The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources; entirely in-universe. With only a couple hundred Google hits, unlikely an article conforming to policy (ie, WP:V & WP:RS) could be written on this subject. Biruitorul Talk 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A rather minor initiative, with few if any third-party sources mentioning it. Biruitorul Talk 23:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find anything that would make this person notable. The first thirty Google results according to Scroogle show no reliable sources that would establish notability – the sort of links I found were Google Groups, an online petition calling for her to step down, WordPress and other blogs, official sites, etc. A position of "dean" does not qualify under WP:PROF. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio about a non-notable figure in history with no reliable sources cited for verifiability Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No general notability shown, and it seems not even notable within it's very narrow cateogry.Yobmod (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
REWROTE: Fails any notability outside its fictional world. No references, no real world information, not one of the main characters. Not every single character of every film/show/book needs a redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. no reliable sources = no article or nothing to mergeSecret account 14:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Anyone who wants the content for a merge can message me, and anyone who feels that redirecting somewhere is in order can do so. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Anyone who wants the content for a merge can message me, and anyone who feels that redirecting somewhere is in order can do so. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Anyone who wants the content for a merge can message me, and anyone who feels that redirecting somewhere is in order can do so. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Anyone who wants the content for a merge can message me, and anyone who feels that redirecting somewhere is in order can do so. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Super Robot Wars. History not retained as there was zero sourced material to merge. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Super Robot Wars. History not retained as there was zero sourced material to merge. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Fails WP:N, no improvement or new claims of notability since last AfD closed as "no consensus". Google News search reveals no relevant hits ZimZalaBim talk 23:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the Angry Video Game Nerd is notable enough for his own page, then TGWTG's associations with him have almost certainly gained him enough notoriety for inclusion. This is not a vote for Keep since I doubt Wikipedia's guidelines allow for such considerations when it comes to notability(though if I'm wrong, then do please consider this as a Keep vote).Bolt Crank (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for obvious reasons. --69.152.210.81 (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per: Bad Sources (few, if any, notable/reliable independent ones), Non notable per WP:WEB, Non notable per WP:BIO, seems like advert (ex:"gained cult fame", what cult fame? Never heard of it, no citation to back up) etc. The fact that another similar article exists doesn't justify the existence of this. ProD/AfD it if you feel its not notable Bolt.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Entertainers Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." I believe there is sufficient empirical evidence for TGWTG having "a significan "cult" following" and having made "unique" and "prolific" contributions to the field of online video.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.65.41 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. If anyone wants the content for merging, drop me a line. If anyone wants to create a redirect, go ahead. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 14:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series doesn't establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden and more. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 14:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a very pointless list. It doesn't really mean anything and it's not notable. WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as a perfectly good list; changes can be discussed on the talk page. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had its PROD tag removed. I believe this fails WP:NOT--"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"; DGG, who removed the PROD, claims it's "not indiscriminate--each is in a notable work". But notability is not inherited--else we would have full articles on every single infinitesimal minor character in any notable work. GJC 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elbutler (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NALBUMS states that, in general, mixtapes are not notable. There is nothing to suggest this one is - delete, per WP:N. Ros0709 (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing incomplete nomination for User:82.153.29.35. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of sources is not at issue. There is insufficient citation of secondary sources to establish sufficient notability. There is certainly no 'grudge' against anybody! I would respectfully refer Punkmorten, the original author, to WP:AGF. On issuing the prod, I put a courtesy PRODwarning on PM's talk page, but on removing it, PM did not issue a Deprod tag on mine in return. Let us all show mutual respect, please. (To avoid confusion: I forgot to sign in before posting as 82.153.29.35, for which I apologise! Also I found the above contributions posted here before I saved this. It has been taking me some time. Sorry for any confusion caused). Case for deletion follows.
Original article cites two sources:
Even if both of these sources were to be accepted as secondary, they do not, on their own, establish notability. Multiple independent secondary sources would be necessary, given that no secondary source has so far been cited which has any significant depth of coverage. That is what is stipulated in the basic criteria Naggie34 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*delete The sources would be sufficient if the appointment is notable, but I do not think it is. DGG (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
The result was redirect to Zoids. MBisanz talk 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zoids. MBisanz talk 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zoids. MBisanz talk 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zoids. MBisanz talk 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zoids. MBisanz talk 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zoids. MBisanz talk 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zoids. MBisanz talk 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zoids. MBisanz talk 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE : this page has no references and sounds like a fanmade fantasy, if it is true it should be merged in The Fame main page. JWAD (talk)
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer/model. No album releases, only mixtapes. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Senses Fail. MBisanz talk 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod rejected by anonymous user. Article about a musician that isn't notable outside of his band, per WP:MUSIC. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 13:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no assertion of notability here. I see that this person was in multiple contests. Last I checked, being in a contest like Wheel of Fortune doesn't make you notable. — Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 04:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speed Delete having money is not the same as notability. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No google results, likely hoax, Non notable otherwise also, even if it is not hoax. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. A footballer who has never played a game in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE and consensus on footballer notability. Nuttah (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable David Yuppstein (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. I have found sources and I will add them to the article. Schuym1 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. I could find reliable sources that show notability for the American food chain of the same name. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate collection of statistical information. Suggest merging data into respective school's articles rather than listing here. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn nomination as the article has been improved to the point that it is hardly recognizable from when I nominated it. (NAC) Tavix (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an entire list of original research, and there are no reliable sources to prove their existence. This list is impossible to verify as well. Tavix (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable Hindu name written like an advertisement. Tavix (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Resident Evil 4 creatures#Notable Ganados . MBisanz talk 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game character with no sourcing. It's basically a partial game walkthrough at this point, and I don't see much prospect for making it into something encyclopedic. Newsaholic (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable The Referee (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems unlikely this can be more than a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. ZimZalaBim talk 23:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable commercial proprietary software, article written like an advertisement, most likely by an author of this software (it looks like User:Steveh2112 has something common with "2112design" that distributes this software). Zero references, even Google searches turn up almost nothing. Despite article claiming the userbase of "50,000 users" and that it "has been available since 2003", I haven't found even any major web reviews, not mentioning any published sources. I'd go for speedy deletion, but I'm rather hesitated if I'm totally missing something and this is in fact notable? GreyCat (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. per consensus. Several commenters mentioned that several of the stubs have reliable sources and according to an WP:AN post some of the nominated entries were never properly tagged either. No objections against more specific nomination made after careful search of sources. Mgm|(talk) 16:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two sentence stub on a non-notable film, part of series of auto-generated content-free stubs featuring the same actor. The original version did not even state the exact year nor provide even the slightest reference. Prod tag added, but removed after the addition of only one (1) reference (a newspaper article) and a year of release (1952, which does not even agree with the vague claim from the original, 'The film was released in the 1940s').
Wikipedia is not a directory, so an article should have some other reason than a listing of its mere existence if it's to be a 'perfectly valid stub', as the remover of the Prod tag claimed. And even if Wikipedia were to be considered some sort of alternate version of the similarly user-edited IMDB, it should have at least some minimal level of content and--especially--proof.
Also included in this nomination are some further examples of this auto-generated, content-free directory-listing spree. There are many, many more:
--CalendarWatcher (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article fails WP:N per it's lack of reliable, independant sources. It may be the only working Xbox emulator out there but this alone is not an assertion of notability. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a dearth of reliable sourcing discussing this company in depth. Notability therefore not established Spartaz Humbug! 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A1. Stifle (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor. A Google search doesn't seem to reveal anything more than entries on websites like IMDb, TV.com, etc. He's only appeared in one film, and I can’t find very many reliable sources. Jamie☆S93 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Jamie☆S93 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. I looked at the link is there is no way that a Geocities site can be notable. Schuym1 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect and protect. Secret account 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This series only has a few recurring characters (already covered in Golden Axe (series)#Characters), while the rest only appear in single games. The games are perfectly capable of covering their own characters, so this is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft, no significance outside of the game whatsoever. For another similar page written by the same author, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonders in civilization IV. RedThunder 15:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to MacGyver'. MBisanz talk 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of any independent notability for this minor fictional character. Otto4711 (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy as asserts notability with hall of fame award. Only a smattering of Google hits, but it can be hard to establish notability with martial artists. Bringing it here to be sure. Dlohcierekim 14:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep . Bad-faith nomination from the below-mentioned IP (not the proxy nominator). Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An IP is complaining about this article and in fact I see no real sources to verify the context of the article. abf /talk to me/ 13:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrea Liveras, sad as his death was at the hands of terrorists, would not have been suitable for an article in Wikipedia before this event, hence WP:BIO1E is relevant. Equally WP:NOTMEMORIAL is relevant. No disrespect is intended to those who mourn Mr Liveras in this nomination, nor to his memory. We are creating an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Turkish exonyms . MBisanz talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really necessary? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Flewis(talk) 13:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using the search terms "Joseph Caccamise" and "songwriter" produces only 3 hits and Google news comes up ziltch. He exists and he may be notable but it regrettably can't be verified. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapiéçage. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Check also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of InuYasha terms (2nd nomination) about a recent result about terminology in fiction. Magioladitis (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Des Moore. MBisanz talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. most of its third party coverage relates to its director Des Moore Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of the Super Robot Wars series does not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapiéçage. All discussions resulted to deletion of the nominated articles. Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a PROD tag to this article as there had only been one contributor to this article on a non notable accountant who had tried and failed to become the Conservative candidate for London Mayor. The PROD tag was immediately removed by an anonymous editor. There are no independent third party refs and I can see no reason for retention. Paste Talk 11:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article tagged under CSD A7 - hangon added by editor, however I would most probably have sent this article to AfD for wider discussion in any case. Here posted for further comments from the community. --VS talk 11:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete: This organization is valid. They have been doing great work for the LGBT Community. It sounds to me like the other two wanting it deleted have a problem with the LGBT Community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.75 (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote to the organization and told them about the Wikipedia article their response was as follows. "Thank you for writing to us. We feel Wikipedia does what they do best and we do what we do best. We do not feel the need to be validated by Wikipedia so if they choose to remove us, it won't deter us from our work with the LGBT Community. We are not here for praise, we are here to help our community and nothing more. Sincerely Meghan Chavalier Founder Stopping The Hate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.75 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was : Speedily deleted - blanked by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article may be a hoax. There are no sources that verify the production of this movie. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy as CSD A7 - and appears that may be the work of two (or one sock) single purpose accounts - however am posting here for wider input. --VS talk 11:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 speedy was declined but article was redirected to father's. Author undid redirect without explanation. Article reads like a soapbox entry, difficult to tell if anything actually is a claim to notability. Difficult to tell whether anything useful can be found on Google. Suggest deletion unless anyone can find anything worth salvaging as a stub (I can't). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Leek. MBisanz talk 03:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where there are leeks there is leek soup. This is an unremarkable soup, surely not notable. It should be transwikied to Wiktionary and removed from Wikipedia. It is a dicdef. Anyone creating a soup out of salt, water and leeks with no added ingredients will find they have salty leeky water, too, rather than a pleasant soup. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether the soup is pleasant or not is not for Wikipedia to decide. Being pleasant is not a requirement for articles on soups. Fg2 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No references aside from random external links. Notability has not been sufficiently established. I tagged the article close to a week ago, but there's been no improvements since. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete unless claim to notability established. There may well be claims to notability for this person, but it's the responsibility of the author to find them, not the participants in a deletion discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Via Francigena. MBisanz talk 03:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a travel guide. If deemed encyclopedically necessary, a compact list of the stages should first be included in the main article, Via Francigena, before being spun off again. In its current state, with no useful sourcing and written in a mostly inappropriate tone, the article is not a useful basis for such a spinoff and can be deleted. Sandstein 10:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my content. I just moved it from the Via Francigena page as it was overwhelming the encyclopedic content and did some (very) minor cleaning up as it was so poorly written. I'm not a deletionist so I would leave it so that someone else can clean it up. IMO the travel guide parts of it should go but the stages part can stay. reinthal (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod by original author. My original belief was that this was not a notable subject, and the limited GHits that all link back to Wiki, backed up my gut feelings. As well as contesting the prod the author added a lot more material and a reference that doesn't mention this language once. On current evidence I still believe this is no more that a student's project and is therefore unsuited as an article as it is non notable original research. Nuttah (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not asserted, nor have any references supporting notability been found that meet requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Despite an extensive search since September 2007, we have not been able to improve the situation at all. Many edits to the article are completely unverifable, in addition to the notability problems. We could prune the article down to the stub yet it would still have no assertion of notability nor references to back that up. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I'm closing this one early since there appear to be sources which would allow for improvement through editing (the deletion policy gives deletion as a list resort for articles that cannot be edited to meet standards), also, there's a near unanimous keep vote, by established non-Indian editors. I suggest people to improve the article as soon as possible and if required, we can have a review in a couple of months. Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"killed while fighting terrorists" clearly fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT a memorial.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should stay!
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.Borfee (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)borfee[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fancruft. Misarxist 09:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List_of_past_recurring_and_minor_Emmerdale_characters#M. Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real world information, no references, no media coverage and no notability outside the show. Magioladitis (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of "teens" out of "the streets of detroit" 'founded' a record label. Dare I mention the "inherent" notability that comes with the lack WP:RS? WP:1000THINGS is looking for an update - the perfect addition of Vanispamcruftisement awaits. . . Flewis(talk) 08:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is only a statue and must be deleted in accordance with WP:N No reliable resources to justify notability and Fails WP:N BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to University of California, Berkeley. MBisanz talk 03:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is basically one long advertisement for this group. Is that, by itself, a reason for deletion? No. However, I am unable to find any reliable third party sources that demonstrate why this group is notable. TN‑X-Man 12:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article provides basic information about the APEC Study Center (ASC) in Berkeley (BASC is the abbreviation for Berkeley APEC Study Center... so we can't write a general article about BASC since this article is it). While it is not prominent in the media, it seems like it is notable in the academic field. If its projects/findings are cited in many academic papers, does that not imply notability? I admit that Tnxman307 is right in that it does seem a bit like a product advertisement (in that the article lists the books and such) so, at this moment (unless I am convinced otherwise later), I guess this article would be OK, to me, if the author would edit this list or throw it out altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.108.165 (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 00:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:MUSIC as it is a album that did not chart. Prod declined with the reasoning that the artist's article is too long to contain this information. —BradV 05:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for a considerable time as needing reliable third party sources. Consists entirely of primary sourced material and plot summary with no evidence of notability independent of the series. McWomble (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Jericho characters. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for nearly a year as needing reliable third party sources. Consists entirely of plot summary with no evidence of notability independent of the series. McWomble (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song, no references or charting info. CSD was declined, since a prod was already removed in favor of the CSD, I'm just bringing it here for discussion. Raven1977 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
online radio talk show with little evidence of notability Jac16888 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable list of items that can be built in the computer game Civilization IV, doesn't have any references whatsoever. I came across the article right as the proposed deletion was contested; since I agree the article is non-notable, I went ahead and brought it here. Raven1977 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD where my rationale was "Subject lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources that would establish notability and allow for a full, neutral, biography to be written about this individual". The PROD was removed and eight sources were added that, at first, I thought was fairly impressive. When I looked at them, however, none actually addressed the concerns for my original PROD, save for the fact that they are reliable, third-party sources. Here's a quick look at all of them:
None of these sources provide non-trivial coverage that would be required to establish notability and allow for a full, neutral biography to be written. A quick Google search does reveal a lot of hits, but most of them relate to The Exorcist, providing little more than his role in the film if that, and none of them provide anything more than trivial coverage. At best, this should be a redirect to Tippi Hedren, although I doubt that anyone would type in Noel Marshall to get to her page. Cheers, CP 02:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Band called it quits after one self-released EP and one album on a minor label. No big tours reported, no independent coverage outside the occasional note on the usual suspects (the metal blogs) Drmies (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only one demo/EP, no independent coverage: the band is simply not notable. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Shown not to be a hoax through consensus, speedy keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 00:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources at all, probably a hoax. europemayhem (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy (IAR/SNOW) keep. There's a reliable (print) source cited right in the article itself, and more evidence that it's not a hoax has been brought forward here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources at all, probably a hoax. europemayhem (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Secret account 14:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dubuious phobias: "feet phobia", "Pope phobia", and "monkey phobia". While there are 281 hits for e.g. podophobia on google (of rather dubious veracity), there is none in Google books. Timurite (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I looked through category:Phobias and I suspect there are other rather nonstandard phobias worth deletion. I will look thru them to double check and list them for deletion as well. Timurite (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:TenOfAllTrades as a hoax. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likely hoax. The only source is an IMDB link to another person. The author, JARIAN (talk · contribs), has a history of problematic edits in this area, as well as sockpuppetry. Blueboy96 03:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak assertion of notability therefore probably can't be speedied, but no reliable sources backing up the claim. Reads like an advertisement. McWomble (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is poorly written, and does not have much scientific supporting evidence. Seems to be supporting racial superiority rather than reporting actual scientific data. There are really only three sections, none of which support the claim that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than other ethnicities. ScienceApe (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Many of the keep opinions provided little or no reason, or fell afoul of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. As a result, the delete reasons, based on actual policies are much more convincing. Mr.Z-man 06:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, only known for the incident that caused his death rogerd (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many of us can claim that?
He's also well on his way to becoming a martyr. --71.142.252.230 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC) — 71.142.252.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was speedy delete as an obvious hoax, and thus pure vandalism (G3). Blueboy96 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax school. Doesn't exist. Fictitious. Only "reference" is to a conveniently dead link. People can speedy this if they like. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Already speedy deleted by User:TenOfAllTrades as a hoax. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax. The IMDB link is to another actor. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Mitchell (nominated article created by the same editor).
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:
McWomble (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Iridescent. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(delete) – (View AfD) Non notable Band. Search for "Damages Band" turns up nothing Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting a few of the (I hope) uncontroversial ones from this discussion. These articles are yet more of the "X-ian Y-ian" articles about people from country X living in country Y. They contain no assertion of notability and are sourced only by census info, if that. Consensus at similar discussions has been to delete
*Merge all to Demographics of Australia. McWomble (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any sources for this article Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Snow. If it were an album, it would be speedyable. A game by a n-n person is similarly n-n StarM 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NN-notable game> WP:MADEUP Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:USEFUL as this software may be, it is not notable -- it lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. The sources currently being cited are blogs and chat forums. JBsupreme (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its not notable? notability tagged since January 2008 The Rolling Camel (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion because "Non notable group, no evidence (in article or through Google or Google News) that this has received any attention in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:NOTE". ProD contested with reason "the fact remains that many artists part of this are in wiki already & the info is notable because they were huge on the WORLDS largest online indie network." However, no evidence that they are actaully huge, or more importantly that this has received any attention in reliable independent sources, has been provided. There are only 77 distinct Google hits[44], most from mspace, their homepage, self-released press releases, .... The one Google News hit[45], also included in the 77 previously mentioned results, is just a repeat of the press release, not a journalistic article: not surprising, from a site where you present your own news articles anyway[46]. Fram (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Is a local television presenter someone who meets WP:BIO? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If not for the article's history, this would be an A7 with no assertion of notability, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. There's no assertion of evidence of notability. He existed, yes. But is he notable? Note, if this is deleted, the following redirect will need deletion:
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-notable street in Missouri. Not notability given. American Eagle (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very little info, which could easily be integrated into the main Wolfmother article. The song is not very notable, only appeared on a soundtrack, which like I said should be included in main. Main author of current form of article listing. Andre666 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, semi pro darts player, never seen on TV and never qualified for a major tournament. Appears to be autobiographical.Paste (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Canada's Wonderland. MBisanz talk 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a page devoted to Canada's Wonderland. International Festival is just one of several themed areas that are part of Canada's Wonderland. There is absolutely no need to have a separate page for each themed area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecMan2008 (talk • contribs)
The result was keep. John254 02:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to North Point. MBisanz talk 03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Montessori school, no different from any other Montessori school in the world. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a charting single, no cover version, etc... Fails WP:NM Europe22 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep or nomination withdrawn, take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article claims Harriz
Delete. Not Notable Mwanner | Talk 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]