The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliables for this movie that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Lenticel (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unneeded disambiguation page that doesn't lead anywhere. According to MOS:DABRL, "a disambiguation shouldn't be made up completely of red links, because the purpose of disambiguation is solely to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." Tavix (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sources do appear trivial, and two relists failed to salvage the article. Ultimately notability is fatally low. — Coren (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article, almost completely in-universe, searching for references reveals only trivial coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's subject Central Jersey Paranormal Research Association has no google news hits, and I can't find any RS to substantiate. The only hit on google that is notable is their own website. So, since it doesn't meet notability guidelines, propose to delete. Groupsisxty (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Fixed to use AFD template by Kesac (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mass of unsourced or poorly sourced original research created by the author as a WP:POVFORK when I stopped letting him insert it into the main article. I know nothing about Geo TV, but all this article tells me is that its author clearly dislikes Geo TV. The non-policy violating material could easily fit back in the main article, since it's one sentence at best. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 22 September 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)) . |
Doesn't seem to be a notable person, never mind that it reads like a copyvio and appears outdated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article shows the work of a central american composer who is working in a very different and special field. Searching in Universidad de Costa Rica files www.cariari.co.cr I found references of the value of this investigation about the almost extinct oral traditions of Guaimy , Cabecar and Bri Bri indian branches in Central America. In stead of recomend the delition I suggest that Wikipedia editors should recomend the author to include all the missing information about native oral traditions that this musician is recording and documenting. (Mrak Sandowsky (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)) I included this article to show an interesting work of a costarican composer who make real efforts to preserve culture and traditions in his country. If it is possible to improve the article please tell me, you are the experts! Is your decision and I'll accept it.(Mikaelangelo777 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The latest editings and references improve the article. Please don not copy this article or post it with different name it doesn't help.(Mikaelangelo777 (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see clear evidence of notablity in this article Boleyn (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has gone through a couple of discussions now and editors have looked carefully for evidence of notability. No one has yet confirmed it. We cannot have an article on Wikipedia for everyone who has a very minor part in the entertainment industry; it makes a mockery of our claim to be an encyclopedia. The editor who created it does not seem to have improved it since it was tagged or argued for it to be kept. The creator has only contributed to three articles, 1 of them Norman Drew and one to add info on Norman Drew. All contributions were made within three days, and to write a complete article on someone as your first contribution seems to me suspicious. So far, four editors have contributed to this discussion and they have all, in the end, voted to delete. Boleyn 09:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a hoax to me... There's no actor by that name on imdb,[2] and of two of the productions with characters names a) he is not listed as an actor, and b) there is no character listed by that name.[3][4] Additionally, being made by User:Cesar16 suggests WP:AUTO/WP:COI. No other google hits seemed to bring up anything: [5][6][7]
He is actually listed on the Wikipedia page for the telenovela - Cuidado con el ángel - but was added by a similarly suspiciously named User:Cesar1992.[8]
I could be completely wrong here and he could be real, but either way, no sources are cited to establish notability, and the above google links don't show any sources with which to establish that notability. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the very best violates WP:N, but could be a Troy Rodriguez style hoax- similar name, similar age, purported film star... not saying Troy is at work again but this could be a copycat attack. Nerdluck34 (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The result was no consensus. it looks like it could be deleted or redirected; but, if someone is, essentially, vandalizing the redirects, a better approach is probably simply requesting protection for the redirect. slakr\ talk / 06:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable character, Fails notability. Anonymous IP reverted conversation to redirect. Redirection is not really needed since character is very minor. No media coverage, no real world information, no third party sources. Magioladitis (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial intersections, no sources. A similar list on the European charts is also at AfD for the same reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Love him or hate him, the feat can't be taken away from him. James Blunt yesterday proved his global appeal when he became the first British artist to top the US charts since Elton John nine years ago.
You're Beautiful, Blunt's plaintive tale of unrequited love, finally knocked Beyoncé off the top spot." - The Guardian
"Singer Leona Lewis has become the first British woman to top the US pop chart for more than 20 years with her single Bleeding Love.
Kim Wilde was the last UK female to top the Billboard Hot 100 chart, with her 1987 cover version of the Supremes hit You Keep Me Hangin' On. " - BBC News
I hope the above has demonstrated the list is of interest to others than the creator of the list. Dmn € Դմն 00:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious piece of original research and as such has no place here. Woland (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow Keep (non-admin closure) as having more cultural significance and potential than just a Dictdef. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef and list of uses in film and TV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep- I found this article helpful; that is reason enough not to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.238.224 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC) keep- this is longer than a dicdef, is mentioned in multiple reliable sources (which counteracts any lack of depth of sources which most phrases would have) and AfD is not for cleanup. An article could be made from this, if people aren't happy with how it is already, which discusses he history of the phrase and so on. We have a very large category of phrases [9] including numerous subcategories. I don't mean 'other stuff exists' but that they are a valid type of article. You can see that a longer article can be made about a phrase too, in the article Hail Satan. Sticky Parkin 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Húsönd 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quasi-hoax article, substituting "Andrew Incaudo" into the bio of notable track star Steve Prefontaine. An article with a similar name was speedied for A7 in January. Ravenswing 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable self-published singer, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V. The only working sourced referenced is her own website, and the paltry 83 hits on UK Google are all Wiki mirrors, Facebook, the personal website and blogs; nary a reliable source to be found. RGTraynor 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Covenant (Halo)#Species. MBisanz talk 13:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a type of enemy found in the Halo (series) video games. The other enemies are under Covenant (Halo)#Species, and a section there for the Hunter already exists. The individual species are not worth individual articles, with the exception of Elite (Halo). Elites are noteworthy because they have their own story arc and the player can actually play as one in the later games of the series. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 20:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I object to AfDing an article too quickly, but while this fellow was a decorated fighter pilot in WWI, he topped out with a DSO and a DSC, and didn't seem to do much of anything else in his life (if the only 4 Google hits on Google South Africa are an indicator). I believe it's been held that you have to be a VC medal holder to be prima facie notable, and as it stands, the subject fails WP:BIO and WP:V RGTraynor 20:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following the guidance so kindly provided by the man who invited me to this project, Trevor Innes. His belief, as I understand it, is that all the World War I aces are notable figures. As there are 1860 of them (according to www.theaerodrome.com), I have my doubts. Even if they are all notable, I doubt the info exists for all of them.
It has been posited that winning a Victoria Cross is the only sufficient notability. I can only assume that the equivalent medals in other nation's services would serve for them. I would like to make the following points about this approach.
1) Medals are awarded to maintain morale and keep troops fighting. Higher ranks tend to award one another as a promotional aid. These unfortunate slants taint the heroism of those that honestly earned them. Still, there it is.
2) Criteria for awarding medals varies widely from country to country, and even from case to case and from time to time. For instance, the Pour le Merite was pegged to a certain victory total. When a German pilot reached that level, he got the Blue Max. That victory total slid steadily upwards throughout the war. Many pilots scoring late in the war exceeded the victory total that had brought earlier pilots the award. Boelcke and Immelman received it in 1916 for 8 victories. By 1918, there were literally hundreds of German pilots who had 8 or more wins and didn't get the Blue Max. On the other hand, Otto Konnecke qualified--and the war ended before he could have it awarded.
3) On a personal note, I served with Fred Platt, who was twice recommended for the Medal of Honor. He didn't get it because, while he was on crutches, he defended himself against assault by a superior officer. In other words, the deserving can be shortchanged for some very shifty reasons.
4) Some relatively minor aces went on postwar to quite notable careers in either military or civil aviation. They would be deleted for lack of the requisite medals.
5) The reverse is also true. It was possible to win one of the qualifying decorations and not be an ace. That is, at the extreme, one could win it without even shooting down a single enemy.
6) Kinkead, though not winning the VC, won the Distinguished Service Order, two Distinguished Service Crosses, and two Distinguished Flying Crosses. Follow the links and make up your own mind about notability. I might add that the pilots I knew who won DFCs were very brave men indeed.
I don't know how this figures in, or even if it does, but...is colorfulness and human interest a factor? For instance, Kinkead's brother being killed at a crucial point in his career. Or Leon Bourjade interrupting theological studies to become an ace and being ordained postwar?
So then, we are in truly muddy waters here. I do have a passion for the subject, but lack guidelines and have not yet developed a feel for what fits here.
Given that I am creeping down the List of World War I Flying Aces, I am at the point where, if this article is deletable, then pretty much anything written about aces lower on the table (that is, having scored fewer victories) is deletable. I guess. Probably. Maybe. Heck, I dunno.
At any rate, I see no point in completing Kinkead just yet. Nor do I feel inclined to write other articles just to see them deleted. This is not petulance speaking, but practicality. I do have a couple of books that I am writing. I have been holding them in abeyance to write here. It seems to make more sense to me to write on them instead, at least until this shakes out.
````George J. Dorner, 18 September 2008, 2046 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjdorner (talk • contribs) 04:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as a blatant copyright violation (CSD G12). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E, N, NOTNEWS, take your pick. – iridescent 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Xy7 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTDICDEF. Has about 15 ghits, most of which are extracts from the novel which provides the main citation. Cites no reliable sources that demonstrate this is a real archaic word, but does provide a secondary and a tertiary source that assert it, which is why I haven't prodded it. I'd have transwikied it to Wiktionary, but not without proper sources. Karenjc 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. with an eye towards renaming MBisanz talk 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too many self-made rules for inclusion; use of WP:SYNTHESIS. Almost completely unsourced or "incorrectly" sourced. Does not distinguish between "Native American writers of anything" and "Native American writers of Native American subjects". Also a conglomerate of writers who's cultures should not all be lumped into the same list, making it a random directory. Bulldog 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Solar party" movement of dubious validity. Seems to be more of a marketing gimmick than a real movement. Only one article about it that seems to be connected back to company/websites also promoted in this article.Creator continues to delete tags despite requests to the contrary, and article is becoming more full of peacock terms & advertising speak as his edits continue. Weak Delete or major rewrite. Improbcat (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Whether to merge, redirect, or otherwise is a matter for the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nearly unanimous, and no rationale given for merging. lifebaka++ 17:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional location does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional location does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Ace Combat X: Skies of Deception. MBisanz talk 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional item does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list is pure trivia and game guide material. The overall fact that the enemies are based off of other fictional elements and the like is important (if sourced correctly), but the actual instances are not. TTN (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. non-notable/poorly-sourced neologism; wiktionary would toss it away, as well. slakr\ talk / 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:NOT, primarily that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. The article is unsourced and contains possible original research, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 16:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Xy7 (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability has been firmly established (and let's not forget the film's star and writer is a very famous Academy Award-winning performer). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of Notability Barton Foley (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for nomination:
The reviews for the film located on Rotten Tomatoes are from website reviews that are not what one would call mainstream or notable being mainly personal websites or personal blog not connected to a mainstream publication or newspaper. Any coverage of the film appears to be trivial.
The link to the director redirects to an American politician named “Thomas W. L. Ashley” which led me to believe the director was not one of note. An IMDB search indicated that this is the director’s first film, and he has not directed any other films since this movies release in 2002.
The actors in the film seem to be on the downward arc of their careers, this does not make the film less notable, but the presence of once notable actors in the twilight of their acting career should not be given undue weight for notability.
In the six year since the films release it does not appear, via an internet search, to have garnered a following among academics, not being used to illustrate any points of filmmaking, nor has it been cited as a milestone or other achievement in US filmmaking. Nor have critics taken a renewed interest in the film or otherwise made it part of a noted film festival. I could find no references to the film being shown at film festivals of large repute or note.
The film was a low budget direct to DVD release. This is not in itself a strike against notability, but in the six years since its release, the film appears to have not garnered a “cult following” or made a crap ton o’ money like “The Blair Witch Project”. The film has not been picked up by a major since its release for release or other large marketing scheme. It seems to have languished in obscurity. Barton Foley (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No redirect - nobody would search for "Circuit Lane (Reading)". — Xy7 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable suburban road. Not even notable enough for a redirect. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Huston
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria. All I'm finding on Google with "David F. Hoenigman -MySpace -Facebook -Wikipedia" are 897 hits, most of which appear to be selling his books without useful reviews. I get about a third of that putting his name in quotes. The article has very little useful content. I've deleted this twice under CSD A7, but am bringing it here according to my personal rule of only deleting something twice for the same reason. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Excepting Willis Bates and Harry Huston, as they satisfy WP:ATHLETE.
This AfD had quite a few arguments to it. It appears that the NAIA teams (small colleges) are equated with NCAA division III. As such, their athletes would fail notability for athletes, as they have not competed at the highest level (NCAA division I) of amateur sports.
But, that's also assuming that a coach could be grouped an athlete, so that would be cause for falling back on general biographical notability; however, the subjects are not recipients of notable awards nor made widely-recognized contributions in their specific field— at least, the articles do not assert that. J. J. Thiel's article, for example, states that he is the "9th most successful coach in Southwestern's history." That makes this individual the 9th successful coach at the 3rd successful grouping of college teams. Finally, falling back to the more general notability guidelines, there is no demonstrated widespread media coverage from independent, reliable sources.
Some arguments allude to Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Notability. This is neither a policy nor guideline, nor is it supported by consensus from the entire community. In fact, it could be seen as contradictory to the official notability guidelines.
Finally, there are arguments that a bundled afd is inappropriate; however, there is neither a guideline nor policy discouraging it. In practice, it is actually encouraged that afds are grouped into one page if the nominator believes, in good faith, that the articles will meet the same rationale and that none of them would be likely to survive on their own. There appears to be no malice in this nomination, as they all appear to be Southwestern College Moundbuilders Head Football Coaches, and the rationale was that simply being a coach at the non-highest-level of an amateur team does not, in and of itself, satisfy notability guidelines— a notion that it appears is supported by consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, for example. --slakr\ talk / 08:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure football coach for a low-level NAIA college, fails WP:BIO, WP:V. No biographical information other than his won-loss record. See other recent AfDs on similarly obscure coaches for similarly obscure colleges: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Holm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McCracken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West.
I am also nominating the following related pages, all for coaches at this school, and all which lack any biographical information save for their years coached and won-loss records:
As a side note, I am not nominating seven of the coaches from this school, four because there is evidence of their independent notability, three because while I feel they are not notable, an assertion of notability is made sufficient that their inclusion in a bundled AfD is inappropriate. RGTraynor 15:41, 18 September 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)) . |
Let's Talk Precedence Please forgive the table in this discussion... it bears scrutiny.
[ Table moved to Discussion page]
If "Precedence" is the true guidance on this, the result must indeed be keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request As discussed on the AfD talk page, if this article (or any of the series of articles) is closed as a delete, please kindly first move the article to User:Paulmcdonald/Articlename, where "Articlename" is the name of the article (or articles) being removed. Also, please note the new page location at User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach so we can be sure to find the moved page.
Why? There have been, at present count, 58 articles of our project placed on the AfD list and there is just not enough time to adequately and appropriately respond and ultimately improve the articles themselves. This would give the project memebers time to work on improving the articles. This request should in no way imply that I believe that the article (or articles) in quesiton should be deleted at this time. I am making a simple cut-n-paste request due to the sheer volume of AfDs in such a short period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Xy7 (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
spam article containing fake inline citations previously tagged for speedy but, speedy tag removed without explaination by anon user. Instead of speedy tagging again or risking PROD tag removal I figured best to bring it straight here for consensus. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Delete - Peripitus (Talk) 12:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by same user as AfD-nominated Dylan Jones (musician). No evidence for this drummer performing with Pennywise, Jerkwater, The Toadies or The Aquabats. Fails WP:V. Tassedethe (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deleted before. — Xy7 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains very little text - unworthy of its own article. No references, citations or even external links. It focuses on a book that has not yet been written: see - Template:Demonata called "Demonata - Dark Calling". I see no need to keep this article until substantial information on the book emerges. . .Until then, if the user wishes, the information could be merged with the main article - Superflewis (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Xy7 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax. No relevant ghits for this person except this obituary. No trace of a French existentialist philosopher either, the Denis Boucher linked is a baseball player. Tassedethe (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect title. A reasonable case for merging this content has been made here, and in the previous AFD. I need to also add that I am not merging (for one thing, it isn't decided really exactly where this should be merged. Please use Talk:Snotling to discuss possible locations. Keeper ǀ 76 15:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was nominated before for failing WP:NOTE, with a result of "no consensus". Since that time no effort has been made to assert notability - all the sources provided merely mention the subject in passing. There is no real world context to the article, and it still consists almost entirely of WP:PLOT -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all.. — Xy7 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not-notable enough to have its own article. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Also contains no reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. I'm not sure where to begin here. Article is a mix of a dictionary definition, advertising, and original research. I would have tagged this for speedy, but was not sure where to put it. TN‑X-Man 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted G11. Spam from a spam account. Nuked under G11 and nuked the editor at the same time. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by someone with a WP:COI about a new magazine which is currently only being sold in a test market. Tagged for numerous issues, the article is WP:SPAM and fails to assert WP:N. Ros0709 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of this page. I copied over the background of Mike Wooten in the expectation that the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal article was becoming too filled with information, that it had to be split into a 2nd subarticle. Now that significant edits have been made to the original article, that issue is no longer evident. All information about Wooten is sufficient as it pertains to the investigation, and by that measure, there is plenty of "fat" to trim from this article as well, plus the fact that this article has become a coatrack, now that the original is in working order again. But in doing so, it would become a clone of the text in the original article. The information in Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal is able to cover everything without the need of summary. Duuude007 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.190.207 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. or nomination withdrawn, take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is not notable. A search for independent resources has yielded nothing and it is not even clear whether or not the composers works have ever been performed professionally. Furthermore, this article was deleted in an AFD two years ago and then recreated by the same SPA account that created it the first time with no one noticing.Nrswanson (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He may be more prominent in Latvia, but access to their press is difficult. This is what I could find:
I'll post a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latvia and see if they can shed any light.Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I'm inclined to say keep in light of Xil's comments. Plus, his "Zime" project (also spelled "Zīme" in Latvian and sometimes "Zimej") was the Latvia Pavillion's central exhibit at Expo 2000. See his write-up in German on the Expo 2000 official site (scroll down to STRAZDS, ARMANDS and click on the link). The Zime project site has photos of the President of Latvia at the time, Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, generating a Zime in the Pavillion. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Update I'm even more inclined to keep after finding this article devoted to Strazds in Latvijas Avīze, one of the main newspapers in Latvia. Voceditenore (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Pedro. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 12:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax and/or nonsense. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article, which is completely lacking references, claims that Kevin Ashman is a girl?! VasileGaburici (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#A7 - no assertion of notability Pedro : Chat 10:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No relevant sources. The article describes a non-notable person: "little known" etc. Appears to be self-promotion or hoax. Gimme danger (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Leaning towards keep. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software license, used on only a handful of projects - most of which are minor coding projects by the license author. Only secondary source is a post to debian-legal several years ago inquiring as to its suitability as a DFSG-approved license; there are no reliable secondary sources. External coverage appears to consist entirely of user-generated content or blog posts, from a look at Google. Previous AfD basically predicated the keep on the one source which says that the FSF has looked at it, but given that the FSF's job is to look at licenses this is hardly a stand-out feature. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dubious neologism and I doubt if the cited reference ("100 Years of Australian Football 1897-1996") supports this usage. The social activity described of people dropping in on other people to watch football on TV doesn't deserve an article, at least from the narrow perspective taken. Grahame (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable manga artist; tagged for notability since January with no improvement. No significant coverage for this artist. Fails WP:BIO.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've sorted this discussion into the list of Living people-related deletion discussions and the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (adjunct professors count as educators, right?)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mixture of original research and nonsense. VasileGaburici (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the title this article claims to be about bump mapping implementation techniques in "sixth generation consoles". What this article actually contains (by section):
Bottom line: this article engages in speculation, lacks any technical depth, and when read start to end, doesn't make any sense. VasileGaburici (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web site, fails WP:WEB. One short article at TheStandard.com, and the link to Slashdot is merely a pickup of that. Just doesn't clear the notability bar. And of course, when it's deleted, you can read about it there. Ironic, isn't it? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:08, 18 September 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)) . |
talk:Realkyhick|Talk to me]]) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Lets go over the sources on this article, (the numbering here referrs to the sources by number as they were on this revision.[26])
So in summary the combined relevant reliable sourcing of this article is one medium size article and one two small mentions; 4 paragraphs and one sentence in total. Face it folks (and sock puppets, SPA’s, ect.), This does not meet WP:GNG. - Icewedge (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 news sources, plus, few more already sourced in the article -- more than enough for inclusion, IMHO. In addition, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. WP:IAR. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This month-old article on an up-coming film has had requests for reliable references to establish notability since its creation (though tags are repeatedly removed). The only sources for the article are press releases from the production company and a blog. Recommend deletion for lack of Reliable sources for a WP:NPOV, WP:V article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another article about a website, with no assertion of notability. Wongm (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She was "Director of Operations" so she didn't play. There's no evidence her work there was notable, and this is scarcely above a speedy. One of a series of highly questionable contributions from this editor. Team is notable, neither the person nor her college lacrosse career appear notable. TravellingCari 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, what about these credentials, Francesca DeLorenzo joined The Pride this season after pursuing a career in real estate. She was previously working with The Marketing Directors Inc., a prominent real estate company in Manhattan. She handled sales for high end communities, including Trump Plaza in Westchester, NY and The Solaria Condominium in Riverdale, NY. She has a high level of experience in the sales and marketing field as well as business management. DeLorenzo graduated from Marist College in 2005 with a degree in Finance and Marketing and a minor in Spanish language. At Marist, she was a three-year starter for the Marist College Women’s Lacrosse team. She currently ranks as one of the all-time leaders for games played (59), ground balls (75), and draw controls, having played every field position for the team except goalie. In her career she amassed 23 career goals and 25 career points. Francesca was also a three-time Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference All-Academic Team selection. Her previous experience with the Pride was as a front office and game operations intern in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDelo93 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it unnecessary to use the statement "a series of highly questionable contributions from this editor." I take that as an insult and would like you to name what contributions of mine have been "Highly Questionable." I do not appreciate you demeaning me for attempting to contribute to the Wikipedia society.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, a lot of the article is written as if written by the subject or someone close to the subject. No real claims of notability, no reliable sources, nothing at Google news. His two books are listed at over 200,000 and over 350,000 most purchased at amazon.co.uk. Corvus cornixtalk 03:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly had a sizable following in his radio days and he's pretty well-known in the South Wales region as a journalist these days. His books sold far better in the UK than in the US and are widely available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.226.3 (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claim of notability unverified by a reliable source. Article mostly analysis and observations of primary sources. Suspected original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Does not meet WP:PORNBIO by any stretch. --2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This has been here more than long enough. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:N, WP:ORG, and google yields little promise. User:L^BPub 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Djalma Bom. MBisanz talk 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Google turns up almost nothing and she is not mentioned in the sources cited in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article about this supposed city does not have a strong, solid background. There are absolutely no statistics and demographics to speak of, nor anything indicating a strong presence in the realm of geography. As it is, the article is of very poor quality right now, and is thus worthy for deletion. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 15:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Basically to make a short story shorter; the user had this page listed at User:LUUSAP/Wolgot, i turned it into a wikipedia article. The user responded with this Edit. I informed the user here about GFDL. The user has prodded the article (twice) before listing it here for AFD). - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. There are simply not enough sources to write a full, neutral biography of this individual. I found two mentions that, while verifying the information in the article, are no more than trivial:
These are trivial mentions and, as such, do not meet WP:N's requirement of a subject's non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. All we can say about him is mentioning two posts that he's held and perhaps his opinion as presented by the Wall Street Journal. That is not appropriate for a biography of a living person. It may be argued that he is automatically notable as a district governor (is that sub-national?) per WP:POLITICIAN, in which case the information here should be merged into another more detailed article. It cannot stand alone as an article. Cheers, CP 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be argued that he is automatically notable as a district governor (is that sub-national?) per WP:POLITICIAN
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline advertising for (once open source, now commercial) software, with dubious notability. 9Nak (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one reference cited is a family history book, with "Verschuijl and Verschoyle Family" in the title, and published by "Verschoyle Mason Publications". The external link is practically a carbon copy of the article, which would seem to show that either the article is a copyvio, or that the external link is copying the article. Google search turns up 31 hits for "Verschoyle Patent Mandrel" -wikipedia, however all hits are mirroring the wikipedia article (except one which is the external link, mentioned). GoogleBookSearch gives no hits for "Verschoyle Patent Mandrel". The article admits "The machine was marketed in 1918 but was never a financial success"... Also, note the only real editor to the article is LukeL (talk · contribs) aka 82.30.37.26 (talk · contribs) who stated "He is my cousin" in reference to the article, and gives his name as "Luke Verschoyle" [32].
No third party, reliable sources. Conflict of interest. No hits turn up in google except one. Possible copyvio. No hits turn up in Google book search, showing the subject has not been written about in countless published books scanned there. Celtus (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL we should not yet be making an article on a train station scheduled for 2011. Calgary Transit and C-Train are the appropriate places to discuss work-in-progress and plans for the system. The only sources cited so far are from the city government. When the station is complete, or very close to complete, we can make an article. I could see a justification for this article, if there was a huge controversy or something causing lots of coverage of the specific station. But, I'm not aware of it. It's just one of around half a dozen LRT stations in the works in Calgary. Rob (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to United States Academic Decathlon. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet notability guidelines and her mention in the USAD should suffice Million_Moments (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series, so it doesn't require an article. TTN (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Calibration. Content, what little there is, can be merged at editorial discretion to Calibration. I'm inlcined to delete this article as it manages to get "zeroing" wrong and relate it to scales without using the word 'tare', even as a contrast. However, consensus is to redirect. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This neologism doesn't balance when it comes to notability. Anyone care to "weigh in" on this? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This huge list has no clear inclusion guidelines and scant few sources. Is it supposed to be a list of the few building that have survived from the pioneer days, or is it a list of all vaguely "old" buildings in the city of Toronto? It really needs to be deleted and not restarted until the inclusion guidelines have been set (and perhaps a new title) and some souces found.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this deemed a necessary or useful description, then a category could be created. At the moment, this is unsourced original reasearch. PhilKnight (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable piece of hardware with no links or sources except the manufacturer, and few edits except for vandalism patrol. Miami33139 (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had no luck trying to locate independent confirmation of this subject's notability -- though maybe I am looking in the wrong places? As it stands at the point of nomination, the article fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was prodded, but later removed. For a local plaza to be notable there would have to be a nice amount of reliable sources on it. The first source is more about Howard Beach rather than the Square. The second one's just a photo gallery. Ergo, no notability. Wizardman 16:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The band's only apparent item of note up until recently was the inclusion of a track in Guitar Hero II. A song has been included in List of songs in Rock Band 2. Recent edits have been attempting to wikilink to the band's article, leading to a number of articles that incorrectly point towards Guitar Hero (as per the original redirect). If not deletion, the article is in need dire need of cleanup/creation in order to avoid confusion caused by linking a band name to a video game article they have no connection to save for a single song. -- TRTX T / C 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Ron's sources are good enough for me. I might as well withdraw, or this'll keep getting relisted until the end of time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced DVD package. No reliable sources found, just PR sources from Walmart regarding the DVD's release and trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found mentions in the Los Angeles Times (fee-based access required) [34], the Kansas City Star (also fee-based) [35] and mention in Billboard. [36]. The article needs better sourcing, but notability is confirmable. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable conspiracy from Danny Casolaro. Lacking sources since January 2007. We66er (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The location of the island is already in the main article and the rest is trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This defunct software is not notable or even available anymore and is only sourced to the author of the software and some forum posts. Miami33139 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this for deletion as it has been unreferenced for two years. This may be a real trick in electronics but it is not notable to the world at large. If sourced, this information could belong somewhere else but Wikipedia is not a how-to either. Miami33139 (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]