< November 1 | November 3 > |
---|
The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, classic case of WP:NFT. Also, no content left if you were to delete anything lacking reliable sources (i.e., all of it). NawlinWiki (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. There were two delete votes and no well-formed keep votes. There was some 'keep' sentiment expressed informally, mostly by newcomers to Wikipedia, but it did not appear to be based on Wikipedia policy. Those arguing for keep did not offer arguments phrased in terms of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Band is not notable. No specific references verify what is written. The only independent reference provided, New Music Weekly, does not link to anything that specifically mentions the band — it just links to the home page of the site, and a search of the site turns up nothing about the group. The other citations are to AllMusic which merely proves the band exists, the band's MySpace (see this page), and the label's web site page about the band. None of those can be considered reliable, independent sources because they are controlled by the band itself, its label, or others with a vested interest in the band. This band is not signed by a major label or well-known indie. It has not placed a song on a major chart. It does not inherit notability from its producers (as the original author claims) or anyone outside the band itself. Therefore, it fails Wikipedia's notability policies for bands and the article should be deleted, without prejudice toward re-creation if the band "hits it big" later on. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The New Music Weekly link does mention the band. It is a voting page. Therefore you have to click on the drop down menu which lists the nominees for "new top 40 group of the year" Last November is listed there along with Seether and other notable acts.
Specify what a big indie label is. Southern Tracks Records has had very notable artists in the past. Southern Tracks Records also owns Bill Lowery Music Publishing Group which has thousands of songs in its catalogue including Last Novembers songs. Bill Lowery was an extremely important figure in Georgia's music history and was the first non-performer inducted into the georgia music hall of fame. Therefore, Southern Tracks Records is a notable independent label.
The New Music Weekly Charts are notable and respected charts. Last November's new single impacted only a few weeks ago and is at number 63 on the top 100.
Robert pillgraham (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)— Robert pillgraham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi, I only recently joined Wikipedia. Like many, however, I use it frequently for information. One of my friends and I who happen to be big fans of Last November realized they were one of the few newer Indy bands we're into (and more popular, might I add), that didn't have a Wikipedia entry. Therefore, we decided to add a section, and are slowly contributing to it as we get some free time. I would appreciate it if you would stop deleting the thread, because the band is played on the radio and tours, and is *officially* up for nomination as a top 40 band with NMW, a HUGE group in the industry. Their site tracks spins, rankings, etc. Again, they are far more prominent than many of the bands I listen to that I've found entries for, even some with full albums with their own entry. This is a pretty frustrating first experience adding onto Wikipedia, I must add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daguitaristz (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC) — Daguitaristz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
and isn't the point of Wikipedia to provide a bank of truthful knowledge to computer users? There's no promotion or advertisement going on here. I just don't see where a policy is being broken. To be frank, I believe some of these self-proclaimed Wikipedia police have let their "position" go to their heads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daguitaristz (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC) — Daguitaristz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was speedy delete. Clear and blatant violation of WP:NOT. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopaedic content per WP:NOT, maybe more useful on WikiHow? (does that exist?) \ / (⁂) 23:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was bold soft redirect to Commons:United States presidential election maps in Wikimedia Commons by yours truly. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an image gallery, and thus fails item #4 of WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The content has already been transwikied to Commons:United States presidential election maps. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 22:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fee that this article is rather overwhelmingly in favour of the US Republican party. It's not very well sourced, and 'Income Redistribution' has never been a political policy. I think the word the writer was looking for was socialism, or a social care system at any rate. Full of phrases like "one could argue that" and other unsourced arguments one way or another, this article needs to be at best stubbified. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of Bride of Frankenstein. There is real world information in the article, but it is already included within the main article under a wider scope (Bride of Frankenstein#Homosexual interpretations). The rest of the information is just redundant plot and mentions of very minor appearances in other works that I really don't see providing any sort of relevant information. TTN (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Greenwich, New South Wales#Education. Merging of any appropriate content into the target article is up to the consensus of editors. Since the history of the source article has been preserved under the redirect, the original content is still available to any editor who wants to undertake the merge. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, no real coverage in secondary sources as indicated in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are penalty of reasons as to why this page should be deleted. Two of them being only two tracks are known and there are no references. The main reason it should be deleted is because it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Moon (Sunrise) 22:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. ... discospinster talk 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated, new article proded and contested. Rationale hasn't changed: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself" can be found. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Alabama-Mississippi State Rivalry and Delete The 90 Mile Drive (which by the close of this AfD, had turned into a redirect). The vote of the participants, small in number though they may be, is for Keep of the underlying article. I don't find the sources very impressive, and I share the view that we don't need a separate article on every rivalry of an SEC team with Alabama. May I suggest to the editors that they consider redirecting Alabama-Mississippi State Rivalry to Mississippi State University#Athletics, and adding any significant material to the target of the redirect. To tidy up the set of entries on this subject, I've deleted The 90 Mile Drive, though I don't object to its re-creation if anyone can find reliable sources for use of that term for an athletic rivalry. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted because there is no rivalry between Mississippi State and Alabama in football (ie lack of notability). While it is a big game, every SEC football team does not have a rivalry with every other team in their division. This game is no more important than the Alabama-Arkansas or Alabama-Ole Miss game. Furthermore, there is little to no information on the page that can't be added to another section of either the Alabama or Mississippi State football pages. CH52584 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh! This is now the 2nd AfD, and there are still no sources in the article. It is not acceptable to keep it around indefinitely in its unsourced state as a separate article. If sources can be found, undo the redirect and make it into a free-standing article again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not covered by independent, reliable sources in significant detail. Mentions in books and news items are limited to trivial accounts, works of fiction or licensed works. The article itself is comprised of editor interpretation and synthesis, plot summary and to a lesser extent game guide material. It has been tagged as lacking any references since 2007. The previous AfD was closed in July as no consensus with the (correct) observation that no one knew what to do with the page. Mergers, redirects, deletion and keeping the page were all proposed. Following that outcome, I proposed and widely advertised a merger of the content into parent articles (As can be seen on the talk page). This resulted in little action or interest from project members. So if a merger is proposed again at this AfD, please be aware that it is unlikely to happen without some external input and that the likely outcome of a merge close would be to leave the article in its current state. Protonk (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this article removed a prod tag by adding information that does not address the concerns of the prod. While one reference gives a patent number, and the other one gives a potential coverage area, neither reference do establish any actual notability for this invention, either through actual usage or any other independent coverage. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While there is a claim of meeting WP:MUSIC in the form of a national tour, there's no verification of same in the article, nor any that I could find. As acknowledged in the previous AfD, sources are hard due to same-name of a serial killer, but I find nothing for this band that provides verification of notability. Existence, yes. Notability, no. TravellingCari 21:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pure fancruft. As expected, I found absolutely no reliable sources on Google. This an an article about a fictional group of cheerleaders who appear in the Pokémon anime in a total of one episode, I believe. Artichoker[talk] 21:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete – no indication of notability. ... discospinster talk 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
insufficiently referenced biography for non-notable person — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of True Blood episodes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Television episode with no assertion of notability. Depending on the results, may nominate the other episodes from this series. Powers T 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no real assertation of notability. May be a translated job ("sunged"? Is that the past tense of "sung"?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are claims of notability but no evidence with which to back up those claims. Ghits are what you'd expect of an online forum but no evidence of notability and if the claims can't be verified, then it's run of the mill web content. Thoughts? Will withdraw, of course, if someone can source the claims. TravellingCari 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. kurykh 22:56, 7 November 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)) . |
Non-notable, prototype project for a programming language created by a non-notable programmer whose article was recently deleted. Article has 11 inline references, 9 of them are completely trivial or self-publications, and 2 of them (#6 and #7) are the same link to a "Times of India" article, that talks about this project. Damiens.rf 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the references go, most appear to be either self-published or irrelevant. The only two of any potential substance are the Linux For You appearance and the Times India article. As noted above, the mention in Linux For You appears to be trivial enough that it isn't mentioned in the online TOC. The Times India article can probably be discounted as well; it contains a number of rather glaring inaccuracies - for example, that the author is unusual in having written a language on his own. Not every news mention is an instant ticket to notability.
I wish the developers luck in their endeavor, and look forward to their article's return to Wikipedia - once it has been completed and/or has entered wider usage, and more reliable information is available about it. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "strictly speaking not a programming language" is wrong. There are two versions for V - V as language and as application. For application part it is true. So is the case with the online parser Grogammer. But reg the language it is not so.
Now concerning the LFY article. It appeared in September issue. But it comes as a part of my column on Kernel programming Aasisvinayak (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Thank You for Smoking (novel). Mr.Z-man 17:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its single novel and film adaptation, and a few minor cameos, through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely a hoax about non-existent band. Googling "Sick Time" + "Gord" + "Loo" (Gord and Loo are named as members) produces 29 hits, none about the band. No sources in article. Creator of article has made almost no other contributions. Ward3001 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD A7. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Youtube series. ~~ ComputerGuy 19:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unkown personality. Seems like a promotion page Fastabbas (talk · contribs) Copied from edit summary when Fastabbas placed AfD notice ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation, unreferenced, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete on author's request.- Mgm|(talk) 20:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to America's Most Wanted#AMW Dirty Dozen. SoWhy 21:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable fugitive, fails WP:BIO. Reverend X (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. This appears quite notable; some work towards expanding the article may be in order. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NALBUMS : All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Article was PROD October 30 and removed November 2 with the rationale "If the band is notable enough for an article here, then a released album would be. If band article is deleted, then ok but it should be handled at the band article". Currently the article does nothing to establish the albums notability, currently there are no Wikipedia Policies or Guidelines that allow for a release from an artist to automatically have an article of it's own. For definitions of terms such as "significant coverage" please see WP:GNG. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G3) by MacGyverMagic. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable "proclaimed" future film that fails WP:NFF. Entire article appears to be based on a single rumor supposedly "leaked" poster. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the player may exist but he actually not yet make his professinoal debut as no record in 08-09 season (eg.[http://www.superliga.rs/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159&catid=34&Itemid=98). Matthew_hk tc 17:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate list, no sources. Someone tried to list this but didn't finish, and of course, I was the only person in the whole project to noticed the redlinked afd in the log. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy, but not encyclopedic essay. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly; (a) Notability, as defined as an English Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia:Notability, is definitively objective. (b) Removing the paragraph stipulating the impropriety of plot-constitutive articles from the English Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does not change long-standing consensus therein. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same/similar concerns as 22 Cats as also expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22 Cats. Notability in doubt in regard to music criteria. — Realist2 15:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. merge results don't need an AFD and this is far from overwhelming so default to keep Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of characters in Daria.. Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of characters in Daria. SoWhy 11:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is based on a collection of information about surnames, which may violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and isn't necessarily even a reliable indicator of ethnicity, is of questionable notability (Hispanic is not a widely used term in the UK) and is not needed given the existence of Latin American Britons and Spanish migration to the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to Monica Edwards. This is an obvious merge target for the limited content. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. It seems to be an ordinary farm. Schuym1 (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No independant coverage found, and can't find any sources to confirm that she was a Penthouse Pet and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essay like effort devoid of references. Author has declared that he will fix references but there is no sign that any effort is being made in this direction despite prompting by several editors. The article is riddled with WP:OR and fails WP:NPOV and WP:V also. The article purports to be worldwide, but actually only covers the Japanese sphere. It could also be considered to be a fork as it is the same subject as Military capabilities SpinningSpark 13:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLP. Nothing in Ghits supports it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a3, no meaningful content. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not make any sense. Porollostracuos (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per massive concensus. - Mgm|(talk) 21:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need this unsourced list. Alexius08 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources for verifiability despite claims of being "the world’s second longest canyon". Orphaned article with no external or inbound links whatsoever. Google yields little. Flewis(talk) 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Only two !votes for delete in all of this text proves that this discussion is happening in the wrong venue: this is not what AfD is for. Additionally, it is clear that no consensus is going to come from this debate. And the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. All in all, this AfD is over. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At article's present length, it is exactly redundant with coverage at Family of Barack Obama#Zeituni Onyango Justmeherenow ( ) 09:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is moved here from article's talkpage:
Merge This a WP:CFORK of Family_of_Barack_Obama#Zeituni_Onyango. VG ☎ 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←No, the comparison to Obama is not at all correct. And I disagree with your assertion that these are unrelated stories. All of the stories about Zeituni come back to the immigration status story - contributions and their return are only an issue if she doesn't have a green card, the article itself says that the deportation approval directive came out of this story, we do not write articles about every person in his or any book, and I do not see anything regarding a "public housing" issue - in fact the articles I read say there is no issue and you should be careful of BLP violations on this. You may be hoping this affects the election outcome, but there's no reporting that it is having such an effect, and we do not write about "possible" effects - we wait, because there is no emergency, until there actually is an effect that is notable. You seem to be in a big rush and haven't explained why. In any case, the suggestion was to merge with the already existing section in the Family article, so anything of any real notability can be put into that section. You haven't demonstrated a need for a standalone article. Let's see what other editors think - you've made your point. Tvoz/talk
Justmeherenow ( ) 10:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FromWP:NOTABILITY
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
Is there anyone, anyone at all, who makes the claim that "Zeituni Onyango" did NOT receive "significant coverage" in "reliable sources"? Anyone who makes that statement in light of the evidence and challenge the inclusion as a stand-alone article. I think it's high time we base the discussion on Wikipedia's rules. Search of reliable sources shows not only significant, but large amounts of coverage and as such the article is clearly notable as a stand alone article. Hobartimus (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge with the Family of Barack Obama article as it seems that this is just another case of WP:ONEEVENT. Is this Allison Stokke case all over again? PS: There are also major BLP issues here because the Associated Press might've violated federal privacy law by reporting on this, according to the Washington Post today. [26]--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC) (changed my decision to a proposed move, see below)[reply]
Hobartimus (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - filelakeshoe 16:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article sounds like an advertisement... Jayson (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nominator failed to provide a policy-based reason for the nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article only cites one source I find it unimportant and unless the creator can show otherwise, I propose this article be deleted. Jayson (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. Akamad (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. We don't delete articles about towns with 30,000+ people. Ever. JBsupreme (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has very little importance, and is poorly written. Jayson (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable book. Yes, reviews were published; reviews are published about tens and tens of thousands of books every year. There is nothing to indicate that this book is notable within the context of 'books published in 200X'. [ roux ] [x] 08:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable BLP, unsourced and untouched since 2005. Medical administrator whose only claim to notability is co-chairing an apparently not very important New Orleans reconstruction commission. Sandstein 08:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced stub on a fictional medical technique; untouched since 2005. Probably not notable for its use in fiction, and does not appear to exist in real life. Sandstein 08:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. borderline G3 per snow, unanimous apart from an apparent sock/meat farm and absoosutely nothing in Google apart from this discussion. StarM 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all new editors: All entries on Wikipedia need to be verifiable. Several efforts by other editors failed to turn up evidence this technique exists, so if you are offended by the fact it is up for deletion, help us out and provide references we can use to confirm this article's content with. - Mgm|(talk) 21:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you were directed here by family members, your boss, your friend or that person at KFC and told to vote keep; PLEASE DO NOT DO SO UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT THE "Kippian Method" IS NOTABLE ENOUGH. Doing so is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Original research about achieving success. The references cited in the article don't even mention the "Kippian Method". A Google search, Google Books search, and Google Scholar search return no results. Seems to be either a non-notable method, hoax, or something madeup in one day. Cunard (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[[User:|Lukeworm]] (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. WWGB (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]
Delete. The article is a collation of WP:OR and hearsay incidents that amount to WP:TRIVIA and, even where they are (apparently) verifiable, have highly dubious WP:N. BlackJack | talk page 07:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn as clearly the consensus is going to be to keep but cleanup the article. Thanks to everyone who contributed although I disagree with some of your points and I think you have all overlooked the WP:OR issue here. BlackJack | talk page 11:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. as G4, the old AfD close still applies SoWhy 19:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources or assertion of notability. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted by myself. This is utterly unsalvageable and there is no probability whatsoever of this surviving AfD. It is also probably a copyright violation. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to make of this, it looks like it was copied out of an army (not sure which country) benefit guide or policy manual. My first thought was that this might be a copyvio, Google didn't come up with anything either confirming this or giving any hint as to what it might be.Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 07:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what use this list serves. It is inherently going to be out of date very quickly, and it answers a piece of incredibly minor trivia. [ roux ] [x] 07:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Tankard (band). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I know about German singers could fit in a thimble, but this guy doesn't seem to deserve a separate article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul#Sound money. The history is not deleted if someone wants to merge some of it. Mr.Z-man 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed U.S. federal legislation for which WP:RS coverage is lacking. Written and introduced by Ron Paul in multiple congresses, sent to committee and not heard from again. Restored from a CSD#G5 deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability, it's just a suitcase brand subsumed by another company. References notice since Jan 2007. Kickstart70TC 06:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns with this band are notability and verifiability. They have released one album "Elephant Rocks", but the album hasn't received much coverage as seen in this Google search and this Google News Archive search. This album hasn't charted and the band hasn't released any other albums other than this one. Speedy was placed by Æåm Fætsøn (talk · contribs); declined by Elonka (talk · contribs); and later re-added by Æåm Fætsøn (talk · contribs) so I'm bringing this article to AfD to see if there is a consensus to delete. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. Villages are inherently notable. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shows no context or notability, unsalvageably badly written, if anything should be merged into the article dealing with that region. [ roux ] [x] 05:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. kurykh 23:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Minor lulz for the article creator adding a "this article may not meet the general notability guideline" tag. Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:*Comment - Soler97, please indicate at the beginning of your comment, in bold, whether you want the article to be kept, deleted, or is it a comment? And are you spamming? Looks to me that you are, because I saw your talk page, you've got no user page, and you've created this article. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 06:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Columbia Asia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, should only be really listed in Columbia Asia. Needs significant third party coverage to establish notability Michellecrisp (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Columbia Asia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, should only be really listed in Columbia Asia. Needs significant third party coverage to establish notability Michellecrisp (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G10) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism; hasn't been picked up in mainstream sources yet (as of 11/01/08). RJaguar3 | u | t 04:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user who made the article said on the talk page: ' I apologize to for it being rather crappy, this is my first article and any help creating it would be appreciated. I will be working on it for a good portion of ton... ' Firstly, we DON'T take 'crappy' pages, and this guy hasn't read policy. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 06:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essay —G716 <T·C> 04:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an artist who claims to have received a scholarship from the National New Media Art Award and has amended that site to say so, but there is no independent evidence for this claim or the claim that she has "performed and published across Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Canada and India and she has been the recipient of numerous awards and scholarships." Grahame (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge the list of books only to Rashid Khalidi. Sandstein 07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rashid Khalidi is a somewhat notable academic. He has published several books, which may or may not be notable in and of themselves, all of which are mentioned in the Rashid Khalidi main article. This list, in addition to listing all of the aforementioned books, contains what looks like the entire publication history of the professor, including every non-notable article he has ever published in journals, conferences etc.. There is nothing remotely notable about any of these, and Wikipedia is not MySpace - not a place for an academic to put his publishing resume on line. I have previously prod'ed it, and another editor agreed with the proposal. The creator of the article removed the prod notice, with the rationale that we have a category - Category:Bibliographies by author - which contains numerous Bibliographical lists. It will be noted that the vast majority of the articles in that list are of well known writers - authors of fiction, poets etc, such as Isaac Asimov, Enid Blyton or Graham Greene, not everyday academics. NoCal100 (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the creator of this page does not want it redirected to Philo. This article does not assert any actual usage of the term Philoian in reference to a disciple of Philo, however, so I too believe a redirect would not be very useful. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing episodes. I am not adding any of this content to the target article because nothing here is sourced, but I will perform a history merge so that the content can be accessed as needed. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One part original research, the rest mere plot summary which is already covered by List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing episodes. Prod disputed by anon editor without giving a reason. Farix (Talk) 02:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability, concerns regarding this criteria. — Realist2 02:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No ghits, either nn-notable road or hoax Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. While I don't discount the opinions of IPs or new users out of hand, I tend to afford them less weight if their arguments are contrary to policy. Here there really is nothing that meets the notability guideline. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable fictional empire from a non-notable series of books. Icewedge (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the "non-notable" comment. What constitues "notable?" Does the book have to be on the New York Times Best Seller list? There are many books that deserve mention that have never been on that list. I would point out that the Belt Republic books are in public libraries(my public library has them), in public schools(again in our public school libraries), and are available for purchase at Barnes and Noble's web site and at Amazon.com Also, the fictional Belt Republic seems not to meet the criteria for an empire. It is a fictional republic. I don't agree with the deletion suggestion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlertedd (talk • contribs) 05:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Further comment on the Belt Republic books "notability." These books have been used in presentations for instruction at some 33 public schools in two states and one Canadian province. See the "appearances" link at the author's website www.sff.net/people/ted-butler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlertedd (talk • contribs) 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Forrest Park Library, Bothell, WA. Camp Burton Library, Burton, WA. Springbrook School, Kent, Washington Decatur HS, 2800 SW 320th, Federal Way, WA. Lakota MS, SW 314th St. Federal Way, WA. WJ Mouat Secondary School 32355 Mouat Drive, Abbotsford, BC V2T 4E9 Semiahmoo Middle School Library, Surrey, BC Ballou Junior High, Puyallup, WA. Aylen Junior High Literary Club, Aylen Junior High, Puyallup, WA Cascade Middle School, 11212 10th Ave, Seattle, WA. Mill Creek Middle School, 620 N. Central, Kent, WA Los Alisos Middle School, Norwalk, CA. DeMille Middle School, Long Beach, CA. Jefferson Leadership Acad., Long Beach, CA. Vashon Library, Vashon Island, WA. Maple Valley Library, Maple Valley, WA Covington Library, Covington, WA. Auburn Library, Auburn, WA. Rainier Middle School Library, Auburn, WA. Mattson Middle School, Kent, WA Sequoia Middle School, Kent, WA Pine Tree Elementary, Kent, WA
At that time the newspaper served all of King County around Seattle, WA. King County is the most populous county in WA state. KCJ has since converted to Kent Reporter. As to instruction at multiple schools interpretation, I guess I have to say some of my own best instruction from others has come from single lectures. Also, I point out that these lectures were given during school hours and to students brought by their teachers. One librarian reported after the lectures a writing club was formed at that school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlertedd (talk • contribs) 05:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be a semi-advertisement for a chain of automotive dealerships, and it is unclear why the subject is notable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS apply to this article. The only ghits I can find related to this "Richard David Smith" relate to this one incident. The image may be a copy-vio, but as it's on at least two of the google links it may be public domain. I don't know how to investigate such. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod for St. Louis crime family capo Vincenzo "Jimmy" Giammanco. Bio is mostly unsourced and unverifiable. Only passing reliable (or even semi-reliable) source coverage. He was the nephew of boss Anthony Giordano and was an unsuccessful candidate to succeed his uncle. Fails WP:BIO for lack of non-trivial RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film. Used to say "no budget punk film" in lead sentence before this was removed by an IP along with the prod (after I cited this as evidence of non-notability in the prod box). Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The film is a no budget punk film as originally stated. You want evidence of it being a no budget punk film? How can we provide it? The film has been submitted it to the no budget film fest in Los Angeles, CA. By the 15ht of November we will know if it will become part of the festival's line-up. This has been included in a list of punk films on wikipedia since it may be of interest of fans of punk films when they scroll down the posted list. And underground films are definitely released in some form or the other (especially those in the punk genre and of no budget status). If this weren't the case, there would be no IMBD page up. Valid resources are needed to have a page up on IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blvdducinema (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Demons of Mercy. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author. Article was previously pretty much a promo piece, and efforts to remove the "spin" removed any assertion of notability, which is to say this author probably wasn't notable in the first place. A fair number of Google hits, but her website, this article and comic book database listings are the main ones. Fails WP:N. (Contested prod.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little content, no valid stub Church of emacs (Talk) 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has little content because it was just createdMr415 (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default to keep. Notability does seem to be questionable, but the keep arguments certainly are plausible. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small cargo airline. Does not meet the notability standards at Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Airlines. A7 speedy was reversed, so it's AFD time. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Port_Charles,_New_York_(fictional_city)#World_Security_Bureau. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional intelligence agency has no notability outside the show. According to WP:FICTION spin off articles should be avoided if there is no serious reason to be created and this is not the case. A google search is difficult, because of the name but I searched a bit for "DVX Agency" and I found nothing useful. No reason to have a redirect as well, the article's title is an unlikely search item. Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. I'll close this not least because it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep Vandal nomination. We get these maybe once a month. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown Japanese figure. Fails WP:Notability guidelines. Tiredtiger34 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]