The result was withdrawn by nominator . No outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP on composer failing to establish notability and with very few sources (in which the composer is only mentioned in passing). PROD was contested. Jubilee♫clipman 23:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find any significant coverage of this article to satisfy WP:RS. I see sites listing the building, but see nothing as far as an assertion of notability goes. ArcAngel (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, nominator withdrew. Airplaneman talk 01:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable whale; redirect and merge relevant info into Shedd Aquarium. Airplaneman talk 22:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Airplaneman, it's Belugaboy535136, the author of Kayavak (beluga whale). Why do you think this whale is insignificant?? Kayavak almost didn't survive!! Have you not read, she became an orphan at five months old?? Forgive me if I'm being too stern, but please, tell me why. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Belugaboy535136 (talk •contribs) 00:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, nice to meet you. Please take a look at Wikipedia's inclusion and notability policies and you'll see why I thought Kayavak the Beluga whale was not notable enough for her own article. I suggested that she have a mention in the article of her aquarium. Although our opinions may differ, I do not think that being in life-threatening situations and losing a parent signify significance and importance in their own right; more information supporting notability has to be provided. As such, the information has been provided, and I will be happy to withdraw my nomination on the grounds that her article be moved to her proper name, Kayavak, not Kayavak (beluga whale). Also, inline citations should be added. Happy editing, Airplaneman talk 01:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PRODUCT requirements as there are no independent sources establishing notability and I can find no Google News history of any mention of this server or its prior identity of sakima.octoraro.org. Ash (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable musician, badly written unreferenced BLP, possible conflict of interest by the author who wrote it. Can find very few reliable sources. Seems his only claim to fame is that he once performed alongside Graham Coxon. Sure he might be a musician but does than automatically mean we should have articles on every musician!! Dr. Blofeld White cat
Oh, I was proved wrong. Couldn#t find a reliable source like BBC. All music as well, that's good enough for me although I still don't think he is really particularly notable.... Thanks for sorting it out. Nomination withdrawn. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Places researched are listed on the talk page, with no information found on the actual art or the artist. In addition, the majority of the information regards the actual sculptures and their location seems to be from original research, in contradiction of the rules on original research in Wikipedia. The references given on the page only refer to the building, or the building materials and not the pieces of art themselves. Miyagawa (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable variation of Tang Soo Do taught by single individual with no coverage by reliable, independent sources. Singularity42 (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added the following article, becuase the subject is the sole instructor of this martial art:
The reason I created Tang Soo Do Kyohoe Kwan was because it is a new style less than one year old, and there was no information about it on Wikipedia. I am a student in said style, so I thought it would be a good idea to create an article. I mentioned in it that Master Bill Church was the head instructor of the style, so I though it best to make an article about him as well. Originally, I was going to make the information about him a section in Tang Soo Do Kyohoe Kwan, but there was so much information that I was turning the article in to one that talked mainly about him instead of the style. The idea that he should have his own article came partly from the fact that there is an article about grand master Hwang Kee. Or maybe Bill Church is not famous enough. But if the articles must be deleted, than so be it. I do not wish to go against Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Paperfork ♠ 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a list of music educations programs that is simply a directory contrary to WP:NOTDIR. Whpq (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a drink made up one day. No references. No relevant Google hits. Nothing to support notability. Very troubling is the sentence "The notoriety of the Johnny O’Mara came to fruition primarily due to word of mouth." (which was removed just as I started to write these comments). Singularity42 (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A PROD tag was removed without any apparent improvement. This match is "in negotiation"; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only two of the references are directly about the topic and both specifically state that negotiations have just begun; the remainder is speculation. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found zero sources for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Lego Star Wars (video game series). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This entire article is straight up a list of who's-in-what-games, by each game. There's no way to cut it other than this is game guide material as we wouldn't do this for weapon lists or other items related to a game series, and as a result serves no real purpose to inform the reader of, well, anything at all to be honest other than, well... just who appeared in which title. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This autobiography reads like a promo piece. The subject fails WP:BIO.
The only real reference that might claim notability is the multichannel.com plug that was likely picked up from a press release. none of the rest are Wp:RS. The one award that might lend notability is the Telly Award which is a very insignificant award, given to thousands of people each year. Failed Speedy Deletion as WP:CSD#G11.
Related discussion in this section of ANI.
Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Musician who does have an Allmusic entry, but as that site says, his releases are self-published. Cant't see any other notability here. Geschichte (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability, I don't know what weight should be given to the claim of his songs being "a rallying call for those in support of renegade general Ante Gotovina". Besides, that's a WP:BLP issue. Geschichte (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recently deleted on fr:, with the rationale that Quebec City doesn't really have a gay village as such — it has a couple of gay businesses that happen to be located near Le Drague, but the city's gay community is widely dispersed and doesn't really live in a unified neighbourhood. The early version of the article was literally just a business directory with widely varying street addresses confirming that the businesses in question aren't all in the same neighbourhood. And given that we're talking about Quebec City, if the article is unsourced and unsourceable on fr:, then it's beyond hope here. Delete. And note that I'm a gay man, so this isn't a homophobic "delete gay villages" crusade — it's more of a "don't create articles about gay villages that don't actually exist in real life". Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to permaculture. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an awkward stub article. The words as used form jargon phrases becoming somewhat impenetrable to the non topic-expert. The article title, if the article is deemed to be valid here, should probably be changed to permaculture guild since it appears misnamed, but it has no references and thus appears to be Original Research, or possibly an attempt to establish the terms by placing it in an encyclopaedia. So I am proposing it for discussed deletion on the basis that a PROD doesn't seem fair to it, and AfD will give it a substantial chance of discussion and perhaps enhancement. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete G11, by Jimfbleak. — Sarilox (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable unreferenced art theory, advertising the work of a single artist WuhWuzDat 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable idea, lacking credible sources. Appears to be largely WP:OR Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, this person is one of over 2,000 people standing for election at the 2010 UK General Election. That to me doesn't make him notable as per Wikipedia rules. It's also self promotion the subject appears to be the person who created the article, user LawReport. If he gets elected, then he may be worthy of an entry. Until that point, I say he's not Dupont Circle (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm closing this early before this becomes an orgy of pile on deletes, as there's no chance this topic could be encyclopedic - if any of us could fathom what the topic actually is. Fences&Windows 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is beyond Original Research and/or Synthesis. It's a pretty solid example of word salad, contains zero encyclopedic content, and the "footnotes" are all either citing benign points unrelated to the argument, or from highly dubious sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete G4. GedUK 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable student radio show. Some of the claims verge on blatant hoax noq (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, per WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. Almost all sources are self-published. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this site states: The papers published in the series have undergone a process of peer review.
This paper falls into the same category. Oddly, neither is included in the article (unless I'm missing them). The article does require work, several of the links are directly to papers, without indicating who published them, when or where. I realize if the reader wants to find them, a direct link works, but it is useful to the reader, and critical to the reviewer, to understand whether the papers are peer-reviewed. In addition, important claims in the lede are not backed by references, but this is not an argument for deletion, rather an argument for better editing. As implied, adding these apparently peer-reviewed papers is important.
One of the included references is published online by Elsevier, one of the most respected publishers. It used to be assumed that such a publication implied peer-review, but I haven't stayed on top of the online outlets for such publishers, so I don't know for sure. At least one other paper is in the same category, so if peer-reviewed, it would help tip the scales in favor of this article.--SPhilbrickT 16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Gah!. How confusing. Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarineMeat (2nd nomination) Fences&Windows 02:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty standard WP:NOTNEWS ; no other source apart the CNN link. Cyclopiatalk 14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn thanks to helpful comments by User:Everyking. There is some coverage and I feel some more source-digging is warranted before taking a decision. I think the best way to deal with it is to propose some merge target. --Cyclopiatalk 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD; no sources can be found to show that this footballer meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 15:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This band appears to fail WP:BAND and the GNG. Bongomatic 14:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources are self-ref'd, non-notable website. MBisanz talk 08:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Digging into this more, I see there is some precedent I was not aware of that should be noted in this discussion. In the May-August 09 discussion here [16], the proper treatment of smaller language wikipedias was debated at some length. That discussion links to a slew of AfD discussions from earlier this year, where the close was to redirect to List of Wikipedias. Since I doubt consensus has changed in the last 4 months, and that consensus seems pretty strong, I suppose that should be the correct result here as well. At least having the redirect will prevent article recreation and avoid wasted efforts. I am going to leave my Keep vote as my personal position, but I fully accept that the outcome should be Redirect--Milowent (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Divorced Guys. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable future David Spade film. Author de-prodded, but there is still no evidence this has started principal filming yet or is independently remarkable. Should be deleted per WP:NFF. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article lacks notability. I don't think ALL NBA basketball players deserve an article Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 13:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD nominated by User:Tim Song, who found nothing to support its notability. While I don't doubt the creator's intentions, it's got no secondary sources, and probably isn't ready for Wikipedia yet. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
completely non-notable independently of a particular sport. Ironholds (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Glicko rating system. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not assessed SyG (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was PRODded as "utterly, boringly non-notable", and I have to say I agree; however the author wrote on the talk page "Oppose. This shouldn't be deleted because its "boring"." He didn't remove the PROD, but I'm afraid, in the spirit of WP:PROD and WP:BITE, that has to be taken as a dePROD. No, the article shouldn't be deleted because it is boring, but because the subject is not notable - there is no evidence of independent comment on these skins - and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An empty article with not a single reference. It seems unbelievable that the term is coined exclusively in 2000's for Mika and Gnarls Barkley. Especially looking at respective articles and finding not a trace of "Disco pop" mention. Delete per WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:N. Garret Beaumain (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is an author whose first book is yet to be published. No independent sources have been provided and I can find none by looking for various combinations of his name. A previous version of the article also said that the subject was an actor, but his IMDB page lists only what appear to be very minor roles. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as vandalism/attack page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs)
Non-notable, vandalism, etc Newt (winkle) 08:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My search results indcate that, while it may be possible that this file is the subject of a number of forum threads online, there is no reliable sources from which an article can be written, It therefore fails WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything whatsoever for "Plathubis". It therefore appears to fail WP:V, but maybe others may have better luck. Tim Song (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. I am unable to find any significant coverage of this article to satisfy WP:RS. I see sites listing the building, but see nothing as far as an assertion of notability goes. ArcAngel (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not conform with Not a dictionary and Notability policies. Also, the article is only the definition of an acronym and most likely should only be included in the list of acronyms, if that. If such acronyms like TBA and TBD do not have separate pages, this also should not. Webmaster961 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another long-term unreferenced BLP. According to her NYtimes filmography [25] she's been a stunt double a few times, produced a 27 minute documentary and had a few other TV/movie roles. Nothing that has attracted any writing about here in the press, books etc... of any signficance that I can find. basically this article is a duplicate of the IMDB page and that appears all there is to write. Does not have multiple independant sources writing about here, rather than simply recording in a directory fashion. Peripitus (Talk) 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Student essay reporting some original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NN sport; looking at the citations the only ones that show the slightest sign of independence appear to be fictional. This was deleted in 2006 (see AFD). Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The keep arguments mostly amount to liking it and it being popular, but the sources offered do serve to give some substance to the argument. Fences&Windows 00:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software product. Sources found in typical search Google news, books, scholar, do not show any significant sources. Short product announcements, comments to other news articles, and was used once in an academic setting (ie, an academic paper that is not about jdownloader). These insignificant sources do not hold up to a notability claim. Miami33139 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand I find Wiki entries on software packages very useful as an unbiased reference. Also this software has interesting plugins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.197.136 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 19:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute lack of notability. It has been deleted twice and restored once on the basis that the article's contents in the new version are different from the original deleted article. However, it is not different enough to solve the major problems such as notability. Fact of the matter is that fan-made games such as this have a higher standard of notability, so having none is simply unacceptable. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The General Notability Guideline is of central importance to Wikipedia. It is what enables content contributors to decide for themselves whether material is suitable for inclusion; in other words, the GNG is what lets writers create material without going through a committee process first.
Because of that, I think that passing the GNG is a bright-line inclusion criterion, and I think we need extraordinarily strong reasons to disregard it. I do not see that any such strong reasons apply here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Article appears to be promotional in nature. | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, fails WP:PORNBIO, is promotional in tone and arguably contains a breach of copyright. Rodhullandemu 19:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is essentially an advertisement for a group of non-notable software. This page belongs (and already exists) at ScoutWiki. SnottyWong talk 18:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original research or a neologism with no indication of notability. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable obituary biography. The only sources are blogs and a paid obituary. Miami33139 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep : It is the creator of the Jabber/XMPP protocol and Exodus the XMPP client.
Delete Not notable. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep (NAC) - Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding oppose votes Shirik (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The organization's notability is in question. CSD was contested under the indication that "sources may imply notability." However that notability seems to be limited to a project which is scheduled for cancellation. This is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I cannot find significant coverage beyond this future (cancelled?) project. Shirik (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short-lived and non-notable All-Party Parliamentary Group. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The keeps don't really give any arguments based in policy. If anyone wants a copy for userspace, let me know. Fences&Windows 00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant for wikipedia. Belongs on a fansite rather than here. Highest Heights (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meme appearing to fail notability guidelines per no significant secondary source coverage. Only incoming article links are from Gesture (appended See Also link) and List of gestures. haz (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, with no prejudice towards merging with Oahspe: A New Bible and redirecting. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
non notable religious theory, possible WP:HOAX WuhWuzDat 15:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As described in the article, it's not a religious "theory" but a religion by itself, although small (but in existence for more then one hundred years). Concerning the possible "hoax", as stated (and linked, referred) in the discussion and the article, Faithism is the religion of several defunct and existing groups, organizations, churches and one of them, the "Universal Faithists of Kosmon " is on Wikipedia already; There is a Museum in Las Cruces NM (Shalam Colony & Oahspe Mystery Museum P.O. BOX 159 Dona Ana, NM 88032-0159 USA )which issues a Magazine, " The Vortex" ,an archive at the NM State University, USA, several, now closed communities , books edited in print and out of print by organizations who claim to be Faithist etc. Numbers are now small, but real; evidently it's no "hoax". Vanais (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)— Vanais (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I am a non-carnivourous pacifist Faithist in One Great Spirit, as defined in Oahspe page 1 verses 16-20, I have practiced this religion as best I can, without the present existence of a Faithist commune to join in, for the past 30 years. We are working toward re-establishing such a communal setting where followers of Jehovih/Om the Great Spirit can practice communal oneness, holding all things in common as taught in Oahspe and as described of early believers in Acts 4:32. There are many of us who are in communication with each other in ongoing groups. Just because someone may not have heard of us does not mean that we do not exist. M. H. Jones Lordessoflight (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — Lordessoflight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There are people who are NOT practicioners of Faithism who have researched papers, documentaries and the like for the edification of any interested persons. Here is a link to a documentary which will soon be be released which is about the Shalam Colony of Faithists who practised Faithism: [51]. Students of Theology, Philosophy, Religion, etc., would expect to find all religions in such a wide resource as Wikipedia. To claim that an existing religion with historical and contemporary references, and with wide international membership (USA, Australia, South Africa, U.K., Holland, Italy, Greece, Canada, and more), is not notable, sounds like bigotry to me.Flaxseed2000 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)— Flaxseed2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kurdistan/List of Kurdish articles and delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
mostly links to administrational pages. these lists could be made for any other topic. Ysangkok (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web site. Alexa > 500000, nothing press-worthy, no assertion of notability within the article. TB (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Balatant advert about the current CEO of the GPO, created and edited by accounts with COI: Gpopr1 (talk · contribs) 162.140.67.10 (talk · contribs) Printer25 (talk · contribs) JustbeCalm (talk · contribs) Usgpo (talk · contribs) Hello1237 (talk · contribs), no independent sources cited. Sole Soul (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy was declined, but I can't find anything in reliable sources about this preacher, or really much at all beyond a few blogs, announcements that he was coming to preach at a church, and so on. Not a nobody, but no verifiable indication of notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As WP:PORNBIO requires winning a notable award, rather than just being a finalist, this debate clearly shows that Gomez does not pass. Kevin (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly seems to have a following but doesn't seem to have any coverage in reliable sources yet Polarpanda (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC, in that his released album seems very minor. I am listing the album article as well. Geschichte (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 00:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Song that has no indication of notability. Fails WP:NSONG Shirik (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Aerosmith. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page is a classic case of WP:TenPoundHammer's Law and WP:Crystal. In its current form the page fails to meet notability in music because it is not clear why the album is significant. Without a album cover, confirmed track listing, album name or even released single this breaks every wikipedia rule and guideline under the sun regarding notability and crystal balling. The consensus from the last AfD seemed to be that because its coming out in 2009 its notable. This isnt even the case now. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Person who sang in an amateur TV series. Nothing else of note to state. No references here and nothing I can see elsewhere that shows this article passing any of the notability guidelines. Peripitus (Talk) 00:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an advertisement for non notable company. It's been written by User:Adarw, which his name is, according to his user page, Adar Weidman. Apparently, he is an employe of this company. Most of the references used in the article links to Checkmarx's website, it's partner - Security innovation's website, its investors website, and to press releases. Xodlop (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to fall under WP:SOAP and WP:NOR, as the author appears to be the creator of the project itself and the references section cites only the author's own unpublished documents. Simple Google searches for the subject reveal no significant third-party results. Although a commendable effort, I don't think the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia is warranted. Paul_012 (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the creator of this page was the initator of the EIS project. That is correct. There is no third-party results because it is a very new project already under suspicion of the Ministry of Education. I think people make it themselves too easy deleting pages here. Maybe you should ask about reason here before deleting the whole article. No one needs to hurry deleting articles. I just wanted to say that this English for Integrated Studies project is already well known by the Ministy of Education of Thailand and it may be included in Thailand's new school curriculum. So please keep the article. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.85.53 (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply doesn't seem notable to me. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Delete nor me. Reywas92Talk 03:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Kevin (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a single corruption scandal makes this person notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a non-notable film whose only claim to fame is that it is Nicholas Clay's last film. Author was asked to provide reasons for notability after they removed a prod. Originally given twenty minutes before an AfD, that spread to two hours out of a wish to not bite the newbies. So far, only evidence of notability has been the above statement about Clay, as said in their edit summary here. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn - re-reading, although this is unreferenced he will meet the criteria. Thanks for the pointer David - Peripitus (Talk) 04:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Auto)Biography of a laudable and apparently fine person that lacks any sort of references. While searching for the references I have found that there are non available. His name is mentioned in a few places and he has a smattering of scholarly articles - but nothing that discusses, rather than mentions, him. Does not appear to have attracted sufficient interest from reliable sources to meet any of the notability requirements. Peripitus (Talk) 00:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Mitzvah Campaigns. Even though AfD is not the correct venue for merge discussions, it is pointless to close this just to have the same discussion all over again. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect this page to either Mitzvah Campaigns or the main Tefillin articles. This is a violation of WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTWEBHOST and it should not be allowed to function as an alternative for Chabad.org by the now obvious pro-Chabad editors for Chabad, because Wikipedia is not Chabad.org i.e. WP:NOTMYSPACE. These so-called Chabad "campaigns" were essentially PR and recruitment drives of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shneerson to enlarge the Chabad movement's power and influence and such articles should be collected under the main topic of Mitzvah Campaigns each with brief sentences and short paragraphs summarizing them because they are not worthy of what will eventually become hundreds, if not thousands of such pro-Chabad articles that over-all function as obviously WP:POV-pushing for only one Jewish evangelic-type movement within Judaism that is highly controversial as it faces severe criticisms for Chabad messianism. Note: These type of "_____ campaign" articles should more accurately be called Chabad mitzvah campaigns since it is only that group that engages in this activity and it is no way representative of over-all Orthodox, Charedi, Chasidic Judaism or Judaism in general. A perusal of the main Mitzvah Campaigns article shows that it is about to become the springboard for infinite numbers of needless and often mindless articles, as has already happened with Public menorah now in an AfD, that would be shadows and nothing more in most cases of WP:POVFORKing of the main articles of all sorts of articles in Category:Jews and Judaism. IZAK (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]