< October 27 | October 29 > |
---|
The result was merge to Tetrahydrocannabinol. Mr.Z-man 00:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too limited in scope. The toxic effects of THC are discussed at Health_issues_and_effects_of_cannabis#Toxicity_2. I would possibly accept that an article Toxic effects of cannibis or Toxic effects of tetrahydrocannabinol may be eventually appropriate. At present I can see no necessity for the present article. Delete, rename and/or merge. ZayZayEM (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. and recreate as dab Black Kite 08:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, unsourced college drinking game Michael Johnson (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Tone 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to TUGS. Since no article currently exists for merging, I've redirected the article to TUGS until such an article is created, and the content merged. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article plus the 26 others in Category:TUGS characters. Captain Zero (TUGS), Izzy Gomez (TUGS), were already deleted and the episode lists have also been merged following this discussion. These elements of the TUGS series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, original research, and extremely trivial statistics and model and toy details. Also the main TUGS article needs severe cleanup. There is already a TUGS wiki where this information has been transwikid. Formdog (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unsourced, makes unverified claims, and has not established notability. Google search returns very little, except for this article. JNW (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by SGGH , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not notable Church of emacs (Talk) 23:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lacks evidence to prove he meets WP:CREATIVE Michellecrisp (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong keep - Meet WP:N, he together with Millôr Fernandes, Ziraldo and Prosperi criticized in the newspaper O Pasquim the Brazilian military dictatorship that installed itself after 1964. Jaguar however has been heavily criticized for receiving about US$500,000 in compensation for the persecution he suffered during those years. He was arrested by the censorship.
:::English sources are hard to find but I managed to find this: Google books - Brazil in the Making By Carmen Nava
The result was keep. consensus is that sourcing to establish notability is available TravellingCari 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lacks evidence to prove he meets WP:CREATIVE Michellecrisp (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong keep - Meet WP:N, he together with Jaguar (cartoonist), Ziraldo and Prosperi criticized in the newspaper O Pasquim the Brazilian military dictatorship that installed itself after 1964.
:Comment - English source showing some of the impact the newspaper O Pasquim had despite of the military censorship and the arrests: Google books - Brazil in the Making By Carmen Nava EconomistBR 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all just lists of stations that report to various R&R charts. Trivial information, largely unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 03:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. OR, no notability, unsourced, everything. If anyone would like the deleted content to have a go at making a decent - sourced! - "List of...." article, please contact me. Otherwise the correct place for these is at the Zoids Wikia, which is where the information already is. Black Kite 09:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These elements of the Zoids series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, original research, and extremely trivial statistics and model and toy details. TTN (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TTN (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
K00bine (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable third-party references to establish notability. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. —Bkell (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a confusing article that does not demonstrate a clear knowledge of "Best Actor" vs. "Best Supporting Actor", and is redundant to many other articles, lists and categories. It adds nothing to the understanding of Academy Awards winners that isn't included elsewhere. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Port Charles, New York (fictional city)#World Security Bureau. Sandstein 16:43, 2 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 for "World Security Bureau" (with quotes) gives nothing. Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. consensus is that material exists to improve the article. TravellingCari 19:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book - fails WP:BK. ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small charter airline. Does not meet the notability standards at Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Airlines. A7 speedy was reversed, so it's AFD time. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. no consensus here to delete, unanimous keep apart from nom. All based in good reasons. TravellingCari 19:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of plot elements that does establish notability independent of its series. The main article already has an overview of the of the actual topic of the fighting styles, so this is just extremely unnecessary. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary, original research, and trivial details. TTN (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TTN (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like WP:NOT material for some reason...but I'm not sure. ViperSnake151 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. per snow TravellingCari 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources confirm shooting to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. G12: Blatant copyright infringement by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This manga does not seem to satisfy WP:NOTE or WP:NB. I've done a fairly thorough trawl through the results of a Google Search, but have not find multiple, reliable sources, that provide significant coverage of the manga. There are a number of book sellers, web forums, and various websites that make a brief mention of it, but the nearest I came to finding sources that provide significant coverage are the following sites: [12], [13], that appears to be ordinary blogs, and so probably not reliable sources.
Also, the article seems to have been copied from this article: [14]. A speedy deletion as a copyright violation was refused, which is why I am listing the article here, on the grounds that articles from Bulbapedia are available under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Generic licence, but as I understand it, that isn't compatible with the GFDL, due to the non-comercial clause. Silverfish (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 00:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per SNOW. Tiptoety talk 02:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web forum. No sources meeting WP:RS; no real assertion of notability. A bit promotional. Tan | 39 19:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Tone 14:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played in a professional game. His status as an assistant coach and scout does not confer notability either. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability. Sounds like one of those dime-a-dozen "organizations" that is everywhere. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 22:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is about a nonnotable student publication at the University of Washington. The paper is part of the larger Associated Students of the University of Washington, so a small amount of material could be merged there. As it is, the article serves as an advertisement and/or to stroke the egos of one or more student editors. The awards they've won are nonnotable or purely incidental and are not worth dedicating an entire article for one sentence about an apple award they won once. The rest of the article is pure original research or traces back to a single source on the paper's own webpage. No other third party sources exist. All OR (and irrelevant text about bureaucratic oversight) removed, this article would be reduced to a few sentences about their history and one about the awards they won. Again, this could be easily compressed to a subcategory under ASUW. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deletion under criteria G12; text was copied from goturkey.com Marasmusine (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a how-to. ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball Keep. NAC, SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article serves very little purpose; it is essentially a list of characters, and as such is a duplicate of information found here: List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. If someone feels as though it would be most appropriate to merge these articles as proposed, please take up that argument on the talk page of the articles (preferably one talk page, with notes on the related pages). Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the entire Desperate Housewives Season 1. It Breaks WP:Episode which states individual episodes are usually not WP:Notable, and they don't qualify in any of these cases. All relevant information is already included in Desperate Housewives, List of Desperate Housewives episodes and Desperate Housewives (season 1) where it belongs. If this passes the other episodes of the remaining seasons will be nominated also. KelleyCook (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following season 1 episodes are similarly nominated:
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Voice actor lists, many of which were originally listified from categories by bots several years ago, are generally discouraged in favor of the information being presented in character lists and individual character articles, and there is past consensus to delete these articles - see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neon Genesis Evangelion voice actors or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon voice actors. —Dinoguy1000 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Boston Tea Party (political party). consensus is the content would be better located within the article about the party. It's under the re-direct for whoever wants to add it. TravellingCari 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites no sources that aren't published by the subject or his organization; the only related result on a Google News Archive search [20] is a press release. So, per WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it") we need actual evidence that third party sources exist, or we cannot have an article on this person. Rividian (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Shaman King. Black Kite 11:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable fictional element from Shaman King. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Nothing but plot and OR. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason. This is the the next "level" up from the Over Soul, and it is purely a technique in the anime, a secondary work.:
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy declined for being wrongly requested as A7. Goes to AfD as OR, unreferenced, all or most of it covered at Rock and roll Alexf(talk) 22:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yeah ur gay if u read this.lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.11.200 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be an advertisement, and it is not clear whether the company meets the notability criteria. Prod removed without the addition of independent sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to We've Got a Fuzzbox and We're Gonna Use It. and merge. The article has been redirected; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant and verified information. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48 ghits when quote marks are used, does this indicate notability, also this article does not indicate notability in any shape or form Jay Pegg (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Black Kite 09:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article consists of merely the title of the book, its author, and its list of 59 chapters. While Ibn Sirin is certainly a notable figure, I'm not sure that this book is, especially since I could not find any results for a book under this title by Sirin when I did a Google search. There is a book by Sigmund Freud with the same title, but it does not seem to be related in anyway. Because I have not been able to find any sources on this title, I do not believe it is notable. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. After sorting through this mess of an AFD it seems there is minimal reason to keep the article. The consensus is not firm either way in my judgment. The reliable sources are borderline but probably do rise to a sufficient level to make the decision to keep. When all aspects are considered we are better off to keep than to delete this one. JodyB talk 01:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting that this article be deleted for several reasons listed below: 1. I have a very strong suspicion that Peter Max Lawrence not only created this article, but has been the only one maintaining it. If you look at the history (administrators can see IP addresses) almost all the names listed there like WhtPratphall, Pratphall, Verdequete, Waitformyturn are probably linked to the same IP address. These "users" also have no userpages, and therefore, makes me think they are just aliases of Peter's to promote himself on Wikipedia. Almost -ALL- the links go to his own website and Paper Waster Press is also his company. Wikipedia is NOT a RESUME website. 2. Peter Max Lawrence logged on as Waitformyturn was the one who removed my initial request for deletion from this page. This is why I have now submitted it for debate by other Wikipedia users. I am sure I will find more aliases of Peter's on here defending himself, and would like honest Wikipedia users to intervene. 3. In the history section Peter Max Lawrence logged on as Waitformyturn also slanders a student at the San Francisco Art Institute by putting a link to his myspace page. I assume he is blaming this person for the problems he is experiencing on Wikipedia. He also has slandered other users who have made comments on this talk page under the name "Roberta Soltea" and wrote a lengthy open letter to one of the users about how "Roberta Soltea" is a real person. I removed that nonsense from the talk page. 4. Basically this article is causing a lot of problems on here and more importantly, it is completely, a self-made vanity article and should be deleted. Modestprotest (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
::Saatchi: Anyone can create a profile on Saatchi's website. See http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/register. There was a link sent out to SFAI students a couple years ago recommending that we all make a profile so our work can be seen. Same with: http://www.americanartists.org/art/artist_detail_87.htm. While I agree that the article has been significantly improved by Michael and I commend his time and effort to make the article neutral instead of self-promotional, I must stress the many DIY artist websites that are offered to us in which we can show our work to an internet audience. P.S. The "Tornado Gallery" is not a "real" gallery and what I mean by "real" is that it is not seen as an established, functional, open to the public gallery in San Francisco. It is a small room in his apartment that he calls a gallery and opens up to friends when he has parties. Most of the time the room is used as a 2nd bedroom. Please see the "gallery" website at http://tornado-sf.blogspot.com. <Modestprotest (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::::Well, I am not sure if you do understand because I wasn't establishing a position. I was merely clarifying some things people might find to be showing notability. Like Saatchi in your case, and I wanted to show that the online gallery is something that PML created himself, not Saatchi employees, curators, et. al. Also Michael has been using this page to show everyone his improved edits in an effort to "Keep" this article. If he can do that, why cannot I point out the still existing problems with it? Modestprotest (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Am moving some discussion to my usertalk page, to avoid disruption of the AfD process. Thank you. Modestprotest (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussion about merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable mall. No inline citations or external links. No inbound links either. Flewis(talk) 12:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. and relisting again isn't going to bring about one. Merging or re-directing is an editorial decision and there's no clear consensus to do anything else. TravellingCari 19:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just can't see how a single (or very few multiple) cameo character from the Flintstones is notable enough for own page. Further, how can this be at all referenced or cited? --Kickstart70-T-C 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETED by snowball. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary content fork from Barack Obama TrulyBlue (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even John McCain made it in the search list, but no Barack Obama! What's wrong with this picture? And may I ask this, if WikiPedia consensus can remove anything then what's to stop say some Christian church community from owning wikipages?--PaulLowrance (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]"No page with that title exists.
...
[1] Antichrist
...
[2] Dan Rooney
...
[3] John McCain"
By the way, the current version of the "Barack Obama" article already mentions this fact in the Family and personal life section: "He was baptized at Trinity church in 1988." - Ev (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no mention of the Barack Obama baptism. I searched high and low. I've been a system admin for several servers since 1997. I've been a software engineer for ~ 30 years and was programming computers since the age of 13. So I know how to search a web page, and I literally search dozens of times on the Barack Obama web page. Here is the proof -->
At this very moment you can see the google cache for yesterday, Oct 28, 2008 10:36:43 GMT.
If you hurry up and view googles cache before google updates it you will see there is no mention of Barack's baptism at the Trinity United Church of Christ.
At this moment there is a small mention of the Barack baptism without a history change, which proves that wikipedia pages are being modified at a high level. As suspected, to say the least the wikipedia website is being abused for political purposes. Also, I know for fact that ~~ one month ago the Barack Obama wiki article contained detailed information about his baptism. For example it mentioned the entire name of the church, which is "Trinity United Church of Christ." At this moment the Barack Obama article only says "He was baptized at Trinity church in 1988."
So without any wiki history the wiki article went from a detailed mention of Barack's baptism, to nothing, and now back to an outline of his baptism. At least I now have my personal proof. Having been a system admin and software engineer, I know how easy it is to place backdoors on websites to allow key people to modify the pages and history logs without notice. What a shame. Can't humanity accomplish anything free of abuse?--PaulLowrance (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a G3, as the article creator admitted this was a hoax. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article started as a soapbox article, and has gone through some revisions that do not alleviate the POV problems, but only turn it into a battle ground. Further, as far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no such legislation as the Local Immigration Control Act. What DOES exist is Section 287.g of the Immigration and National Security Act of 1996, which has a much better article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Local Immigration Control Act does not technically exist. However, it is a combination of various illegal immigration controls which are advocated by US senators and experts in the various fields the LICA affects. As for the writing of the article, that is being addressed.LocutusofBorg01 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As much fun as it is to watch you try to figure out what the L.I.C.A. is, I might as well just tell you. It only sort of exists. Jacob B. and I are debaters in the NCFCA debate league. Our topic last year was illegal immigration. So, instead of doing something lame like "build a border wall", we decided to make up an entirely new bill. We combined mass deportation, social security card reform, and Proposition 287g to form the Local Immigration Control Act (the original name was Local Immigration Enforcement Act, but LICA is much cooler than LIEA). There you go, the LICA would work in practice, but Congress would never pass it. Oh, and is about the USA LocutusofBorg01 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated recreation today under various names (Dave E. Crockett) being one. Usernames suggest this is being written by subject himself. No real notability, unsourced. Probable COI violation. Tan | 39 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in the entertainment industry, specifically radio and broadcasting. It was also submitted under the name Dave E. Crockett as that is the professional name used. There are links to various radio stations relevant to the career path, cities, history etc. I would rather you leave this up as a biographical reference to former listeners who wonder "What ever happened to ---" Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.91.254 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also Tan -- Help me understand the issue. I would rather be listed (yes, self authored) as Dave E. Crockett. Does the fact that I wrote it myself and did not try to hide that make the entry less relevant? I'm trying to abide by the rules. This is after all a source for information, no matter how trivial it may seem to you or the other moderators. Keeping that in mind I would say that a person who worked at 20 radio stations and has appeared on network TV in prime-time would be slightly relevant. Or at least a curiosity. This isn't the bio from just "some guy in the neighborhood." It represents a career span of 30+ years broadcasting in Boston, Atlanta, Chicago and Houston. Cities that make up of 28 million listeners! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.91.254 (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tan- I see a lot or radio stations who are promoting themselves with Wki as are there many musicians. Please look at LARRY LUJACK and explain the difference between his WIKI and mine. Thanks.
Tan- Under the guidelines of WIKI ANY biographical input would have to be considered "self promoting" then. Even your page promotes your "self interests." You belong to some group in Arizona and have posted other articles on Wiki. Isn't that "self promoting" to talk about YOUR deeds and YOUR interests? I don't follow your logic on what constitutes COI or "self promoting." Seems very random to me. SCB
Tan - Your point is well taken and you are correct on the "Biography" versus "Autobiographical" argument. If my page has to go, it has to go. SCB
Tan - One quick question... Under the KHMX page my name is listed (Dave E. Crockett) under "former Jocks." Is it possible to link a Bio page to that ? SCB
The result was redirect to Surfin' USA. History not retained as no sourced material to merge. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song, didn't chart, no sources. Suggest deletion and moving Farmer's Daughter (band) to this title (of course, with a hatnote pointing to the appropriate Beach Boys album). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against a NPOV, properly sourced recreation. Mr.Z-man 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As written, this article appears to exist purely to disparage one Ian Eisenberg. However, rewriting it would require reliable, independent sources, and I wasn't able to find any with a quick google search. Does this person meet the notability criteria? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. If not I apologize. I am the subject of this article. It is writen by a ex shareholder of Zevia that is on a mission to harm the company. Almost the entire article is simply innacurate and defamatory. Feel free to contact me for more information ian@zevia.com
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jpop group with no real claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC. Notability not found in gsearch or gnews; no reliable, independent sources in article. Taking to AfD rather than PROD because this article has been around for a while and had multiple editors. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because this is their only single and has no independent notability:
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Youth player who hasn't played an official match for Ajax yet. For the same reason I am also nominating the following articles:
Aecis·(away) talk 15:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 16:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic original research. Speedy declined by myself, mostly because I wanted the creator to see community consensus. Tan | 39 15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, take a look at the article now -- it appears some clever people helped to bring it up to grade (at least to stub-worthy grade). Ecoleetage (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was I've been bold and moved the article to Russell Brand prank calls row per WP:BLP1E. The news story is now highly notable in the UK, with Prime Minister and BBC involved, and we should have an article on that. Whether the victim is independently notable is something we should discuss later when the dust is settled a bit.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Classic WP:BLP1E, no notability even asserted outside this small brou-ha-ha. Rodhullandemu 15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
---
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unreleased album with little media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Article has been cited for lack of sources since December 2007. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability under WP:BIO for academics, publishers or any other person NN criteria. Also no coverage of any kind and therefore fails general NN criteria Guliolopez (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as a "boy mezzo-soprano". The term mezzo-soprano is used exclusively for adult women. Pre-pubescent boys sharing a similar vocal range are known as trebles. Adult men with a similar range are known as countertenors. This is either a hoax or original research. Nrswanson (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Close with no action. This is mostly a content dispute. There is certainly a case for a separate article - this is clearly an important topic which has received international coverage - but the decision as to whether it should be stand-alone or as part of the main article is not a job for AfD. Black Kite 11:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this article should be dealed because it has a clear bias and plenty of loaded/weasel words. I think that most of the technical infomation on the page should be returned to the usual SUV article. There's no mention of SUV safety at all on the usual SUV article, it's all contained on the criticism article, where it's presented with a bit of bias. I also think that the relevant criticism of SUVs should also go under the usual SUV article, under a section called 'Public perception of SUVs', or something along those lines .... Sawyer1990 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn Nominator stated withdrawal on my talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Roberts needs her own article at the moment. She may have a charted single, but that's about. Hardly anything at all about her life...etc, etc, etc. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete the material. Mering or keeping where it is is an editorial discussion TravellingCari 19:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources demonstrating notability, is borderline advertisement for this service. It is not uncommon for schools to share course materials. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per charted single.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, written as advertisement, only links to his promoters website
This musician apparently has a forthcoming album. That's the closest thing to notability i can find.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC I don't see how an argument can be made the article meets any of the criteria. And i can find no reference to him via google on the new york times or at MTV.com. Could you point me to those articles?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't released an album yet. The daily news story mentions in one sentence that he performed at a basketball camp for underpriveldged kids in new york 5 years ago. The access my library link provides a summary of a gushing article from Interview, a magazine known for running advertorial type stories for A&R reps. The last link is about an appearance he made in Columbia, South Carolina, to help promote a local radio show. He gets a one sentence mention in the local paper's metro section and that's it. I have more media mentions for my career and at greater length and believe me, i don't think i'm notable either.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither... the advertorial nature of the article itself just got my hackles up.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*keep single charted on the top 100 on BillBoard R&B/Rap. Distributed by Atlantic Records, a major label. Dlohcierekim 01:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
<<expand>>Having an official site with a major label indicates notability. Dlohcierekim 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the criterias of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Newly founded organization with a very small membership according to its website. Was speedied twice. --jergen (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC) jergen (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scouting in Jamaica currently reads only as a list. there is no article, not even a stub.--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ignore my bias ;-)--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A7. Tan | 39 15:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article gives no indication of notability (the company currently employs 16 people; this should be an indication of how small it is). It's also written like an advertisement. Article does not seem to comply with WP:CORP. Phlyght (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. and none likely to emerge with another relist. Merging or not is an editorial discussion, no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 23:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking this to AfD because of three things - Article is for a Single/Song, Article is for a "promo CD Single", Article is for a "Digital download". Yes the artist is notable as a member of System of a Down and yes his label (Serjical Strike) is semi-notable because it is distributed via Warner Brothers/Reprise. However - is a digital download, promo only, single notable? Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Add on Comment: I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]
Comment - this is somewhat botched as separate Afds had already been created before this bundled nomination, some of which survived an AfD already. Suggest to consider seperately. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 21:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Notability. SkyWalker (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cenarium Talk 01:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-encyclopedic article, unreferenced, WP:OR / WP:IINFO. Unable to ascertain any notability or third-party information to verify this. CultureDrone (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and cleanup. Mr.Z-man 00:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a direct duplication of development paragraphs from Final Fantasy (video game) and Final Fantasy II pages. As a result, it focuses on minute details and technical trivia of individual games rather than attempting to draw a global view of the development of the Final Fantasy series; it is basically a changelog in prose and not an encyclopedic article. Since the actual information should fit in the main Final Fantasy article (with further information in the articles of the individual games), there is no need to have a distinct article for development. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted for blatant copyvio. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent COI biography for an inventor/businessman with one patent (an underpinner for picture frames). Independent WP:RS coverage supporting WP:CREATIVE not provided or found. Recreated after PROD deletion of Antoine Cassese. Also an apparent copy-and-paste from the inventor's bio at the company website here. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an existing concept (Website), but it fails the notability guideline. 52 google hits in total, I found no reliable third-party sources covering it. The website seems to be unreleated to the ebook that allegedly invented the concept, per the note on my talk page. See also Talk:Karatics. PROD declined. AmaltheaTalk 10:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted per WP:SNOW and long-standing general concensus game guides don't belong here. - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a walkthrough/strategy guide, an orphan article, only contributor is Flippytoon123 The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 09:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This orphaned article contains no useful information. CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this list violates WP:NOT#IINFO and should be deleted. TV channels have a vocation to broadcast all manner of programs, including movies Ohconfucius (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is nothing at all here that shows independent notability per WP:BIO from the group. Indeed, most of the article is actually about the group. Since even the group doesn't have an article, being a redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 2), a redirect appears pointless. Black Kite 11:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One half of the dance group Signature that performed on the second series of Britain's Got Talent. The dance duo itself is not notable, as it has received minimal coverage not directly related to the show, and so neither is Mirza. Though he has performed a little outside of the show, there is little to no coverage of this available. I have brought it here as I originally redirected it, and this was met with opposition. J Milburn (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like a personal essay on the Technology integration of calculators in US high school classrooms. Contested prod. - Eldereft (cont.) 08:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cenarium Talk 01:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. Anef00 (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (A7) by MacGyverMagic (non-admin closure). --AmaltheaTalk 11:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable website. Anef00 (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (A7) by MacGyverMagic (non-admin closure). --AmaltheaTalk 11:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. Anef00 (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable database. Google hit 324. Anef00 (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Vladimir Putin#Early life and KGB career. Content already present there. Consensus ist that we don't currently have the basis for a standalone article. Sandstein 16:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, and as the only assertion of Vladimir Spiridonovich is that he is the father of Vladimir Vladimirovich, he does not pass notability guidelines for biographical articles. The information is contained in his son's article, and redirect was undone, so am bringing it to AfD instead. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 06:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan article, no references, weasel words. —Bkell (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per multiple references in RS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small-group jargon, sourced to a single book. At the very best, a dictionary definition, but in reality simply some unnotable in-group jargon being used to prop up a how-to guide. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a nonnotable UFO sighting. The article reads like a witness statement and includes no references to any reliable sources. This case was investigated by NUFORC but that alone doesn't assure notability. Examples of notable UFO cases would be the 2006 O'Hare International Airport UFO sighting and the Phoenix Lights. These cases have been well documented and discussed and had multiple witnesses. This case is borderline hoax since there is no verification of its existance. Themfromspace (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Parodies of Sarah Palin. Merge, content is under the re-direct for someone to perform the merge. There is no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sketch insufficiently notable Justmeherenow ( ) 05:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC) WP:NOT#NEWS Justmeherenow ( ) 06:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. WP:NOT#NEWS says, quote, "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." End Quote. This article cannot be classified as a sports announcement or tabloid story and the individuals involved include notable entertainers spoofing notable politicians. This entertainment sketch hardly counts as a news report, no?--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A7 - no assertion of notability. Tan | 39 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable forum software Closedmouth (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good faith search of books and the web did not identify any reason to think that this story is notable. The fact that it is a real folktale is not a claim of notability. The notability guideline for books (while not strictly applicable) gives a sense of why not:
The article (and subsequent searching) does not find any of these criteria to be applicable, nor is the general notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in [independent] reliable sources".
Bongomatic (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A7. Tan | 39 15:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not notable. emerson7 05:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. no evidence that these two are notable. If someone things the other three should be deleted, they need their own AfD as they were not properly bundled here. No comment on their merit. TravellingCari 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two pubs in Sydney. No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per Cesar Award wins.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Idle bit of self-promotion. The guy dumps his CV and thinks he has created a Wikipedia article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like self-promotion. Even his claim to notoriety for deleting some websites seems pretty thin. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. , whether or not to merge is an editorial discussion for te talk pages. TravellingCari 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lie Lie Lie for more information Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too broad of a list to serve any sort of purpose. WP:NOT a directory. JBsupreme (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be "authority of the game of golf" but I am very dubious about its notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement accusation holds no water. I have been through the TRGA website TRGA website contains no advertisements and does not ask for money on any link I can find. There are external links of credibility including a professional event that will be using TRGA rulebook in an upcoming event. Also found a link on the search engine that the TRGA is supported by the Louisville golf company which has made classic golf clubs for decades. I have added that link to the list of external links on the wiki page. Both arguments here stating lack of notability, and claim of advertisement purpose or any act of deception are not viable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astralography (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G11) by MacGyverMagic (non-admin closure). AmaltheaTalk 11:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere between spam and not notable. Might even be speedyable. Chris (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy. This article was originally deleted as listcruft on January 16, 2007 by way of consensus. I propose that this is trivial directory information thus it violates WP:NOTDIR and should be deleted on those grounds (or speedy re-deleted). JBsupreme (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likely a hoax or an inside joke. Ships at a Distance (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concert -- even though it's by a notable band, a single concert isn't a notable event. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable recipient of an in-house award. No coverage in reliable third party sources. Svetla Lubova generates less than 500 ghits and zero news archive hits. RMHED (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Decisions on whether or not to merge can be made on the talk pages. There's no consensus for deletion. TravellingCari 23:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was begun earlier today as a potential ITN candidate. It did not achieve that status. Despite my best efforts to expand it, the plain fact remains this is basically a local crime story with zero encyclopedic value. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Merging is an editorial discussion, doesn't need this AfD to continue. There's no consensus here to delete the article. TravellingCari 23:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an essay; no references, and it's not clear if the topic is notable. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Flewis(talk) 06:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about the second to last person to be guillotined in France, this is his only claim to fame. While there is plenty of information on this person in French, with little English language content on Carrein, I'm not sure that he fulfills WP:N and WP:BIO for the purposes of the English Wikipedia. If I'm totally off base with this nomination, I apologize in advance, but (in my opinion) he has no worldwide significance that is shown on mentioned here. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are those who study the history of the death penalty in Europe (France was the last country in Western Europe to abolish it, in 1981) who might find the article of interest (particularly if their knowledge of French is not of a high standard). I wouldn't say you're being off base, but I defend my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WDH59510 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lobbying groups that likely fails WP:ORG. The only references I could find were related to the hires and offices of the organization or short blurps by one of the group's partners. I could not find and good sources that talked about the Monument Policy Group itself. Full disclosure: I have prodded all four partners of the group. Millbrooky (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article was dramatically stubbed due to a suspected copyright violation, the current article does not resemble the version nominated. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I think this is borderline prod. But maybe its length and amount of content can possibly save it. But the main reason why it's going to AfD is simple: there isn't even an article about Riverside Park and everything about it is contained in Six Flags New England. Not to mention not a single source or even a category. --Sigma Epsilon Chi (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article in Six Flags New England doesn't contain this detail about the stock car track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.196.254 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows sources supporting its notability. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cenarium Talk 01:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal advert for a 'dating coach'. No evidence of any notice outside of the 'Seduction community', which is about as horrid a concept not involving bloodshed that I could imagine. Note: to the person who removed the PROD tag: why yes, indeed, I feel very negatively against adding to Wikipedia rubbish being used by the entirely unnotable to promote themselves. CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strauss he does not appear to be notable.
The result was no consensus. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable concert tour. No reason why it is significant. No extensive, reliable coverage. No real verifiable information. Also nominating the related tour below. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. and sources found show there's the possibility for improvement to the article. TravellingCari 23:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheering section of a basketball team without significant third party coverage or notability off campus Thomas.macmillan (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. while it hasn't had a ton of participation, I see this as an eight day PROD. There's been no counter to the nom, no reason to think this is controversial. TravellingCari 23:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been tagged as being unsourced for sometime, i was hoping someone could find sources but no attempt has been made to improve the page, i can't find any sources at all and the article establishes no notability and appears to be entirely original research. neon white talk 14:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. or at least no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 23:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this is a cute play on words, as a software product it has not been noted in a non-trivial fashion by any reliable third party sources. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 23:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very poor sources and a distinct lack of certainty regarding release date. — Realist2 22:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merged. Nothing to see here. Non-admin close. Reyk YO! 05:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The content of this small article is already talked about within the page Media Control Charts