The result was keep. That is, do not delete; no consensus about a possible merger but that can be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. The entire point of this article is to answer the question "What oil should I buy for my motorcycle?" That is, how do I maintain my motorcycle? Here is some reliable material on motorcycle oil: "Motorcycology", "Why don't we want to use...", "...energy conserving friction modifiers...". According to Chilton's Motorcycle Handbook [1], this is a hotly debated issue with no authoritative answer. If all of the secondary sources only offer how-to instructions, and no encyclopedic content, then there is nothing for Wikipedia to work with. There is a Wikibooks page which can more adequately deal with this, fwiw. Dbratland (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that what we really need is a new article Motorcycle lubrication, that begins with the early rider-operated, total-loss lubrication systems and traces the development since then, while avoiding getting anywhere near discussing what SAE grade or brand or type of oil they need.--Dbratland (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)::[reply]
The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable uncharted album, completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G10. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced (apart from a link to an open forum, which doesn't count) article about someone who may or may not exist. Appears to be original research and essentially an attack on a biography of a (possibly) living person with no references to back any of it up. I42 (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable uncharted album, completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this album series. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Without prejudice to a new, well-sourced article on this or a related subject. Sandstein 06:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All sources provided are unreliable, and there is no proof that the subject possesses WP: NOTABILITY on its own, although perhaps a mention of the subject could be added to Christian Identity, Anglo-Israelism or some other such article. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This album does not pass WP:MUSIC. It has not charted that I can find and does not contain any references to assert or establish notability, so it fails WP:GNG also. ArcAngel (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article of a fairly new radio talk(?) (variety?) show makes no assertion of notability that I can see and there are no external references at all. I was not able to come up with any reliable sources in my search, so this fails WP:GNG in my book. ArcAngel (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Local mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN as he isn't a national or highest sub-national level (i.e. state) politician. No non-trivial third party sources... 2 says you, says two 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Under the Pink. SilkTork *YES! 13:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page fails to establish notability and falls under fancruft Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Padma Shri article contains a comprehensive list of all the Padma Shri awardees. The information in this article is hence redundant. Besides the award is at the national level and therefore should not be listed state-wise. Jovianeye (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rapper. Has no notable work of his own. Allmusic [6] shows a handful of performer credits. Billboard doesn't list him at all. As an individual artist, has no significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline spam that fails WP:N. Complete lack of reliable sources. Zero PubMed hits, zero Scholar hits, zero Google news hits, one unrelated Google books hit, no websites in Google that would be reliable sources for a medical article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Survivor: Samoa. Notability rests on the TV show, therefore comes under WP:BLP1E . I noted the comments that he is to appear in another series - however, it is essentially the same event - he is not notable outside of that particular show. Refs supplied by Cunard are about the show, not the person, though they do mention the person. Suggestions to merge to Survivor: Samoa make sense - the relevent material can therefore be kept in the appropriate context. Searches for Russell Hantz will be directed to the show/event for which he is notable. SilkTork *YES! 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a non-notable gameshow contestant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondance2607 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. Majority of references here are social networking sites and sites affiliated with the artist. The rest may not meet the standard of 'multiple, non-trivial, reliable works'. Two of the three references are interview pieces, one of which is reprinted on myspace, and the other, "Zocalo Urbano" may not be a reliable source. Cannot find any notable media coverage of this artist through a Google search. Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:52, 30 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)) . |
— Duplicate !vote: Mariovega0 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
— Duplicate !vote: Mariovega0 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy, but I don't see how this fulfills WP:CORP, very recently founded startup with no third-party sources or assertion of notability. 2 says you, says two 19:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician with no albums released. Only off-wiki reference used here has the statement "Information from the artist's site" at the bottom, and seems to be a simple local band list service. May become notable in the future, but who knows? Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The "delete" arguments about the unreliable sourcing are more persuasive than the several "keep" comments that just assert she's notable without further argument. Sandstein 07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication that the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Porn performer in a handful of nn production, so trivial she isn't even listed in most of the standardly-cited-here porn indexes. GNews and GBooks hits negligible (although the searches do show a much more notable jazz performer of the same name); Ghits on lots of galleries but no relevant substantive content. One prior AFD summarily deleted, apparently as coatrack for personal abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor leaguer. Played 1 game at AAA. Indy leaguer now. 4.88 ERA. Not notable. Alex (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3D graphics software, no assertion of notability, developer is redlinked, no third party, non-trivial sources. 2 says you, says two 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet; no other support for deletion. Merge discussions can continue on the talk pages. Fences&Windows 00:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These Pirates of the Caribbean characters do not hold any notability outside of the fictional universe as there is a lack of third party, independent and reliable sources to back the content up. Therefore, the articles are excessive plot summaries. WossOccurring (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 174.16.239.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was speedy delete. All deleted WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax or WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These articles about a 13-year-old Portuguese singer-songwriter and his records appear to be a hoax. The articles are completely unreferenced; see the main article's talk page for searches, which turn up absolutely nothing relevant. The record label's website does not mention him, there is an Allmusic entry but it's someone else, and there are no articles in Portuguese Wikipedia. From this old version of the user page of the author Salgado96 (talk · contribs) it appears that he himself is "Bruce Buckley". JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2010 (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 publication WuhWuzDat 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MUST KEEP Dinaman was a great magazine and anyone familiar with Hindi journalism, and we are talking a population that may be half of the size of the most spoken language in the world. we should improvise it and get more information. Dinaman set the gold standard and we need to understand that. I am surprised someone had the wisdom to talk about it.
whoever calls it non notable probably has a lot to learn. it will be great if this person could achieve a millionth of what Dinaman was in the quarter century it enlightened the millions of Hindi language readers—Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.128.76 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A mention may be made in the Halfnelson (band) article that the band made a demo of this name - though a redirect wouold not be appropriate as the title is an unlikely search term. SilkTork *YES! 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this unreleased album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No reliable sources. Books are self-published, and the main source website is her own. SilkTork *YES! 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Due to concerns over verifiability and hence also notability. Sandstein 07:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sourced autobiography Истребительница (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. According to its website, HAPI is trademarked. DaveCW (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further research shows that a number of commercial and hobby versions of this instrument are being produced, which I think makes them of interest. They are all basically steel versions of slit drums or tongue drums, and could be included in the existing articles on slit drums - an ancient and non-trademarked instrument. DaveCW (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cant say its highly notable, but the drum manufacturers website lists 2 testimonials from notable drummers (they have WP articles that are not currently disputed). I can see an argument for merging with slit drums, but i must point out that "things made up one day" and "trademarked" are not valid arguments for deletion here. trademarked products can and should have articles, if they are sufficiently notable. "things made up" doesnt mean things manufactured, it means things thought up. anything patented, manufactured and sold with any degree of success is a prime candidate for an article or mention in one. i did have trouble finding other references for this product, though. maybe someone else will have better skill at it. oh and googling "hapi drum" in quotes gets 78900 hits, pretty impressive (though i know raw ghits is not a pure argument for either keep or delete, it does seem to show name recognition). article of course comes off as somewhat promotional, but that, again, is not a rationale for deletion if evidence of notability is extant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, I am new to this, I think there is an abbreviation I should be using, but "things made up one day" is indeed a valid argument for deletion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day As for the trademark, I cite it as evidence of a non-neutral point of view. Title the article "Steel Tongue Drum", or tell the reader why HAPI is significantly different than other brands of the same basic instrument. A patent would help convince me that there is a difference, but I don't think they have one. DaveCW (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition. I have been unable to find any reliable sources at all, even when throwing in key words. Either toss outright or send to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a clear example of Fancruft, something which Wikipedia is NOT (WP:NOCRUFT)(WP:NOT). And given that another Wiki exists, devoted specifically for Bionicle (http://biosector01.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page), this page should be deleted. (Actually, two Wikis -- http://bionicle.wikia.com/)
Apparently, the first attempt to delete the article reached No Concensus (between 5 members), and the second a Keep (between 6 members). Nevertheless, the issues pertaining to it have not been addressed.
Since this is the 3rd Nomination, and the article has been tagged since early 2009, it's best to delete it.
"So Neutral that I may as well not even vote" Neutral Im really in the middle here. I can see that the nom makes a point but it doesnt seem like we should just delete it all of the sudden.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article cannot be deleted because it explains a very important part of Bionicle, the main protagonists in fact. If it ends up deleted, readers will have a hard time understanding exactly what a Toa is, especially give that we can't squeeze all the info in one section. The Toa are the main protagonists from 2001 to 2008 and will be returning to that role in 2010. I think that what this article needs is some heavy-duty clean up and having the Toa Nuva's info compressed while the other Toa team's expanded.--Twilight Helryx 16:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn. tedder (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was a very clear copyright vio. Speedy removed and turned into a very good A1 or A7 candidate. I'm taking it here instead. No assertion of notability. There are two albums but I don't see any sources for them either. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. unsourced = unverified = delete Spartaz Humbug! 15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a second nomination, the first having taken place in 2007. It was deleted then and has since been re-created. Due to the fact that the original discussion was almost 3 years ago, I didn't feel good about just speedily deleting this, but a PROD was recently declined. Since 2007, not much has changed with this article. It's still difficult to find any sources on this subject that are not blogs or self-promotional material. The movement is real, but I can't see anything that indicates that it is notable or that we can satisfy WP:V. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh I'm reluctant to say this, after Harvard Div, but I doubt to what extent this is a continuous group of Mormons who morphed their beliefs into this confession, or is it perhaps a group of outsiders who have managed to take over an identity and rework it to their likings. Those movements occur in religions of many kinds, and anyone could ask that about many of the groups in 'modern religion' that bear little resemblance to their namesakes of earlier centuries (it's called 'reform' without an LDS tradition of the word 'reform' - as Calvinism has), but a case could likely be made either way. MaynardClark (talk)
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an encyclopedia article -- it is an advertisement for a freeware program, complete with how-to instructions. Two attempts to Speedy Delete the article were rejected (incorrectly, IMHO). A wishy-washy Prod tag was put in place, but I thought we could use more eyes on this to confirm its lack of notability. A Google News search only turns up a self-promoting press release: [25]. Warrah (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus not to delete; any merger or transwiki can be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 07:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move This page is rather a HowTo than an encyclopedic content. It should be moved to Wikibooks as it is written here and should be added to the current FTP tutorial. Ftiercel (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move This page is rather a HowTo than an encyclopedic content. It should be moved to Wikibooks as it is written here and should be added to the current FTP tutorial. Ftiercel (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — ækTalk 02:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this atrociously self-promotional article worth retaining in some vigorously paired down form? Her only notability that I can see seems to be as co-writer of a song Sweetheart (song), covered and made famous by someone else. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN BY NOM PER BELOW.[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
noting that there exists no agreements between these 2 countries except 2 weaker memos of understanding. yes there have been state and ministerial visits but it always under the context of APEC multilateral forums and meetings. no significant coverage of any notable relations [31] LibStar (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non notable UK university sports team, which fails WP:GNG as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints
What exactly is it that defines this team as non notable? The BUAFL is an American Football league, recognised by the NFL[1] and reported by such media outlets as Channel 5[2] and The Daily Mirror [3].
The BUAFL has its own wikipedia page and, as such, surely there should be information provided by all the member teams. Perhaps this information should be included in the BUAFL article but with 56 teams in the league, the largest university American Football League in Europe[4], that would make the article unwieldy.
Of those 56 teams, 46 have wikipedia pages. Many of those pages feature a greater depth of information than the Predators page but that is largely down to their having played in the league for nearly 20 years. The Predators are in their first season, so the page cannot be expected to be in such depth as, say, the Bath Killer Bees.
In the topic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Saints, one of the points made was this,That may be true of Durham University, but at the University of Edinburgh there is a wikipedia page for Edinburgh University A.F.C., Edinburgh University RFC and Edinburgh University Boat Club. If these clubs are granted an article, despite not playing at the highest amateur level, why can't the Edinburgh Predators have a page."The university football and rugby teams dont have pages and they are far greater in terms of participation and interest at UK universities"
Finally, I would argue that wikipedia is a point of reference, a tool for finding information about things that you are interested in. For example, if someone was interested about the village of Torphins in Aberdeenshire, Scotland they could come onto wikipedia and find some basic information about that place that they could not on the wider web, since such information cannot be found. In articles such as these, it is the collective general knowledge of people that form a comprehensive, if short, summary of the topic. My point here is that, while the BUAFL or the Edinburgh Predators might not be notable to you, they may be notable to others. Other people may wish to use wikipedia to view the Edinburgh Predators page as means of reference, to supplement the limited information provided on the web (what is provided is cited in the article).
Thus, I see little reason to delete the page (my sincere apologies for the extended response!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.111.101 (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that the team are not notable is that they fail to meet the guidelines set out for notability at WP:Athlete. This states that 'the highest level of amateur sport' is needed, since this is not the highest level of amateur sport, even in as minority a sport as University level American Football, which receives little to no interest in the UK in terms of media coverage and attendances, then the notability of any of the teams in this league is not sufficent for wiki entries, as established in the Afd for Durham Saints.
Regarding your sources, the channel 5 clip shows a discontinued(?) late night sports programme on a minority channel, for the main part, laughing at the names of the teams in the league. Besides, the notability of the league, which those sources support is not the question here, but the notability of the individual teams within the league. Some sort of table showing the teams in the league should be included on the league page, but all these individual entries with pointless facts and match by match accounts which are only of interest to those that played in the matches are unencyclopedic. I was active on bringing Durham Saints through AfD and will put each of the other pages through in due course, none of them are likely to be notable enough, but each should be able to make its individual claim of notabililty. This particular team looks to have played less than ten matches in a non-notable amateur univeristy sport league.
Re your argument regarding the other university teams, you should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as an aside my personal view is that i agree with the contributor in the AfD for Durham Saints who stated: "they (football and rugby) are far greater in terms of participation and interest at UK universities". Petepetepetepete (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is little point in my arguing further, since I'm somewhat over a barrel in terms of the rules stipulated in the articles that you suggested I looked at. All I will say is that regardless of how popular a university sport is, if you are to delete this article for failing the WP:Athlete notability criteria, then you must also delete the university football, rugby and rowing articles, since none of them meet those criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.111.101 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Per Wikipedia:Foreign sources, non-English reliable sources are acceptable as sources. I believe that consensus is that the article meets the notability standards for inclusion. NW (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined PROD. Non-notable singer; I can find no coverage by anybody (although this may be a language issues). References, even if non-English, are needed to prove the subject's significance. Also potential BLP issue. I'd be willing to withdraw this if sources are found. Mm40 (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Blaxy Girls. unsourced still so the temptartion would be to go with delete as the best policy based argument but the possibility of notability through music is also an option so a redirect seems the least harmful outcome short of keeping, whihc really needs some sourcing to demonstrate independant notability. Spartaz Humbug! 15:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by a known sock puppet (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Montana 4 and User talk:STEF1995S), although the title of an album may not be a hoax, none of the information can be reliable. 117Avenue (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the possible issues with the article in the first place (see the current issues template right below the AFD notice), the article is essentially a duplicate of Włostowice, Puławy, which itself appears to have been moved by User:Kotniski previously from a slightly different name. Apparently, the article's original author created it twice (under this name and the other name it was moved from). As there would be nothing to merge, I recommend deletion with no redirect. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author appears to have created this article with a faulty name then created again with a corrected title and was unable to delete this version. Sussexonian (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2010 (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)) . |
Does not appear to be notable. At this point, the only sources quoted in the article are a YouTube link and an IMDb entry for a person with a different spelling of the name and whose first film appearance occurred when this guy was five! Web and news search find several hits, but they are Ontario real estate agents or other corporate types. Favonian (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
;)
Mm40 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. All agree that WP:PROF is not met, except for Stephanefr, whose argument I have difficulty understanding. Sandstein 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have prodded this, but this article survived a discussion in 2005, way before we had any notability standards for academics. The argument that he invented Unlambda is exceedingly weak; I could barely find secondary references to add to that article— it's not a well-known language by any stretch. Pcap ping 12:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability for well over a year. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. The band has released only a single album, back in 1996, on a notable label. No significant coverage in third-party reliable sources (a solitary radio interview is nowhere near good enough, no significant tours (note: "Meltdown Festival" is not a major festival). Nothing there really to pass any aspect of WP:MUSIC that I can see. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to RF Online. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject has no sources or sufficient notability and should not have its own article. It's also orphaned from the RF Online article. DEVS EX MACINA pray 09:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, invented. No sign this actually exists at all beyond an unimpressive looking first-party reference. Declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. still not courced = unverified = delete Spartaz Humbug! 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely in-universe + No claim of real-world notability + No sources found in 1 year --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created and then edited repeatedly by a drawerful of socks, one claiming to be the subject. After much hard work by several editors (and special mention goes to Rees11 (talk · contribs) who has done the hard legwork trying to improve and substantiate this article) we're left with an article whose sources are largely self-published or PR puff or not substantiating the points in the text. Because of that, the article doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC and I seek community input as to whether it has a place in Wikipedia. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 09:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrophone
The result was keep. per references provided by Samdstein Spartaz Humbug! 15:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of this term seems to rely almost entirely on a mailing list source and some Internet lawyer's website which (I think) only uses the phrase incidentally, and not as a proper legal concept. The article is only one sentence long, and part of that sentence – "...in continental Europe..." – has no reliable reference to it whatsoever. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 08:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below:
1. Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional. 2. Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition. 3. Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games. 4. Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability).
This is not Akcelrod's case. 1. There is no evidence he played for the professionnal clubs mentionned (Cwmbran, Paris, Tigre). He played for the Paris Saint Germain team, but at an amateur level (5th team). 2. He played a match as a substitute for Swindon Town two years ago, but it was a trial, at a domestic level. 3. No 4. He played as an amateur in Paris, but not with the first team.
I found one relevant fact showing that Akcelrod has played in a team[33]. In 2005, he played for the Belgian club of Givry. This is not mentionned in his WP page, the club played in Provinciale 1, which is the 5th level in Belgium.
On his mybestplay page[34], he says he scored 7 goals in 14 games played with Tigre (Argentinian Premier League) in the 2008-2009 season. The FIFA does not mention his name in the results[35]
To sum up, this WP page says Akcelrod plays for : - Cwmbran (Welsh Premier League) : no source, no picture.
- Paris Saint-Germain (French L1) : no match played with the first team.
- Tigre (Argentinian Premier League) : no source, no picture.
- Swindon, Bournemouth, Norwich (League One): That's true, he played some matches (it is not difficult to find videos posted by Akcelrod himself) but as a trialist.
- CSKA Sofia : He made a trial at sofia, but the club discovered that that Akcelrod has lied about his past[36][37] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.61.231 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The french article has been deleted[38]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.61.231 (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously deleted on 6 February 2009 for failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article has since been rewritten, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. On 28 September 2009, the article was created, and the creator, Hotrod2hell (talk · contribs) wrote on the talk page:
“ | the past pages had way too many insignifigant items about Jim Cara who is greatly recognized as one of the only Guitar Hot Rodders in the world. By pairing it down and only including what is important and by supplying you with only two very good references, we hope that this article will be considered for what is truly worthy content without fluff | ” |
A Google News Archive search returns no relevant sources.
In summary, this article should be deleted because it fails Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I think the compelling argument is that inclusion is rather subjective with no clear inclusion definition. I mean how do we define how klnow for being supportors iof Rev Moon? Unless that's documented in the sourcing then inclusion is always going to eb subjective. Spartaz Humbug! 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:Original research. There is no source for listing people based on their support for another person. Would WP have an article on the supporters of President Obama, much less a fairly minor person such as Mr. Moon? Northwestgnome (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just viewed one of "Foomy"'s videos on YouTube, and there's no doubt that she's talented. I don't see notability here though, either under the "Foomy" name or as "Fumi Koyasu". I don't believe she meets WP:MUSIC at this point. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. tedder (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newly created local charter high school where all sources cover a battle over education, without going into significant detail on the school itself. Article has also been tagged for multiple issues including COI since August. Article is currently a stub with an infobox. Optigan13 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tag removed by an IP. Autobiography COI biography, no third-party references. Has been speedied three times before. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While normally it'd be fair enough to let the thing run, the issues highlighted with the article by those who wrote below combined with the SPA and obvious BLP issues led me to conclude it should be wrapped up now. Orderinchaos 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Little in the way of actual notability, despite the size. Seems to fail WP:BIO; all sources are either him or unreliable. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Lesser Key of Solomon. merge anything useful if you like Spartaz Humbug! 15:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax, possible neologism - either way, all I know is that there are no references to this thing via google. Ironholds (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. unsourced = unverified = delete Spartaz Humbug! 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paris has not ever been the sort of entity which has "consorts". The Merovingian "kings of Paris" are called such out of convenience. They called themselves kings of the Franks, but since the Franks had several kings at one time, ruling from different centres over different territories, it is convenient to label those who made their main seat Paris the "kings of Paris". That's all. It is misleading to go from this to "queen consorts of Paris". The rulers of Paris under the Carolingians were styled "counts" often, but they did not have consorts in this regard. Then the list jumps from 1007 to 1864! Srnec (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Bentleigh, Victoria#St. Paul's Primary School. tradition is to redirect and any useful material can be placed in the main article Spartaz Humbug! 15:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primary schools are not notable as a class (unlike high schools) and this small local school does not appear to be notable enough to meet Wikipedia requirements. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC) (Note - article has previously been PRODded by a different editor)[reply]
I have merged the content in this article to Bentleigh, Victoria#St. Paul's Primary School and sourced the information with the school's website, which is a sufficient source to verify this information. I have taken care to reword the content; save for the introductory sentence, much of this article was a copyright violation of the school's website. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
((subst:ab}
The result was merge to Bombshell#Comics. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This information is a duplicate of Bombshell, next to no incoming links. Bombshell is not sufficiently large enough to merit a separation under WP:SETINDEX. Labattblueboy (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Los Angeles Area Council. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable camp without any references to establish notability or elevation. Content overlaps significantly with Los Angeles Area Council#Log Cabin Wilderness Camp. Merger discussion initiated at the start of this month (Dec 2009) has only generated two opinions up to this point, mine and one user opposing. Article should either be deleted, or redirected to relevant section on other article. Optigan13 (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is evidence that this is a film that will be released in March 2010, and there are Wikipedia articles on other animated Barbie films, so it is likely that there may be an article on this topic at some point. However, for now, the consensus is that this particular article does not follow our guidelines. When the film is released, and reliable sources have written about it enough to establish the film's "notability" (as opposed to mere existence) it can be recreated. SilkTork *YES! 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article for film that either will be or was released, depending on how you read it. Sources show a book by that name for January 2010, but nothing else. Article created by editor|Special:Contributions/Chistopher_John_P.K._Sacedor who has since disappeared. Article now defended by editor Special:Contributions/Bianca_Anne_Martins with curious relationship to creator and history of creating similar articles. SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted under G7 by Fastily partway through the debate. NAC for cleanup reasons by —S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Prod removed by article creator without any indication of notability. noq (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-referenced article about a seemingly obscure Canadian personal trainer; the article may be a vanity piece. Does not meet WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References added to article. 18:38, 23 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.8.75 (talk)
The result was redirect to wikt:smidge. Soft redirect to wikt:smidge SilkTork *YES! 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable neologism, appears to be little more than a dictionary definition. TNXMan 21:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is entirely WP:NOR. I checked amazon, google books, and google for information but was not able to find anything. I didn't think a simple redirect would work here. Peppagetlk 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this as I have attempted a CSD in the past, but have been told this article is ineligible for a speedy delete, even for a stub article that does not indicates why this bicycle is notable.
Nominating this as individual bicycles are rarely notable unless for some reason, such as retrospective culture or have won a major sporting event, which in that case are highly likely to be custom bikes. In this case of this bicycle is none of these as when have a cheap full suspension bicycle ever became notable. Donnie Park (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. "keep" or "no consensus" would both be valid calls here. I'll pick "nc" so that if someone wants to renominate in good faith, they can do so. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable element of cinematography, complete with an unsourced list of examples. (WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:LISTCRUFT) WossOccurring (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nominator of this article has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of User:Dalejenkins. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins for details. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Malformed or not, the original discussion had 2 "keep" !votes. Therefore, I'm going to IAR and treat both discussions as one relisted discussion without any delete arguments aside from the original nom. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Article had an AfD nomination dated 8 September (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet Dog) which I closed because it was a malformed nomination. Original AfD nomination rationale was as follows: "Nothing actually establishing their notability. has been tagged as such a substanital amount of time — TheBilly(Talk) 09:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)" —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to ru.wiki. I need to see coverage in English-language sources before I'm inclined to believe a topic should be included in the English-language wikipedia. Yilloslime TC 00:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only references that have been uncovered to date are press releases or blog entries. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nowhere near notable enough per WP:BIO for sportspeople: an entirely amateur tennis player (of the present day) and lowly ranked at that; purpose of page seems very much to promote, although somewhat subtlely, the company he works for. Mayumashu (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No apparent notability. A short page on IMDB, but not much detail. No box office figures available, no sourcing available aside from sales and Bittorrent sites. No independent reviews that I can find. —Kww(talk) 23:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested prod where the reasons given were Non-notable musician. See this Google. The prod was supported by the comment I can't find a reference that he has "5 National Number 1 hits and 9 top 10 singles." Furthermore, there is probably a COI here, as User:Duotonestudios created the article.
Based on this, we clearly need to discuss the article even though the prod can be overturned by request. Since I am simply the restoring admin and have done no due diligence I an offering no comment on the merits of this article. Spartaz Humbug! 09:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced BLP article please. This article has been tagged as BLP unreferenced since May 2009 and someone keeps re-introducing the same unsourced material over and over again. While I'm trying to assume good faith, I do have reason to suspect a WP:COI going on here. Google News did reveal a whopping 3 hits for this person [56] but nothing of substance at all. Not even close. JBsupreme (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. May be restored (but would need a throrough rewrite) if she becomes notable e.g. as an MP. Sandstein 07:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over a year and a half since the last AfD of this non-notable journal, which ended with no consensus. Created by the now indef-blocked User:AiritiPress, the article is, to put it bluntly, spam. No sources for notability. The spammer inserted this journal into List of academic journals and List of scientific journals, and I am sure that other spammers have done so. Abductive (reasoning) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by User:Fastily. Non-admin close. Jujutacular T · C 05:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising, unreferenced, non-notable per WP:GROUP, clear WP:COI by creator, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, external links provided are all broken. Speedy delete tag removed by anonymous editor from IP address in Johannesburg. MuffledThud (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prod was contested. I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Chill, this is a significant hip-hop artist, several mainstream hits have included samples from his work. If you search for A.D.O.R. you will find many videos etc. I remember being shocked that there wasn't an article on A.D.O.R. a while ago. I think with a bit of help I can have a tidy little article.
Whats 'notability' then Joe? You can see he exists, you can see he's an influential. The amount of shit thats on wikipedia, obscure bands etc, shameless self promotion, and your telling me this guy doesn't deserve an article? I can find a dozen articles with less than two paragraphs in them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomie_21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldbeat). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 16:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prod was contested. She fails WP:ENT because she has only one role. Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]