The result was speedy keep per withdrawal. I'm surprised this was nominated, tbh; it is the most popular Linux desktop environment behind GNOME and KDE.. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 13:51, 13 February 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)) . |
Not notable, doesn't claim to be notable, all sources listed are passing mentions, self-published, or blogs. Contested PRODMiami33139 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawn considering LinuxMag source by Reisio and Linux Journal source by OlivierDST. I hope those sources make it into the article so the next person on cleanup patrol doesn't re-nominate the article. What is currently there is not enough. Miami33139 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to affiliate marketing. MBisanz talk 21:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains no references to recognizable, independent, third-party sources that meet WP:RS, and a variety of searches brings up nothing that I could use to help establish this article's notability. While I understand that certain industries do not receive mainstream media attention, there is a certain standard that needs to be met, especially for potentially contentious subjects such as affiliate marketing, and the self-serving sources used for this article just do not cut it as legitimate references. Flowanda | Talk 23:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 14:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list of casinos, almost none of which have articles and none of which have references. Redundant to Category:Casinos and its subcategories. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Jclemens under WP:CSD#G3. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOAX. Would have speedied it except hoaxes can't be SDed. §FreeRangeFrog 23:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this merits deletion, (may just need a rewrite) but I'm unsure which forum it should be discussed in. It's basically a puff for the company.
However, the references don't quite support the article text:
Reference 1[3] is the company website
Reference 2[4] CNN - does mention Talentsmart as a "leading provider of emotional intelligence tests"
Reference 3[5] Amazon - no mention of the book being a best-seller (as stated in the article text), but at least it does exist
Reference 4[6] article written by company employees
Reference 5[7] Newsweek article - doesn't mention Talentsmart.
Additionally there is one main contributor, Underwaterhero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - apart from the logo which was uploaded by the indefinitely blocked spamster Talentsmart2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both of whom edit only Talentsmart-related pages.
I don't know what to do with this, like I said, but I think it's worth someone more experienced taking a look at. pablohablo. 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC) pablohablo. 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as nonsense/hoax (non admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a made-up nonsense name. Google turns up zero results. The sole reference has no mention of "Alksdnfaokse". Deli nk (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Besides the COI (see signature added at bottom of article), the original reserach, peacock terms there are no multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Although a short story is in a magazine and a poem is on the web this doesn't meet the above criteria. It is mentioned that she has performed at open mic "hot spots" (though who considers them hot spots is not cited) but this is largely trivial. DFS454 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has basically become a guide to various methods of marijuana smoking. It's full of contentious statements and a staggering amount of original research.
Let me be clear that I do think this topic is notable, and it does deserve an article — but this isn't it. An article on cannabis smoking should cover the social phenomenon, the way it's viewed in different cultures, the history of the practice, and so forth. Not this atrocity, which I view simply as a guide to gettin' toasted.
One possibility could be to migrate most of the content to a more appropriate title, like "Cannabis smoking methods". The content would still be pretty lousy, but at least that would make way for a total rewrite of "Cannabis smoking".
Either way, I believe the slate needs to be wiped clean to make way for a completely rewritten article that's actually worthy of the encyclopedia entry "Cannabis smoking". Equazcion •✗/C • 21:50, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
The result was deleted by MBisanz. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the crash is tragic, the accident is of a highly common nature, although I appreciate the aircraft did strike a house. Had the five occupants been killed, it would be an entirely different matter. The accident fails WP:AIRCRASH and Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax or a vanity page. Found no sourcing in English that was not a mirror of the WP article, and no sources in Japanese at all. Dekkappai (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singular department store. Despite a long history, it doesn't seem to have been significantly covered in any reliable sources; even if it were, I doubt that it would extend beyond local coverage anyway. Any verifiable information should probably be merged to Mall at Steamtown, which was built around the store. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Userfication is available upon request. kurykh 02:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created by COI/SPA account. Not sure if it is notable enough for an article. Discuss. Cirt (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area.
The result was Withdrawn due to page creater redirecting. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant disambiguation for an unlikely search term (a relatively obscure japanese slang word for a much more common word. The useage of the slang is a pun). Anyone looking for either of the pages in the disambiguation will search for the full Urusei Yatsura - a page which already has the disambiguation and covers both the useage and meaning of the word. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Orlando Sá. MBisanz talk 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A more expansive and descriptive biography is available at the Orlando Sa page. Additionally, Orlando Sa is not known simply as Orlando, in the tradition of many other footballers. Czechthetechnique (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. HeirloomGardener (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Baltimore County Public Schools. MBisanz talk 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary school is not notable JGHowes talk 20:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Jclemens under WP:CSD#G3. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article should be deleted, because I have found no evidence that it meets WP:N. In fact, I have found no evidence that the subject of the article even exists, and I am convinced this is a hoax article as a result. Allventon (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. G12: Copyvio of http://democraciausa.org/en/about/ PeterSymonds (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. I'm not really sure how notable this is. I've tried to CSD it twice, but both times the CSD tag was removed-- once by the author and once by another editor. Let's settle this once and for all. Cssiitcic (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only notable for being wife of Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An entirely non-notable short run manga series. Originally contained a copyvio plot summary from a scanlation distribution website and what remains is a basic character list. Google searches are only coming up with scanlation and other copyvio websites, but no reliable sources under both the Kanji and Romaji titles. Farix (Talk) 19:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
phantom hockey team that as failed to materialize in years, there no arena built, prospects are slim ccwaters (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
phantom team that has yet to materialize in over 3 years, the arena never got built. a sentence or 2 at its previous incarnation (Pee Dee Pride) would suffice at this point. ccwaters (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant actress never did anything notable. The first "reference" used in the article do not mentions her (and thus, does not supports what's supposed to reference) and the second is just a trivial mention in a huge listing. Damiens.rf 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed with no reason given. A google search for "Radioactive Friends of the Deep" for notability receives absolutely nothing except for these two articles. Very probably hoax. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 18:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, co-nominating a character from the comic:
Adding another character from the comic, and an article about its creator:
...and here is another spin-off article, not even a character, just a "plot-centric item":
I don't suppose it's strictly correct to add these extra articles during the debate, but I invoke WP:IAR as they clearly stand or fall with the main article. JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3. Because of the likelyhood of a reliation to 419 scams and the violation of WP:BLP, keeping it any longer would be harmful. Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. per WP:SNOW Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disambiguation page for non-notable software. Techmdrn (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A movie with an 1 liner description, directed by an unnotable director. FixmanPraise me 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The soundtrack for this film was done by the highly notable band Slowdive. There are some references on the Slowdive wikipedia entry that may be useful here. 74.56.205.235 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable person, rewrite of http://www.jeffreylant.com/old_site/bio.htm -Zeus-uc 18:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally not notable, player appeared in only 1 friendly game for a top-flight Croatian club. Spent most of his career in second division and is currently playing in the fourth, which is not even fully professional and never appeared for the national team at any level. Timbouctou (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Maxim(talk) 13:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF. Has yet to play in a fully professional league, win a major award, or play at the highest level of amateur ice hockey (World Championships or Olympics) – Nurmsook! talk... 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. (A3), lack of content (cross-namespace redirects are against policy. Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless PSNMand (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page was not exactly encyclopedic in the first place, but was useful. Now that the election is over it should be removed. No need for this level of detail in an encyclopedia. Even a full length book on just the 2008 campaign would probably not include a list of all the superdelegates. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renominated per:
- they broke up and she did not become any more notable in her own right since then
- i question the (2006? - undocumented?) undeletion of the article in the first place
- WP:SEWAGE and WP:Pokémon test (i'm not calling HER sewage at all, i'm calling the inclusion of the article sewage)
- WP:F*** Gregorik (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had a number of months to find reliable sources, as noted by the tags, going as far back as October 2008. A quick Google search has revealed none. The single source that it does rely on are two pages in an encyclopedia on Mormonism. In addition, the article is largely self-serving, reading more like promotional material, than a serious entry in an encyclopedia. Drumpler (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a number of redirects that lead here which might be notable for deletion. See [19]. Drumpler (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Nixon (film). MBisanz talk 13:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article this is a composite fictional character. As such, not notable and should be deleted. ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability and article exists only to promote the company as per blatant COI on talk page ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 15:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD, original rationale was "Very low-level football club playing, by article's own admission, "on the playing field by the Village Hall". Never played at a level deemed notable" ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. With all respect to the subject of the article, what is needed is verifiability for the claims made at this AfD, which are still lacking. If a user requests I will be happy to copy the current text over to userspace so that the article might be improved to eventually reach standards. From the sources I could get at, coverage appeared trivial. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:49, 16 February 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)) . |
I must first declare that I have been doing my best to assist the user who is the subject of this article to prune self puffery out of it. The more I have done this the more I have formed the view that the gentlemen is not notable, and that this article should not be included here.
I've based this on a very extensive study of the references and on using Google to search for "Raymond Aaron". Of the references the one with most appeal is the Canadian Who's Who. But this follows the A&C Black model (0.9 probability) of publishing self submitted material. That means it does not pass WP:RS and cannot verify any notability.
Of the other references, it is a fact that the books have been published. I have found them in Amazon listings where available. But the authorship or co-authorship of a book is not of itself sufficient to confer notability.
It is a cited fact that Mr Aaron took part in a polar race. It is cited from the race's own web site.
All in all I see this as a borderline article and I am coming down on the side of deletion because I cannot find any true notability. It's the wrong side of the borderline. That's disappointing, because I expected to find notability and verifiability. So I feel that the community should now have a chance to make a decision by consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raymondaaron (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G10) by Jclemens. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true (and there is no evidence it is) it belongs under the Nestle article. There is no reason this supposed recall should have an article of its own. Carbon Rodney 15:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) as blatant misinformation. This looks like an attempt to induce panic or hysteria. I definitely call bullshit. MuZemike 17:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete a bit speedily in the spirt of G11 and WP:SNOW. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Text copied directly from 'BooYa Tequila', it's not NPOV and it is blatant advertising. Doesn't contain any interesting, relevant or encyclopedic content and is a waste of time to read and a waste of space on Wikipedia. Carbon Rodney 15:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no sources; non-notable —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 15:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Hoaxes are vandalism. Also I suspect this may be an obscure attack page against someone bearing the name this was cut and pasted into. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this contributor has only made 4 edits, but this page contains an incorrect protection tag, and looks too "high quality" for the average "first article". This page may be a cut and paste move from somewhere in Wikipedia, a GFDL violation
Username may also suggest an conflict of interest. ViperSnake151 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased album with little or no media coverage of substance. Pretty much a recreation of Private (album)—the group's debut album has been pushed back repeatedly since it's original release date of Nov. '06; the name was changed and still seems unlikely to be released (and someone in the group saying it'll be released is not a reliable source—they've been saying that for over 2 years). Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a vanity article, and notability has not been established. Peeper (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect to Been Waiting. Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet to be released single with no reliable sources to show it's notability. Fails WP:NSONGS. Tried to redirect to the song's album, but was reverted twice. JD554 (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of an NZ TV presenter, inserted by TVNZ Publicity (talk · contribs). Broadcasting organisations always seem to be particularly keen to use this encyclopedia to boost their employees, I don't know why. There is obvious COI here, which is not itself reason for deletion, but does make one look hard at the evidence for notability. The references are:
Every TV presenter can collect this kind of list, but not every TV presenter merits an encyclopedia article. I don't see "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", still less enough to meet the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER, which is the relevant notability standard for TV personalities. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails both WP:MUSICBIO & WP:WEB. Only coverage is on Youtube (unreliable) and a single mention on 'entertainment gossip mag' Now magazine ("tabloid journalism" per WP:NOT#NEWS). Prod-notice removed as part of vandalism of the article, so AfDing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, minimal information, fails WP:NALBUMS. Redirect to artists article undone by author. CultureDrone (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Album & Artist indeed notable. Was awarded South African Music Association (SAMA) Best Pop Music Performance in 1995. Gidzz —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio by Lectonar. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See previous debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 100th human. Article has expanded significantly beyond reach of G4, but still doesn't explain why the book is notable Mgm|(talk) 13:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. Professionally written but inappropriate self-publicity for a local (Staten Island) community cable show. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. The fuziness has been cleared up (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of divided on this one, but I'm not sure that she's notable for much beyond being Nathanael West's wife, and much of the information in this article is in his article. Bringing it here for discussion. fuzzy510 (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal information given to establish WP:BIO, and nothing listed is verifiable. A brief Google search only turned up Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors when looking for this particular Thomas Wolf. fuzzy510 (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:ONEEVENT. Her only claim to notability is being abandoned four hours after being born. She reappeared in the news later, but only because she graduated from high school and because she was "that girl" - NOT for any other reason. fuzzy510 (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism that is not in wide use and even if it was, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mgm|(talk) 11:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a skin cream invented in a class project. Not quite promotional enough for a speedy WP:CSD#G11 as advertising, but certainly not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day in school. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable only for one event Pascal666 (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as A1 no content. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film which has yet to enter production. A google search for "A Date with Fear" and "Asit Kaul" brings up just four hits. Fails WP:NF; prod removed without explanation. PC78 (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is not notable right now. If he is make it through top 36, it will be a redirect to his brother's article. ApprenticeFan (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking it here because an earlier Prod nomination was removed. Looks like a fairly unambiguous case of WP:OR. Steamroller Assault (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited and flagged as such since April 2007, I can't find anything to cite it with. "Jack Thunderbird" does not appear to be notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carries no external references as to why this person is famous. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page holds a template of the same name and then calls itself a disambig. There's no real information here. I'd also be open to removing the dab template and calling this a stub. JaGatalk 07:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to American Idol (season 8). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TV contestant - no recordings fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) - case of WP:RECENT. No other contestant has a page. Most notability claims are WP:SPECULATION. I would accept redirect until he either wins or becomes notable but IP editor reverts redir to American Idol (season 8).
I am basing this nomination on the outcome of other similar TV show contestants. Triwbe (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD (twice actually), article about a non-notable alcoholic cocktail that looks more like a promotion for a website. Web search returns few hits tertiary references. Pulling to AfD for consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 05:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speculative article on a non-existent game, sourced mainly from its developer's comments on web forums. WP:COI edits fomr the develoiper, BasiliskWrangler (talk · contribs) ([34]) Guy (Help!) 21:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks . MBisanz talk 04:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The previous deletion debate was closed as delete, but has been relisted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1. I have no opinion on the matter. Aervanath (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:FICTION, in that the article offers no real-world context, its only sources are the programme's official website, and much of the analysis appears to be Original Research dramatic (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. Meets WP:N (two independent sources describing the character and her involvement in the plot of the show are linked in the article) so WP:FICT is irrelevant. JulesH (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Economist, and would seem to need to meet WP:ACADEMIC. I don't see much independent/secondary coverage of him; ghits indicate nearly all references to be on blogs/social networking sites. Nothing in gnews. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
only claim to notability is a minor award for a trailer. not enough fo WP:CREATIVE. lacks coverage in independent sources. also has coi issues. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So a recognised award is not good enough for Wikipedia, no? How many awards have you won Duffbeerforme? No, didn't think so. 86.147.166.46 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Jamie Rae is an award winner. I can pick hundreds and thousands of Wiki pages of people who aren't eligible for a page, yet on the occasion one is, it's proposed for deletion! No wonder I don't use Wiki except to complain! Grahampitt (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pseudo-vanity page an editor created about his grandpa. His alleged claim to fame is that he was a co-founder of an aircraft company, however that statement is not backed up by the one and only (questionable) source on him, which merely says he joined the company when it was founded. Other than that, he's just a guy who went to church, was involved in local politics, and had some kids. This is a genealogical entry, really. Nothing notable here, and no real good sources. R. fiend (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not notable for its own article.... we are not a TV guide. D.M.N. (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Regional culinary item which does not establish notability through the inclusion of reliable, third-party sources. The Lincoln Fresh-O-Matic, the declared "standard sandwich steamer", is a generic steaming device and in no way specific to the item described; descriptions of it on product sites don't appear to make any reference to this subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline case where one reliable source appears to exist, but nonetheless asserted to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the content in here into a new article detailing pay-to-play scams. This is a big thing in the music industry and is worthy of an article, with Afton being a prominent offender. --Iron Chef (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice towards future notability. kurykh 02:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable topic, not found with Google or Google Scholar, possible WP:NEO or WP:MADEUP. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lazgo, I understand your concerns. The thing is, I'll be honest with you: this is somewhat of an esoteric concept, I think the professors just give us this idea to help us practice with our TI-84's and get us thinking about the nature of materials. That being said, it is mentioned in a few encyclopedias specifically about materials engineering, I'm kind of perplexed as to why it isn't in google as well. I did find an online discussion of sprongs, although he does not mention it by name: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-149740.html, this is similar to an assignment I had to do, the kx^4 spring was proven to be infeasible due to it violating the second law of thermodynamics (thres both a logical and mathematic explanation for this), I think he just tries avoiding the jargon as it's easily understood without a name.
Also, here's a rather low level textbook that mentions the idea by name: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:OvflOrCvnO8J:www.gfy.ku.dk/~pditlev/fysik1/Knight_kap11.pdf+%22a+clever+engineer%22+%22sprong%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
I do encourage you to check out the Knight textbook I cited if you get the chance though, it's probably the most understandable thing mentioning this. I'll search for journals as well, it's just kind of late now, but I could go to the library for 20 minutes tommorow. As for lecture notes, they are not available to the public, I'm not sure how i'd go about citing them? Do I cite my professor or what? And the fact that they're inaccessible makes it inverifiable...maybe I could post them somewhere but they're copyrighted, I'll just email my prof and ask where he got the info.
Also, I've been surprised in my recent studies to the degree of information that is NOT available on the internet from google. For example, I had to provide a mechanism for the dehydration of glucose by sulfuric acid to yield carbon and water(for a totally unrelated class). This reaction appears in many chemistry books as it's not very complicated, but the mechanism is not posted ANYWHERE by googling, but a quick trip to the library found it quite easily.
Anyway, if you don't feel that Wikipedia could use an article about something like this, I understand, I just felt it didn't get enough coverage. I don't see the harm in keeping it though, the information is all accurate, and it's a neat concept despite the issues we're having regarding its notability. -Albi Oops, forgot to log in. Last edit is indeed me.
Ddawkins, you obviously didn't read the discussion very thoroughly...yes I've been slacking off a bit with finding sources, tommorow for sure, not trying to postpone anything, I'm just incredibly busy :\. --Albi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.229.93 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mayalld can I ask a question? Having read your arguments for deleting this article I am still at something of a loss as to why you would want to proceed in doing so. It seems to me like you have an axe to grind against this entry for some reason. Surely a man who has over 10,000 wiki edits to his name can see the merit in keeping this unbiased encyclopedic entry. As for its notability can you please explain why you would want to delete it as "deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort". I think that active effort has been made to find you these sources of note which you are looking for. Have there been other entries in the same field as this one that have been earmarked for deletion also? Would this count as notability, the organisation being mentioned in the foreign press? http://www.kerryman.ie/sport/gaelic-football/irelands-economic-woes-lead-to-revival-of-gaa-cross-channel-1600835.html Risteard (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC) — Richiecoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:GAA have been informed of this discussion Gnevin (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company under WP:CORP. No reliable independent sources presented (all sources that are presented are either not independent or do not even talk about the subject of the article, but rather a particular industry). Declined speedy (which I will say is completely improper as none of the assertions are for notability but just statements of fact). Material relevant to this discussion is also at Talk:Aeorads. Cquan (after the beep...) 03:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW Delete. Probably hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced. WP:CRYSTALBALL & WP:SPAM or WP:HOAX. Unverifiable in any case. Prod removed without comment. Evb-wiki (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closing this AfD as the article is already deleted. §FreeRangeFrog 19:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great CSD candidate except that hoaxes are explicitly excluded from CSD. Appears to be a blatant hoax. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of a handful of people associated with Virginia Theological Seminary whose article was created today; as with most of the others I'm not sure the subject of this one meets the notability requirement. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism that probably could lbe CSD-IAR'd without a second thought. The prod almost made it through the five day period, but was removed by an IP. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources given to back claims of book notability. Search is difficult because of the namesake XBox game, but "Legend+of+the+9"+book+Junius returns no relevant third-party sources. The ISBN seems to be fake, no publication references on Google Books, nothing. Does not seem to meet WP:BN at best. Article is also tagged as WP:COI, author is probably the creator of the article. This might be a hoax. §FreeRangeFrog 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to University of Michigan. MBisanz talk 01:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to findany coverage at all in reliable independent sources.
The subject is not notable.--Pattont/c 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michigan Daily article has been added to the external links.
Here is a link to a blurb about the organization from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs Website http://www.e-guana.net/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=54&typeID=1212&itemID=21497 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboro438 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another article from the Michigan Daily detailing Will Work For Food's partnership with Doctors Without Borders http://www.michigandaily.com/content/2009-02-09/will-work-food-event —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboro438 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see, based on this article, how he reaches the WP:PROF standard of notability, or any other notability standard. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]