. Speedy was declined because the subject is fictional (!). —BradV 05:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 03:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a minor, non-notable, fictional company from the Jurassic Park franchise. AniMate 05:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography. Brianga (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't been on that many covers namely two or three for Zoo and front... If u let this model in, u will have to allow all the models who have been on three or four covers as well. Should Wikipedia be a forum for glamour models and porn stars??? Plus she's virtually unknown outside the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.136.50 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 27 May 2008
The result was keep. Renata (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD G3, appears to be part of a collection of hoax articles created by a single editor/small group of editors. --Kinu t/c 04:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:RS I'm unable to find any in English, perhaps someone who reads Japanese can find any if they exists...the claims in the article are pretty far fetched and the links at the bottom of the article are to video games...perhaps rather than being a non existent person, he is a non notable video game character? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
completely unsourced page with nothing at all in the way of info (such as a list of notable "Dutch Danes", government census info, etc.) to suggest that "Dutch Danish" constitutes a notable ethnic group Mayumashu (talk)
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G10, a blatant and obvious hoax. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources back up the claim that this person leads the "special G.H.O.S.T (Governmental Hostile Operation Special Task) squad formed by directive order of the President of the United States." Since we don't know if he exists, he hasn't even met the threshold requirements of WP:BIO. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 03:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of about half of the plot of the Star Trek television show Enterprise. As the article on the show and all the episode articles cover this information in greater detail, there is no need for this one since the Temporal Cold War asserts no signifience outside of the show and its episodes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, without prejudice to any editorial proposal to merge. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N Lemmey talk 01:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete: the partial title argument holds sway and there is no need to leave a mere dictionary entry. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No disambiguation called for Wloveral (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page Canus redirects to different species through only the species epithets. These are not unique in biological taxonomy. Only the full scientific name of an animal or plant species is unique. There is no ambiguity here since the partial names are not used by themselves. This page opens a bad example, as did the page Miserabilis. In both cases, the search function should be used, not a disambiguation page. I made the first nomination for deletion of this page Canus but did not understand how complete the process until now.--Wloveral (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First AfD resulted in a weak keep consensus based off misreading the WSOP ME as a sports competition and thus simply competing is a sign of notability, when it is not. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. –– Lid(Talk) 00:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker[reply]
The result was CSD G3, obviously made-up, vandalism, etc. --Kinu t/c 01:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has all the characteristics of a hoax. "Muhammad Tariq Bhoja" gets no google hits outside of Wikipedia, and the content is closely linked to the probable hoax Bhojian Economics (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhojian Economics). This article should therefore be deleted per WP:HOAX, WP:V and WP:NFT. And even if it were all verifiably true, it would not make the subject notable enough for Wikipedia. Either way, delete. AecisBrievenbus 00:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 03:16, 1 June 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)) . |
Prod removed by IP address, non-notable poker player. Many poker players have proteges however being simply a protege is not a sign of notability and if that is ignored accomplishments aren't enough to satisfy notability. –– Lid(Talk) 00:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker
The result was CSD G3, obvious boredteencruft, hoax/vandalism. --Kinu t/c 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only Google hits for ""Bhojian Economics" are the Wikipedia pages Muhammad Tariq Bhoja and Category:All dead-end pages. This is very little for "a major branch of industrial economics." The article reads like a hoax. Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:V and WP:NFT. AecisBrievenbus 00:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]