For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
The result was delete. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] ActiveDogs[edit]
This is a game that was apparently "announced" in 2005, despite there being absolutely no information on it. The only citation is a blank IGN page. The developer has no information available. There has been no update on this game in 4 years. Publisher: TBA, Release Date: TBA. I am more than comfortable with saying that this game does not seriously exist and thus this page can and should be removed. Re-add the article if the game ends up being real years from now. Stump (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 17:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Heart of the Valley Homebrewers[edit]
Local homebrewing group with no sources beyond local blogs and college newsletters. Has attracted a notability tag. The claim for notability is the Oregon Homebrew Festival, which attracts some ghits, though looks like nothing reliable. SilkTork *YES! 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Ancient astronauts. NW (Talk) 22:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] L/L Research[edit]AfDs for this article:
This organization doesn't need an article, given WP:ORG. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. I'll salt if it gets recreated. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 17:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Eclectic Shorts by Eric Leiser[edit]
Non-notable compilation. Only even asserts notability for one of the shorts on this compilation. There's no evidence the shorts are all inter-related or that the compilation is substantially more than a container for the separate shorts, so the collection can't ride the coat-tails of notability of just one of its components. Even the notability claimed for one short isn't up to WP:NF standards (no independent or in-depth cites, film-festival sounds important but no evidence of winning an award or being screened years after release). Part of walled garden relating to Leiser by a COI pile of SPA that are at a minimum meat-puppets. DMacks (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fonzerelli[edit]
The claim is made that the subject has had success on the charts, but no proof is supplied and I could not find any reliable sources claiming such. Also, the subject himself has generated no media coverage in the usual reliable sources (per Google News), once you filter out the many references to Fonzie. If proof of his smashing commercial success is provided I'll change my mind. In the meantime, delete: not notable. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 17:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Faustbook[edit]
Non-notable film. Only cites are primarysources, blogs, etc...need some serious mentions in major reliable sources to have a viable article. PROD declined because article has already been through PROD (deleted, then recreated later). Only contributors are WP:SPA, many with apparent or self-declared relationship to subject (including CU-confirmed WP:SOCKing). DMacks (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 17:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Online Book Initiative[edit]
I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis contribs 23:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Twisted Complex: A Ballad of Two Fractured Humans[edit]
Self-published novel which five days ago was described as "upcoming" but is now "being circulated via small Atlanta bookstores and various conventions". No independent reference supplied, none found. Clearly fails Notability (books) - see Threshold standards. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SparksBoy (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] James Young (comedian)[edit]
Fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for entertainers, no reliable sources to make a good article, and the article would require a fundamental rewrite in order to conform to basic style and content guidelines, etc. Fleetflame 20:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. Consensus was that this doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, and I believe that to be correct. Clearly, to pass #3 of this guideline, coverage does have to be significant outside the local press; otherwise every local councillor or representative in the entire world would effectively be notable. Equally clearly, if he wins the nomination and starts getting more widespread coverage then there if every possibility that he may cross the line of notability in the future.Black Kite 17:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bobby Schilling[edit]
fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only coverage is the standard local dross you'd expect from any congressional candidate Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully request this article be de-nominated for deletion, and also request that it be nominated for semi-protection. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SparksBoy (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Berlino[edit]AfDs for this article:
As I understand WP policies on relevant articles, this one does not fall under it: The mascot may be relevant, but it is already covered at 2009 World Championships in Athletics. The additional information on which athlete Berlino was hugging or over which hurdles he stumbled is clearly insignificant and unimportant. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was withdrawn by nominator; page is unambiguous copyright violation (thus has been nominated for speedy deletion). Fribbulus Xax (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kordanification[edit]
WP:NEO; Google search only seems to link back to Urban Dictionary or blogs. Once the copyvio from urban dictionary was removed, the rest was just a partial biography of Kordan. I see no logical redirect to Ali Kordan. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Survo Puzzle[edit]
No notability established, no independent, reliable sources giving more than trivial coverage. Editor who added it seems to be a WP:SPA/WP:COI account. DreamGuy (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Looks like at least a few reliable sources do exist, and an attempt should be made to cleanup the article before it is renominated for deletion. NW (Talk) 15:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Michal David[edit]
Article fails WP:Notability and WP:CSD #A7. The only solid source is national Czech Television web, however Czech Television only says about Michal David that he was former jazz musician, that's all. Source no. 2 says NOTHING about time when Janecek's hiring michal david. Source no. 3 doesn't says anything about "Nenapovidej" was a "hit song" in "popular" TV show "Hitsarada" (only mentioning "Hitsarada") - WP: OR. You should use Google Translator to check it out. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jaseng Hospital of Oriental Medicine[edit]
|
The result was Keep (withdrawn by nominator) Cheers, I'mperator 17:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Howard Press[edit]
Claims of notability appear to be false as this reference and this patent appear to refut the author's claim that Press was teh first inventor of time-release medicine technology. Aside from the (apparently incorrect) claim, the subject does not meet guidelines for notability. Apparent conflict of interest in that the article was likely created by the subject's son. (See Dr. Stephen J. Press created by same user (Drsjpdc (talk · contribs)).) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ben Zeskind[edit]AfDs for this article:
I know this was just AfD'd and closed as keep a month ago, but here me out. Not only is he not-notable as a low level minor league player, but the arguments in the last AfD were flawed. The two other people to say keep said all minor leaguers is notable, which is dead wrong. They need to have secondary sources about them beyond notes, which is all that's on this guy. Playing in the New York Penn League is not notable no matter how to try and tweak it. If this is kept it essentially opens the floodgates for hundreds of thousands of minor league players throughout the years. Delete this. Wizardman 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Black Kite 14:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Technoromanticism (disambiguation)[edit]
orphan disambiguation page with only 2 entries - a hat note on the primary usage points to the only other entry ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was SPEEDY KEEP. Bad faith nomination. This is turning into a sockfest with possible extra pepperoni, and furthermore an attack against the article creator, rather than a discussion about the article at hand. And when you take into consideration the comments by the good faith editors, that makes this a speedy keep. I won't even bother recording this AfD on the talk page of the article either. – B.hotep •talk• 09:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] affinity (band)[edit]
The article lacks any WP:V and has been tagged for over 5 months with nobody advancing any credible references. It does not meet WP:BAND as:- 1. The band Has NOT a charted si*ngle or album on any national music chart. 2. It has NOT had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. 3. It has NOT received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. 4. It has NOT become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. It has NOT won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. It Has NOT won or placed in a major music competition. 5 It Has NOT been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.
|
The result was keep. What we should do with the existing content should be discussed on the article talk page, not at AfD. NW (Talk) 15:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Modern Buddhism[edit]
After an edit war between two users, one wanting to keep the article as it is (at the time of nomination) and the other wanting it redirected to Buddhism, I decided to nominate this for deletion/redirect to ensure the decision is made based on consensus and arguments instead of edit warring. I myself am leaning towards redirect because the content of this article is largely redundant because of Buddhism#Buddhism_today. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to draw a lot of unjustified attention. In three of the four references in the article, published litterature no less, one finds the articles' title Modern Buddhism, in the last reference the author addresses Modern Buddhism specifically as detailed by a contributor on the talk:buddhism page. So who are we to question if it exists as a stand alone concept? Here they are:
So, one can wish to expand on the theme which is certainly encouraged but sweep the entire article under a rug some place else does not do the above authors' justice. Keep the article as is and expand it is my vote.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Andi 3ö reference above, quote, my highlights "...Modern Buddhism has much more active and visible roles for women than its more traditional predecessors and its social location has been amoung the working social classes. Lopey suggest that Modern Buddhism has developed into a kind of transnational Buddhist sect..." Your reference supports the existence of Modern Buddhism as a stand alone. Thank you for supporting my view.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] By the By, I include Lopez as a reference in my article, see above... --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] This is getting rather confused. Let me see if I can clarify the concepts a bit. There is a movement called different things by different scholars:
This movement mainly operates within preexisting denominations. In addition, there are various other movements & denominations that are modern in the literal sense, such as Soka Gakkai (1930s), but which probably wouldn't fit under the heading of modernist. Of the refs cited above, the 1st & last are scholarly works about the modernist movement. James isn't a scholarly work, but a Buddhist one. It is in fact an example of modernism. Peter jackson (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a quick look at the 2 articles. The modernism article is mainly about Zen, I think because that's what somebody's bothered to write. The MB article has 3 paragraphs:
Peter jackson (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andi 3ö your are jumping the gun. The Modern Buddhism article discussion is not complete, you merging of content is, once again, disruptive and counterproductive. You seem bent on destroying Modern Buddhism as a stand alone. Remember FOUR published references and the above.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Baumann's review of Lopez: "The introduction argues that the beginning of modern Buddhism can be marked with the famous debate at Panadure (in what was then Ceylon) in 1873. Other Buddhologists, such as Richard Gombrich, have opted for the inception of "Protestant" or revival Buddhism in 1881, the year Henry Steel Olcott published his famous Buddhist Catechism and Thomas Rhys Davids founded the Pali Text Society (Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism, 1988: 186). The dating, however, is of secondary importance as the change of Buddhist content and form is decisive and does give valid grounds to speak of a new variation of Buddhism. It is in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that modern, Protestant or reform Buddhism takes shape in many Asian countries." Baumann in Rourledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism, page 286: "reformist, Protestant or modern Buddhism ... the emohasis on modernist Buddhist elements has become characteristic of the very vast majority of Western Buddhists." It's clear these terms are all synonymous. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andi 3ö is relentless in wanting content poured in Buddhist Modernism Colonel Warden is absolutely right the main Buddhism page is way too big to be encyclopedically useful users would be better served to have a number of independent articles appropriately interlinked ergo, Andi 3ö keep your Buddhist Modernism page which you can improve upon significantly as per the comments posted. This page Modern Buddhism is left as is and can be improved upon with relevant content beyond its actual form. When I wrote this article the intent was to categorize a form of Buddhism which is NOT secterian (Andi 3ö tell us about your Buddhist beliefs...) but adoptable by anybody from any culture a form of modern buddhism like the Christian who doesn't go to mass every Sunday but still feels that he is a Christian. It would be impossible to ignore, in this context, to write a neutral Wiki article other modern forms of buddhism which seem to be more controversial to the Buddhist community and from the many articles and edit warring found in most is also a platform for promotion of the varying sub groups and frankly I dont know which groups' toes I stepped on or is SEO for a particular group the ultimate goal here? If I wanted to become a buddhist (I'm not) I would pick and choose the values which better reflect me within greater Buddhism and not be pressured to go in one particular direction...--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] ISU 2011 Congress in The Netherlands[edit]
Page is an announcement of an upcoming congress of the International Stereoscopic Union. I PRODed page on 15 August with the comment, "Page is an announcement/advertisement of an upcoming conference. There are no third-party references, virtually no encyclopedic content, and no clear indication of notability. Wikipedia is not a host for general announcements." PROD was contested by User:Dutch3DMaster with comment, "making it more informative and less commercial (since it is not a profit making event)". Regardless of profit/non-profit status, this page is an announcement; it has essentially no encyclopedic content. Perhaps the event could be mentioned at International Stereoscopic Union, but it does not need its own page. Cnilep (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 22:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Donnie dumphy[edit]
Showed up on a radio show which doesn't make it an indication of significance LH (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted vandalism - the page had been blanked out by an anon IP address McMarcoP (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
|
The result was Keep Cheers, I'mperator 21:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Public weal[edit]
Contested prod. Disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate anything but instead defines a term and lists the articles that have similar meanings; should be in the Wiktionary, not an encyclopedia. Public weal has two meanings, one listed by Merriam-Webster as obsolete, the other as archaic. No one looking for information on republicanism or commonwealths might happen upon "public weal" as their search term (that definition is obsolete). A simple redirect to "common good" would suffice for anyone who typed in the archaic meaning. RJC TalkContribs 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy delete a3, no content. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Day School Musical[edit]
Fails WP:CRYSTAL, that it will not be released until 2011. ceranthor 14:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Universities offering Engineering Programs in Pakistan[edit]
Wikipedia is not a directory: this is just a list of universities sharing two important characteristics, but is not an article (or a list that is acceptable on Wikipedia). Fram (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. The discussion is mixed but the article definitely reads like self-promotion, so I am affording that unrefuted argument controlling weight. He may have marginal notability, so if that's the case, we can write about him from Reliable Sources. Deleting for now. -- Y not? 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Abbas abu saleh[edit]
Wikipedia isn't a place for someone's CV. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Alberton Football League. I'm not convinced there's anything to merge, but of course it's still there in the edito history if needed. Black Kite 14:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kilcunda-Bass Football Club[edit]
WP:NOTE. Amature football teams, not notable, no GHits Sk8er5000 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Also includes:
|
The result was no consensus, leaning towards Keep. Merging to artists's article would also be unexceptional. Black Kite 14:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Waste Lands (album)[edit]
An album that fails to meet WP:MUSIC#Albums with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Article tagged with no improvement, multiple redirects reverted, also with no improvement. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 15:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of carriers providing SMS transit[edit]
I also am not well informed as to Wikipedia policy. I will say that this article has provided a wealth of information to me also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.29.35 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mister Singapore[edit]
Non-notable beauty competition. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Adam J. Brown[edit]
Adam J Brown is an actor. That is verifiable. But I see nothing yet here or elsewhere to say that this actor is notable. One reference is to his school's web site, an interesting but not useful reference, and the other, if you click the links within it, seems to show a jobbing actor playing a minor role. I wish him well in his career, but Wikipedia is the place to report notability, not to seek to create it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 1972 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous AfDs on similar articles can be found here, here, here. Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 1983 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous AfDs on similar articles can be found here, here, here. Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Free bingo[edit]
non-notable variant of Online bingo. While I can accept that online bingo is important enough for an article, free online bingo demonstrates no independent notability. Ironholds (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hutstep[edit]
WP:MADEUP Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Sounds like all agree this writing is on the whole original thought, some of which may or may not be in agreement with reliable sources, and some of which may be useful for other legitimate encyclopedia articles. If Mfstelmach or anyone else wants the text later for partial use in whatever article, I would be happy to provide. -- Y not? 23:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Solar charging[edit]
WP:OR, WP:NOT#ESSAY - part of a PhD student's thesis which he has stuck on Wikipedia (see this website). Ironholds (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mustafa Halilsoy[edit]
Fails PROF and BIO -- see searches for GS and Gnews above. Really, the citations to his work are very low for someone of his age/tenure, and the only source for the page currently is his own cv. Since this is a topic related to Cyprus, I imagine there is a possibility we might experience a blizzard of edits to this one -- so those who might say 'keep' are advised to produce evidence of notability, not simply unsubstantiated opinions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at Jerry Griffiths's book on Colliding Plane Waves in General Relativity link. In that book there are 9 references for Halilsoy's post-Phd work from 1981-1989. [20]. Also Professor Jerry Griffiths maintains Bibliography of Colliding Plane Waves [21], and there I can count 11 papers from Halilsoy alone. Nomoskedasticity, you are not qualified to judge Halilsoy's work. Please stop the deletion or get an expert opinion. --mcyp (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crusio, How did you judge so simply that his contribution to the field is nothing extraordinary? Are you expert in exact solution in general relativity and in cosmology in general? Well, all academics publish but his contribution to Colliding Plane Waves in General Reativity is distinct that is why it was pointed out his large number of citations from that definitive book in the field which is verifiable [22]. His contribution in Halil-Nutku solution is acknowledge by great Physicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar on his article [23] ,more over this solution mension in many places like in a history book [24]. How can you remove his contribution on Halil-Nutku solution over a day? You reach strictly a personal NON-EXPERT conclusion with a bias without any solid argument . I provide you solid evidence. You can NOT delete article without disproving his contribution to the field with evidence. I humbly ask you to verify before reaching to a verdict and as you know judgment in a particular field for outsiders is quite easy. Even though you are not humble in your judgment at all. --mcyp (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is given? (Please note that I am sure that you are approaching the matter in a good faith as an academic yourself, so nothing personal, but I'm just saying that you are not in position to judge its impact in that particular field as being non-expert.) --mcyp (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To keep the neutrality. I won't participate to this discussion or edit the related article. --mcyp (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Follicle-stimulating hormone. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] High FSH[edit]
Any substantial content in this article should be part of FSH, in my opinion. The article describes a possible finding on a blood test. Richard Cavell (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] David Hamilton (footballer)[edit]
User:Nfitz contested the PROD with the rationale "has played in the top level of Irish football", but as many recent AfD's have shown, this counts for nought. This footballer has never played in a fully pro league so he fails WP:ATHLETE and has barely any sources so he fails WP:GNG. BigDom 08:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 22MILES[edit]
Weak-at-best claims of notability (especially portable, etc.) completely unsupported and I can't find any refs to support either. Creating editor added some refs but they are just a liberal sprinking of "it exists" all over the article...no actual evidence of WP:CORP notability but instead sounds PR-crufty. DMacks (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bafode Diakhaby[edit]
Was previously a PROD by someone else. There is still no evidence of notability as being a trialist isn't enough to meet WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 08:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in early 50's rock music. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Racism in the early rock music[edit]
I tried to be gentle and let this be removed by a prod. But, incredibly, the author seems to think it is encyclopedic. I will just say "original research" and see what others think. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Snow deleted by User:The Anome. NAC of the debate for cleanup reasons.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC))) [reply] Blood diamond pants[edit]
WP:MADEUP - non-notable neologism. Ironholds (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. WP:FRINGE has no relation to this debate btw - this is not an article about the theories, but rather about the organization/event. -- Y not? 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] International Conferences on Creationism[edit]
Non-notable creationist (and thus WP:FRINGE) series of conferences. Third party sourcing is currently exclusively to sources that are devoted to tracking creationist or general WP:FRINGE activity (National Center for Science Education, Panda's Thumb (blog), North Texas Skeptics), and/or low-prominence sources (blogs and newsletters). ((Find)) reveals little coverage -- almost exclusively from unreliable creationist sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I Sank Molly Brown[edit]
Claims importance ("greatest band to ever grace...") but no RS. Fails WP:BAND. Minimal GHITS and most recent news coverage is from April and is trivial here. 7 talk | Δ | 07:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mayoff Day[edit]
Article is written by someone with a conflict of interest about what appears to be a family tradition. There is no notability here. noq (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC) noq (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy Delete G6 by user Nev1, non admin closure.Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hellphone (disambiguation)[edit]
unneeded disambiguation, only one blue link. previously deleted by prod so can't use that again Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. No prejudice to recreation iff she becomes notable. NW (Talk) 04:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Alice Yard[edit]
Subject is a non-notable venue--non-notable in Wikipedia terms, of course. No reliable and useful references are provided, and the only relevant mentions I can find are in a Trinidad and Tobago's Newsday article and in a Boston Globe article. Neither of them amount to significant discussion. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Wikipedia was about having information for people when they were curious about something. I'm not trying to raise awareness, or to obtain some sort of endorsement from WP, its just something that is important to some people and that others might want to know more about. perhaps it is more notable in the Caribbean than here in the United States but I dont think that should take away from it's importance. It has not only been mentioned in several Caribbean papers but also the Boston Globe as Drmies noted. Is.coffee.art (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy deleted as vandalism, nonsense. PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Musicianism[edit]
Contested prod. Unreferenced article about a religion with no assertion of notability. At best, original research. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mark Kos[edit]
Article was proposed for deletion and endorsed; prods contested. The article claims that this research associate's work on SNO was "monumental" but does not provide any sources backing it up. A Google Scholar search for "Mark Kos" brings up his dissertation and another article, and "Marek Kos" brings up results for a different person. Given this, I don't think that the subject passes WP:ACADEMIC. ... discospinster talk 03:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. — Jake Wartenberg 01:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Alpine Beer Company[edit]
Non-notable company per WP:CORP. No references. Clubmarx (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Radio navigation. — Jake Wartenberg 01:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Radio navigation aid[edit]
Another editor, Cuddlyable3 (talk • contribs • count), states that the article is a hoax. Eastmain (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. If anyone wants the content to transwiki somewhere, give me a shout. Black Kite 13:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Events of the DC Universe lost year[edit]
This page is basically an excuse for excess plot summary. The article is devoted solely to the purpose of of explaining backstory setup to the DC Comics storyline One Year Later. Most of the fictional events chronicled here occured in 52 (comics). Several events weren't even depicted on-panel and were only referred to in dialogue. Anything noteworthy in an out-of-universe context should be covered in those two articles, or others as necessary. This page needs to be deleted because its purposed on an sole focus on primary sources, synthesis, and original research without any real-world context. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ferror (Art)[edit]
Article on a neologism, used by small artistic group, seems not to have much currency outside that group Zeimusu | Talk page 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was G3 Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Eliza ironmonger[edit]
No ghits for the terms "Eliza ironmonger" with "Flowers on a Spring Morning". No references. No awards listed. Article does assert that she wrote 17 books, so I didn't tag it as speedy although I would have liked to. Clubmarx (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Feed My Lambs[edit]
No references. no evidence of notability given since tagged in 2007. Brianhe (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jaison Williams[edit]
Fails WP:ATH as he has never played in a game, went undrafted and a good faith search turns up no "significant coverage" of him. Giants27 (c|s) 19:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wireless Latin Entertainment[edit]
This was WP:PRODed for failing WP:ORG. However, there seems to be a lot of coverage on the 'net. It is possible that claims such as found here - "Miami Florida-based WILAEN is the leading mobile entertainment provider of Latin and Brazilian polyphonic ringtones, screen savers and wallpapers." is from a press release, but I felt there was enough doubt to bring this to AfD for a wider discussion. SilkTork *YES! 18:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fusion Gaming Convention[edit]AfDs for this article:
non-notable event - fails WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Con of the North[edit]
fails WP:N. Coverage by a single, local newspaper is exactly what I'd expect, and isn't enough to provide evidence of notability. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] UnitedProsperity.org[edit]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an Sockpuppet WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to United Prosperity. This is one Part of a larger campaign of Spamming and promotion on Wikipedia.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#unitedprosperity.org. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first issue regarding a possible deletion is notability - if the topic is not notable. it does not belong here at all. I have added comments on the talk page showing the organisation has been the topic of at least one independent article and I will leave it to others to decide if this meets the standard. If this is not enough, I would appreciate some guidelines as what is required before the standard is reached. The other issues -listed as spam and sockpuppets - are serious but are in the past and can not be changed. If the article is noteworthy and can be put into a state which meets Wikipedia standards, I would not like to see the topic denied from Wikipedia on these grounds. If attempts are made again to self-promote, this could be dealt with by reverts and comments on editor talk pages, Herne nz (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] TinyScheme[edit]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Chuck Britz[edit]
Delete unreferenced weasel-worded bio without demonstrable notability. "Working with" (whatever that means) notable people doesn't make you notable; notability is not inherited nor is it contageous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Grim Dark[edit]
Apparent neologism / original research. No sources provided for verification. The Anome (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mahmoud Abbas (footballer)[edit]
Another editor tagged for WP:PROD. Prod contested. Never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE as the prod rationale. I stand neutral in this discussion. Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nordin Abdullah[edit]
Not notable, lacks reliable sources vvvt 08:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Withdrawn - a third entry was added after the start of the AfD. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] First Amendment (disambiguation)[edit]
Orphaned dab page with only two entries. A hot note on the primary already points to the only other item ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Corus Quay[edit]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Tales of Dark[edit]
Fails WP:N and WP:V for bands. Pretty much non-existent reliable, third party sources. Rafablu88 04:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Tenative keep on this one, I think it just might be notable, given that it has a label. If nobody else can find some evidence of notability, I'd say delete. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lewis Hallford[edit]
Previously speedily deleted but refused on this occasion. He is 17 and in the club's apprenticeship scheme. From the club's website it appears he has played in the first team but at this stage is not a regular. The site also says he played for the Scottish U16s but a search Scottish FA site does not produce a result even though the u16s are listed. The club is semi-professional playing in the National Conference which is not a fully professional league. He sounds as if he has a promising future but at this stage I think he fails wp:athlete Porturology (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ancillary IPs[edit]
Neologism. Only 21 unique Ghits, so not a term that's taken off. eaolson (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fc nomads of connahs quay[edit]
Football team that has only played one match so far, having only been formed in June this year. Only reference provided is the team's own website. No competitive matches played to date. roleplayer 00:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete due to copyright violation from this document. The document was posted in January of 09, the article didn't come until months later and was copied directly from that document. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] WebChat Broadcasting System[edit]
Sourcing appears tangential and this has a very unencyclopedic tone. Doesn't look like it has sufficient enduring notability to justify an article. Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because when I forget certain aspects of wbs.net's closure, this is the only detailed resource I have to fall back on. 99.9.166.76 (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) cliff[reply]
Weak keep The only problem I currently see is the unencyclopedic tone, which can be fixed. Other than that, I see no reason to delete. Until It Sleeps Wake me
|
![[7]](/en/File:Typical_Levenshulme_Back_Entry.jpg){kind=link}
The result was keep. listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Varolii[edit]
The article is authored by someone who self-identifies as the "web marketing manager for Varolii Corporation". The article does cite a few claims to fame so it's not speedyable under A7 and is reasonably well-written and not spammy, so it is not speedyable under G11. But the references given in this article are three press releases and a trivial mention in a news article. From searching around, I find a lot of press releases, but that's about it - I don't see any evidence of meeting WP:CORP. -- B (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Sandstein 14:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] FINAL BROADCAST[edit]
Local shows are rarely notable, and no indication that this show is one of the exceptions -- few references, no notability outside small geographical area. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|