< January 18 | January 20 > |
---|
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as this political ideology sounds very good, there's not much advocates of it or any systematic treatise written on it. The old content traces its historical roots and its proponents (Boortz, Elder, O'Rouke) but some committed people keep deleting it. If some contents are there, there's a reason for them to be there. If deleting those contents with a even a better reason would eviscerate the whole article, it is rather wise not to have the article at all (as the empty vane article would be a waste). For now, the non-notable status of this political doctrine indicates that it does not yet merit a Wikipedia article, and this AFD is in order. Wandering Courier (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources to indicate this is a notable album. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted as a non-notable tour. The article consists solely of a setlist and a list of dates, hardly encyclopedic. While the artist is notable herself, there is nothing here to suggest that the tour is notable as it's own entity. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 23:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted: hoaxes are vandalism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly obvious hoax, but I don't want to risk it bibliomaniac15 22:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No appearance in professional competition so does not meet WP:ATHLETE, no evidence of substantial coverage to otherwise meet WP:BIO. Kevin McE (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He played in the 2009 adidas Major League Soccer player combine. This is a professional competition. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interzil (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak keep - Article fails WP:ATHLETE, but the sources appear to satisfy WP:BIO. I don't think star college soccer players are notable, but the media in the United States gives them sufficient coverage to pass the WP guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NN golf magazine. Fails to assert notability, and the only outside source on offer in the article is the magazine's own website. --Dynaflow babble 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC) 17:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is nothing more than self promotion of a business that is not notable. Several of the so called references are nothing more than results of press releases, so in effect, it is primarily self referenced. PROD removed by newly created account of Millikin07, whose only edits have been to this article as of this point in time. Prowler08 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an unpublished book, probable hoax, certainly unverifiable. It was input, more or less in its present form, on 3 Dec 2008 by Imcooler (talk · contribs) who has only 5 edits, consisting of this article and insertion of the book in The Hardy Boys and Franklin W. Dixon. Over the last three days an IP inserted "excerpts" from the book, and two other IPs tried to blank the article with comments "There is no such book, so stop it!" and "Removed the untrue stuff."
Article cites no source and I can find no confirmation. Searches are complicated by the number of other books called "Murder in Paradise", but the only confirming references I have found are Wikipedia mirrors like MedLibrary.org. If the book is real, and if it gets published, it may become notable, but per Notability (books) it isn't yet. PROD removed by IP. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 07:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this article is encyclopedic at all--in my opinion, it does not rise above the level of a dictionary definition. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medley (performed only twice, according to article) is unreferenced and unnotable. The individual songs are covered; the medley needn't be. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 07:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am re-nominating this for deletion. The entire fleet of this small, private, local transportation provider consists of two of these. For some reason, many voters in the previous AfD felt that the fact that some of their flights are scheduled automatically confers notability, I don't think it does. The sources are directory listings and passing mentions in articles on other topics. Juneau has a large modern airport, and Alaska Airlines flies large jets there, that is the main air transportation to Juneau, not this tiny air taxi service, of which there are hundreds in Alaska. This is like having an article on a taxi company with two cars or a pizza delivery service. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was listed for speedy deletion, but the article creator contested the tag, so I'm bringing it here for more input.--Aude (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for speedy deletion, but I'm not convinced it meets speedy deletion criteria, so I'm bringing it here for more input. --Aude (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already have List of National Football League records (individual) and why should one player get a seprate list for his records? BUC (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC; the only information I can find on this guy are from other unsourced wikis. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article hasn't been edited for a year. It still has text about an expected launch in 2006, and the site itself is down Alexforcefive (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article (without an apostrophe) was successfully AFD'd before here. I don't believe the article has changed significantly since that time, and I don't see why it shouldn't be merged into the Industrial Workers of the World article. TastyCakes (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strummingbabe (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 18:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced this is notable and meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. A google search turns up 90 results [9], so I don't believe there are reliable sources to verify the article. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted --Aude (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure much of this is made up (in that I can't verify facts which should be easy to verify) and what is not, does not meet WP:NM guidelines. Most of it was originally copied from Tyler James, as is most easily seen in this diff, but it has since been edited for tone and style. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 18:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable, self-promotion (she is the founder of PeerSpirit; the main contributor is User:PeerSpirit). Important: Although the article Christina Baldwin was deleted, this is apparently a different Baldwin. So that's why it says "Second nomination". CyberGhostface (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was listed for speedy deletion, but the article does make some claims to notability, so I declined it and am sending the article here for more input. The article's author appears to have a conflict of interest, and that's reflected in the tone of the article. --Aude (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Philip Brophy. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One line stub about a non-notable book, tagged for notability since August with no edits since then, no references. Little context is given and everything said in this article is already stated in the article about the author Philip Brophy. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 18:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for speedy deletion, but the article does assert some notability so it really doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Nonetheless, the article is promotional and self-biographical in tone. I'm not convinced it's suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and thus bringing it to AFD for more input. --Aude (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted --Aude (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable athlete with a non-notable blog who has made some non-notable videos. Has been deleted once before. hbent (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Married to the Sea. kurykh 08:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable webcomic, drawn by a cartoonist whose own article was AfD'ed and deleted as NN. The comic has a sibling, Married to the Sea, whose assertion of notability and continued survival on Wikipedia seem to rest on having ended up in the "Brilliant"/"Lowbrow" corner of New York Magazine's Approval Matrix at some point back in 2006. There doesn't seem to be any sustainable claim to real notability for this article's webcomic per Wikipedia:Notability (web), other than that it's big -- or at least not small -- on Facebook. --Dynaflow babble 15:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to be a notable model or actor, not even sure that this is the same person as has the IMDB entry of the same name Itsmejudith (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sky High (2005 film). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable movie character Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Someone please take care of the images as well. Tone 18:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely detailed coverage of a non-notable youth American football league. Wikipedia is not a webhost for local match results. PRODded but contested by page's main contributor. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as an article that gave no clue as to what it was about. All it did was credit somebody with coming up with the phrase "sleezy metal chick", which would appear to be self-explanatory; and added an external link to a MySpace page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable Neoglism created in Jan 2009 according to Author. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DFS454 (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unreferenced and subject is non-notable. GDibyendu (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. ALL but one of the references are from around the middle of July, 2008 — TheBilly(Talk) 09:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete and the article has already been redirected to List of commanders of the LTTE (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Tamil Tiger, article devoid of biographical detail; cursory passing mentions of pseudo-position do not add up to notability meriting separate article. THF (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. The only source for this is Muhammad Isa Dawud, see [14] where you find (if that is accurate) a little bit about him. He evidently also claims there is a lot of Djinn activity at this place that no one else seems to know about [15]. dougweller (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as the author of the only substantial content has explicitly requested deletion in good faith (CSD G7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete the Jacob Galan page by the request from Jacob Galan. Information on the page is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ailiuk (talk • contribs) 2009/01/19 03:44:19
The result was keep. SNOW applies here. Tone 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has acquired 5 lines of text in 3 years and is going nowhere Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licensed for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. It is suspected that a representative of the publishing company originally created the article. Farix (Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as blatant copyright infringement by Woody (CSD G12). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for deletion
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Robinson Scott (talk • contribs) 2009/01/18 22:07:55
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 07:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely trivial and non-notable. It's an instance I believe where everything current (or just past current) is being added as an article to Wikipedia. I don't think this is notable.Strummingbabe (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Speedy delete. Or rather, I speedy closed it, didn't CSD it. Just clearing that up. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 04:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability (person)? The article is about its author, who has also added a link to the article to the Doctor of Letters article. There are no Google hits for the person himself. At first I thought the degree itself might be adequate to satisfy the notability guideline once someone supplied a citation, but then I wondered whether the school itself is notable enough for degrees conferred by it to render their recipients notable. I Googled "st thomas a becket university" and found very few hits. All of them were references to an entity affiliated with the university or a person with a degree from there; none was about the university. Also, being the youngest person to have held a particular position, at least unless that position is itself extremely remarkable, isn't notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even figure out if this article is fiction or a true bio. Only reference is a video game and it's been poorly "referenced" since 2007 Mrmcdonnell (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Being in a specialist encyclopaedia is insufficient - a specialist encyclopaedia will obviously have lower notability requirements than a general one. Tango (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no assertion of notability for this cipher - being very broken doesn't suffice. ciphergoth (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to go into this in a bit more detail - lots of people design ciphers, most of whom don't really have much expertise in breaking them. Those who do know how to break them can have fun doing so, and occasionally get a paper out of it, but it would seem perverse to consider a cipher notable because it's broken, unless the break is independently interesting in some way - in other words, if the paper that breaks it is frequently cited. ciphergoth (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the references and further reading sections of the article indicate, multiple published works exist, that are from authors independent of Lee, the creator, that document this subject with noticably more than passing mentions and that are pretty much canonical examples of reliablity for Wikipedia purposes. (IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences, for example, is a peer-reviewed academic journal with a policy of publishing original research that advances its field. That Ciphergoth thinks that people have "fun" submitting papers to it does not change the fact that it is a serious journal, and that publications in it can be relied upon to have been written by experts in the field and reviewed by an editorial and review board of their peers.) The Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied.
Remember the readers. They might want to look these subjects up. It's what we're writing an encyclopaedia for. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable boxer, firefighter and bartender. Article should be merged to Biography of Frank Sinatra Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Delete - closing this early as this is obviously not going to survive - Peripitus (Talk) 21:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This is someone's recipe for chicken nuggets, that's all. Zero ghits, fails WP:MADEUP andy (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Describes a wild fire with serious, but localized impact. Unsure if it meets criteria for notability. To my knowledge most large wild-fires do not warrant their own articles and they often destroy substantial value. It's not an open and shut case, but it's worth having others take a look at.
If the article is notable, however, it will need some additional cleanup. LH (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 07:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate "trivial" list. Mostly unsourced original research, or numbers from unreliable sources (TV.com - "where the fans run the show"). Aside from shows that are no longer in production, this is an unmaintainable list that will become quickly outdated. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 09:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actor is not notable. This sentence from the article says it all "Ron was never a long running actor in the one Television Show, He normally guest starred for 2-4 episodes at the most." DFS454 (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by StephenBuxton. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 13:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Very few esults in google search [21]. DFS454 (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:30, 24 January 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)) . |
Spammy. I don't think that reliable sources provide enough substantial coverage to pass WP:N. – wodup – 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. by Thingg. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Page himself - he IS Mr. Mister - is talking about releasing Pull on his new website. It's in the radio interview posted on Youtube. Also he is writing an email stating the same. That's proof enough. /Kos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos99 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the guideline: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." For me it's reliable that Page himself discusses the album with radio hosts only a fem days ago. It's the first time we have his own words on the matter. Also, I don't see anything about 'crystal ball' in the guideline. Nothing about release or not, rather existence or not. And Pull exists - I have it myself like thousands of others (including the radio host joking with Page about his copy being worn-out!). Sorry if I have misunderstood the guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos99 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Themfromspace, if email is not good enough how about the radio interview from December 18th 2008 with Richard Page talking about the album release? Just curious about the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos99 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the repeated reference to the email when his own words about the matter is in the radio interview (Youtube link)? Again: The guideline says nothing about "release odds", it's more about "existence" as I read it. And there is no question about the album existing (it's all over the internet). The new thing is Page's own words about talking with the record company about releasing it on his new website. But anyway - I'm new here and might not read the guideline properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos99 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... the album is already out there (and has been for years) - everybody can download it. And it seems it will now be out there in a commercial way. But I guess this greyzone "position" is not enough to get an separate wikipedia page. So go ahead and delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kos99 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was article had already been speedied, and was recreated by the AFD addition (NAC)Mayalld (talk)
Unelected mayoral candidate. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Few non-trivial mentions in published sources. Graymornings(talk) 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No appearances in professional competition, although his is a professional sport. Fails WP:ATHLETE and principles established at WP:FOOTY, and no claim that he reaches notability standards by any other thread of WP:BIO. Kevin McE (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about the author of a vanity press book. Autobiographical and self-promotional. Graymornings(talk) 06:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate makes me think it could be notable, but it hasn't been translated. JaGatalk 06:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep for now. You think it is notable but have nominated it for deletion because it hasn't been translated for a week? I think not. Translate it, then check the notability. Ironholds (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. A7 Magioladitis (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlinked, unreferenced, questionable notability - and then there's the matter of the title... JaGatalk 06:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural AfD as DGG and I see different sides of this and I respect his opinion. I declined an A7 since I thought it asserted notability. He tagged for spam but self-reverted when he saw I'd declined it. I don't find it to be overly spam but am willing to bring it here for discussion and consensus. Honestly, I'm not sure it passes WP:ORG as the attention it garners may only be local. However if there are enough sources, it could probably be salvaged, so I don't think it's hopeless. As it's 1:30 AM and I don't have the time or level of wakefulness to investigate, I'm neutral at this moment. StarM 06:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice to writing an article in English about this subject. Since we're only deleting a garbled machine translation, we're not losing much here, Sandstein 08:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This unreferenced, machine-translated (but nicely illustrated!) confusion should be deleted--it has been tagged as requiring translation for more than two weeks, but nobody has taken up the task. The deletion would be entirely without prejudice with respect to any future creations of (reasonable) articles with the same subject. Bongomatic 05:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
give to an English-speaking reader, our target reader? This is machine-translation gibberish. Lack of notability is not the only reason that we delete articles, remember. We also delete them for being impossible to make any sense of. An incomprehensible machine translation, from which no sense can be made, is not useful to the reader, however notable the subject may be, or however humourous you may personally find it to read. If you think that there's information here, feel free to make a good stub that an English-speaker can actually make sense of. You now have 4 days. You already had 2 weeks when the page was listed at PNT. Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]Only 5 door body, in the マイナーチェンジ 1.3 was 1.0 L is the most set L, were sold. Such comically on Ichihara Etsuko, and Sambei on TV ad,, also became a topic.
The result was Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable Charlatan Silk Knot (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Osho. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Osho Dynamic Meditation, a claimed trademark of Osho Foundation International is a non-notable product name used for a meditation technique.
The exact name is used in 7 published books under the authorship of Osho himself. Google books returns another 7 books by independent authors (although one of them is listed as a contact on an Osho meditation center).
There are 2 results on google scholar, and 0 results on google news.
The page currently contains one inline citation. ←Spidern→ 05:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'll close this early as it's only going to go one way and because the subject fails one of our core policies, that of being verifiable in a reliable source. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unpublished novel-in-progress by non-notable author. Graymornings(talk) 05:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete- this is one of the cases showing why WP:CSD A7 'no assertion of notability' should be altered to apply to all types of article. Sticky Parkin 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 18:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. In fact, the run for this series was very short. Google search under the Kanji title is not turning up any reliable sources that I can tell. Author also appears to be non-notable. Contested prod. Farix (Talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete A7 (non-admin closure). Cquan (after the beep...) 06:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that website has no notability: no hits on Google news, no hits on Google that establish notability via independent, verifiable, and in-depth coverage. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Band, fails WP:BAND. I also can find no references to Silver or to Danny Mangold as a well-known musician online. This article appears to have been speedily deleted and then recreated by the same author, who also removed my prod. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mickproper (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Google search under the Kanji title is not turning up any reliable sources. Author also appears to be non-notable. Prod contested using an WP:OSE rational relating to Star Trek and Buffy episodes. Farix (Talk) 04:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 07:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No other articles exist on any specific border crossings into and out of the United States, not even the busiest one of them all in San Ysidro, California. Additionally, two of the three external links in the article leads to an invalid page, and the only working one is simply an aerial google image. This is borderline WP:PROD to be honest. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No claim of notability in this substub article on a family name. Jfire (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be anything spectacular about this month in Australia and New Zealand. Seems to be pure listcruft, and I don't see how this would be of interest to anybody. Firestorm (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have now added the rest of these months to this AFD. Anything below should be for all of them.Firestorm (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 07:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software, no reliable sources to be found. Previous discussion was "no-consensus", 2 years ago. Plenty of time for refs to be found, if they existed. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 13:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. He sort of skirts the line for the GNG, and I'm not surprised opinions are split. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing this article for deletion as Stan Jones fails to meet Wikipedia's notability standard for politicians. He has never held office, has received no significant media coverage. His only came to fame was being a candidate for political office who has a rare skin condition, argyria which in and of itself does not make him notable. Therefore, he really has no notability and this article should be deleted in my opinion. Pstanton 07:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search brought up nothing to confirm his notability and the claims of TV work in the article are not referenced. Boleyn2 (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Luke Rhinehart - author and some of his other works are very well known/ cult classics- not this one. Sticky Parkin 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-->
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Small and completely non-notable club. They play at just about the lowest level of rugby in the Netherlands, and rugby in the Netherlands is small anyway. Aecis·(away) talk 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional sports teams are notable. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. They play at a level that isn't notable enough for inclusion. Themfromspace (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was boldly redirected to Besbarmak. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information in this article is poorly presented and already exists in the main Besbarmak article. The article, on a certain part of the dish, discusses the entire Besbarmak serving ritual, which is covered in the Besbarmak article. Therefore, the Koy-bas article is redundant and doesn't need to exist. Oral Thrush (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvula! (talk • contribs) 2009/01/12 05:19:15 [reply]
The result was Redirect. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable fictional sport in one novel, nothing significant found on Google News/Scholar/Books. Only linked from List of fictional games. Prod rejected in early 2008, redirect to the novel article not beneficial as this sport is not even mentioned there. – sgeureka t•c 10:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A few hits actually come up under "conysoft", rather than "cony soft", but it's might thin. I'm also not a big fan of listing the names of several people and more or less stating that they're engaged in a crime. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the Cony Soft article has no references or sources according to the big citation block at the top of the article. There's no proof that Cony has connections with Waixing, Super Game or Hummer Team and I believe someone just made this up. Share your thoughts on this page. --Burai (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied by an admin. Graymornings(talk) 06:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was previously nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Walterschied) and deleted as a copyright violation. (The creator was also blocked for sockpuppeting in the discussion.) The current article doesn't seem to be a copyright violation but still doesn't address the previous nom's concerns - it doesn't meet notability guidelines and has no third-party references. Graymornings(talk) 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC) See below[reply]
This article is not a copyright violation and it has references and external links. Could you please explain the third-party references? I would be happy to edit the article in accordance with Wiki standards. Industry11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Industry11 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability and has no reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable footballer that does not meet WP:ATHLETE as he yet to play in a fully professional league. Indeed, his club is yet to play in a fully professional league. He has played international football at a junior level. Mattinbgn\talk 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced that these guys meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. There appears to be some third party coverage at The Sound Projector, but I am not convinced this meets the notability criteria. Prod removed without explanation by unregistered SPA in October 2007. I thought I'd bring it here for the wider consensus. Thanks, sparkl!sm hey! 17:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-->
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This subject of this article barely meets notability guidelines, there has been constant edit warring and Stuart Campbell himself has requested that it be deleted. I therefore propose that we do just that and have added a tag to that effect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cuisine, The article has existed for over two years and is not much more than a start. The only citation is a blurb from a travel guide. As a major contributor to the food and drink wikiproject, I can say that not all national cuisines are notable. In cases such as this, we usually provide a link to the culture section of that country's article (example: Culture of St. Kitts and Nevis#Cuisine) or to an article about regional cuisines. As such, this article should be deleted and folded into the home country's article, Dominica or the Caribbean cuisine article. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Et cetera, et cetera. Snowball keep this baby. Graymornings(talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a prominent fashion photographer. Has no major contributions to the fashion industry. MagazineHound (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1 reference): Exhibition "Artery": http://20minut.ua/news/71287 (2 reference): Exhibition "Artery": http://www.pravda.mk.ua/news/culture_and_art/2007/09/04/10264.html GeoffBarrenger (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy: Deletion should be a last resort |
---|
|
One more reference (the third one) from the Ukrainian "20 Minutes" newspaper where Schliker is nominated for the "Photographer Of The Year 2008", he's listed there among two other unknown to me photographers: http://20minut.ua/news/141062 GeoffBarrenger (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 4th reference: Russian book "Outlooks On Life: Volume II" which actually includes works of the legendary photographers from Ukraine and Russia (where the photographer's work was printed): http://www.fotoloft.ru/photo.aspx?id=716da296-b437-473b-8059-f00f146cb237&t=album GeoffBarrenger (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Nintendo DS. MBisanz talk 07:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article about the stylus that comes with the Nintendo DS. Definitely not encyclopedic. Graymornings(talk) 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP User:87.221.81.204 tagged this article for speedy deletion, claiming that it does not assert the notability of the subject. I declined this, because I believe that the first sentence of the article is an assertion of notability. However, the IP believes that the assertion is insufficient, and that the subject is actually not terribly important. I know nothing about quantum game theory, so I am taking this to AFD. Danaman5 (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spam page (although admittedly borderline) created by an editor whose name (Exploretalenteditor) is a bit of a giveaway that they are in some way connected to teh website Explore Talent which, coincidentally, is mentioned and linked to prominently in the article. Their deleted contributions include a spam userpage along the same lines. GbT/c 14:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very much interested in contributing to the Wikipedia project. My intention was never to advertise as I understand and agree with the importance of the integrity of Wikipedia. I will review your comment on your talk page. Thank you again for communicating with me. Wikipedia is a wonderful and amazing project but it can be a bit complicated to navigate. I will watch closely the developments on this article. I hope that my contribution will remain and will make every attempt to improve its content based on your feedback. As you can see, as requested, I have abandoned the old username and created one that is acceptable to Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipartner (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.44.188 (talk) [reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 07:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unnotable fairy tale; the article doesn't even imply why it is notable, only that it exists. A lot of things exist, but that doesn't make them notable. Tavix (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Graymornings(talk) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Being the ex-wife of a notable person is not itself notability. The article now makes an assertion of further notability - see my comment below. Graymornings(talk) 02:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 07:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product. No refs. Graymornings(talk) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added the 2 (and only 2) references I found catalogued in the Seventh-day Adventist Periodical Index. These are not passing mentions, but part of the article and all of the article respectively. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Making an appearance or two on a reality television show does not make you or your group notable. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite unusual for an article to keep a speedy deletion tag for a full 24 hours. I guess no admin is willing to make a unilateral decision on this one. It is about a music school with unclear notability. Borderline case, but Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, I don't know where you are getting the whole palm beach university thing... I happen to go to stringendo, which is why I wrote this, and I can tell you it definitely has no affiliation. It's a non profit organization, and it's mostly run by the Handman and Schaad families. [Personal attack removed] Anyway, from living Around here and attending Arlington School, "Stringendo" is quite well known. Evidently, that's just too local for you, but whatever. It is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask the fudgecicle (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woman who appeared on American Idol a few days ago in a bikini; not sure how this makes her notable. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Vernon, she has been listed as one of the most searched for topics on Yahoo and Google since she appeared on television. I also feel she is more than just "a woman who appears on tv in a bikini." She has done quite a bit of modeling, singing and has her own fashion line. dwcusc (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really think we're being narrow-minded that you automatically call for someone's deletion. Have you gentlemen and ladies taken a look at Google Trends to see the spike in search trends for the lady in question? Take a look: http://www.mykatrinadarrell.com/news_googletrends.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwcusc (talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily kept, >>>>>>> DRV is this way >>>>>>>. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This discussion was taken to DRV and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phone_Call_to_Putin_(2nd_nomination) was relisted. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD was closed inappropriately, especially Inclusionist's comments about the nominator (whom I believe IS Russian). Phone Call to Putin is a non-notable neologism used to describe electric shocks. The previous AfD has misunderstood what the topic is about. WP:N states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The sources used in this article do not give significant coverage of Phone Call to Putin, but rather to Alexey Mikheyev, and mention Phone Call to Putin in passing. The term does not meet the basic notability guidelines, and would be best placed in an article on Alexey Mikheyev, and done so in passing as per the sources which discuss this notable individual. Russavia Dialogue 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now we could go to Deletion Review, notice that the prior AFD was a non-administrator closure, get that overturned (which any administrator can actually do on xyr own recognizance, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure) because, as is plain from the first AFD, there is no consensus and so an early closure is inappropriate, and start a fourth AFD discussion. Let's just assume that we've all done that little dance. Assume, if you like, that I, with my administrator hat on, have undone the prior AFD closure and re-opened the discussion, most of whose participants are here anyway. Let's now have a proper AFD discussion, to run for the full period, and to address the article and the subject, not the nominator or other participants in the discussion. Please continue with it below. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a POVFORK, in that it is part of the 2008 South Ossetia War series of articles, and it totally omits cyberattacks by Georgia on Russian infrastructure (RIA Novosti, Russia Today, etc websites were hit by cyberattacks). The substance within the article is already covered succinctly within the SO War series of articles. Russavia Dialogue 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable private currency. Very few Google hits, no news or other non-commercial sources. From what I can tell from the previous deletion debate, it can't have improved much upon the old version - it's two lines with no refs. Am nomming for deletion instead of speedying because I don't think it's an exact recreation of the deleted version. Graymornings(talk) 00:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]