The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: It has been here since 2005... Why wouldn't of this been deleted earlier? K50 Dude ROCKS! 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Bariatrics. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This request has been blanked as a courtesy
The result was delete. Tone 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Describes in detail a decidedly unimportant variant of a single pen product from Pilot. Dcoetzee 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discusses a peculiar chain e-mail related to the font color in Windows Live Messenger. Of limited reach ("500 people" it claims) and unlikely to have any long-term significance. Dcoetzee 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Already wiped. seicer | talk | contribs 05:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary dab. Only two names, can be handled with a hatnote in each article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only notable for appearing in a video. No other sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The person exists, but there appears to be very little material available about him online. The sites www.utnz.org.nz (currently down) and www.homerescue.org.nz appear to be controlled by him or his organisation. If he was instrumental in the challenge to the Seabed and Foreshore legislation as claimed, there should be a lot more material available on him. Delete gadfium 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Family Guy character so non-notable that he's never actually appeared on the show.
Another minor Family Guy who has only appeared in one episode. Consensus on Talk:List of characters in Family Guy is that single episode characters aren't notable for inclusion in List of characters in Family Guy, let alone their own article.
TheMile (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by KnightLago (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for recently created recruitment system. Written by user:Jobtac. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 14:04, 10 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)) . |
Subject does not seem to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Only defining characteristics are amnesia and a single appearance on Dr. Phil. GoodnightmushTalk 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of far less interesting or relevant personal biographies on Wikipedia. Why not give this one a chance for a while longer? --Uyvsdi —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Newspapers and TV shows have been following his story for quite some time and no mention of fraud has come up. After three years, if it was just a hoax, it would certainly be found out by now. --Uyvsdi —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Since he has been featured on secondary media sources, he should meet notability guidelines. FunkyDuffy (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Do not delete.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stong delete - does not meet notability guidelines and has iffy "truthiness" @ best. Fluppy (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this man is notable for being in need of the internet's help. Gordonjay (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
Delete until there is something there. This is a non-article posing as an article; if this is a keeper, we should have a bot creating these for the 200-odd countries, and the thousands of subdivisions that have law-making powers, and then create "family law", "property law", "criminal law", etc., and each possible combination of jurisdiction and type of law each saying that "Fooian XYZ law governs XYZ in Foo." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Common fields | |
---|---|
Parallel fields | |
Related systems | |
See also | |
... and the articles were for that. The point is, so long as there's something there, someone hopefully will do something. Problem is, I'm not versed in Scots law. Perhaps you could post a message on the Scottish Wikiproject? It's not like there's a lack of hard drive space, anyway, is it? I understood that articles should be deleted when they never would be significant, etc: and of course these are all important subjects. I'll paste some extra material in some of them from Scots law for the sake of it, and provide some links. But you're just being a pain in the arse if you delete, because one day they'll be created again! Wikidea 10:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No redirect until more is known. When/if released, the article can be recreated. Tone 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NM and WP:V, no sources backing up release of album. DiverseMentality 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs) 13:51, January 7, 2009
Shaping up nicely. I'm switching to a keep nomination on this new evidenceAstral highway (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been tagged as a hoax: I don't think it's that, but I don't think it's notable either. The guy decided to pick a football team at random and support them till they lost a game, when he would transfer his loyalty to the winners. That's all. Sources are two blogs and Facebook; from the first blog it seems he has hopes of selling a book about his "epic journey". Delete as not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person fails to meet wikipedia's notability requirements. Extensive searches for references varifying the contents of this article have yielded nothing. The article was created by the subject's son (a user now blocked from editing the encyclopedia) and therefore COI does play a factor here. Nrswanson (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. In fact, no need to create a redirect since this is an improbable search term Tone 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to List of wars 2003–current TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to List of wars 2003–current.Gandygatt (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to List of wars 2003–current. No need for splitting, maybe after 2023 :) TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable and it should be deleted.--Ped Admi (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While the number of users on each side of the debate is roughly equal, the delete opinions are stronger and more refer to Wikipedia policies. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially a dictionary-like disambiguation to articles that are sometimes incorrectly referred to by that name, at least according to the present state. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
incorrectly listed, deletion requested by User:Jasy jatere Jac16888 (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistani caver who runs a cave exploration company.
"Cave exploration Adventure Sports in Pakistan and pioneer of the Mountaineering, Rowing / Canoeing / Kayaking & Sailing Sports in Balochistan."
Also organised some walks and hoists flags on national holidays. That does not seem notable in itself. On the other hand
On 14th August 2005, in recognition of his life long services to Caving, Mountain Adventure and water Sports in Pakistan, the honorable President Islamic Republic of Pakistan, conferred "President's Award for Pride of Performance" on him."
Does anyone have an idea of the quality of this award? Does that confer him notability, or is it a run-of-the-mill award?Jasy jatere (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completing unfinished nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we have a category that adequately covers the subject; this rather poor start of an article illustrates the fundamental unmaintainability of the undertaking. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased independent film. No sources, or claim to notability. — Twinzor Say hi! 19:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced future album fails WP:MUSIC. At least three prior articles have existed (and been deleted) claiming to be DisneyMania 7. Unable to verify if this tracklist is the same, so I don't feel comfortable personally adding a speedy tag. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these articles are vestiges of a prior scheme of breaking down the rather large list, and are neither useful nor likely search terms (any more than A-D or A-F, which won't be found) - the problem with G6-ing these as ought to be done is that many articles have links to these clugey titles and a bot should clean those up, which can happen after deletion. Note: I am not proposing the deletion of any lists themselves, the community has already spoken to keep them, I am just trying to get rid of these non-useful "dab" pages Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as a copyvio. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a description of possibly nonexistant musical genre. Seems more like a report than an encyclopedia article. — Twinzor Say hi! 19:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect per WP:SNOW. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this school is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unref'd article about a poem by redlink author with no claim to notability asserted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Seicer (A7). Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a band that does not meet notability for a music group. There are no reliable sources writing about the band. The best I could manage in my searches was this short review, but it is not clear what editorial oversight is exercised by the site, and the "submit news" button leads me to believe that much may be just user submitted content. The band is currently unsigned (and only formed in 2008). No hits or awards are in evidence. Whpq (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Editors are welcome to redirect or merge (as always), or to open a discussion on the article talk page with the intention of doing either. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist. Only claim to fame is finishing 5th in the latest series of The X Factor. She is already covered here. Until she is signed, I don't see the need for her to have an independent article on Wikipedia. I'd be happy with either deletion or redirection with full page protection until notability can be established as a result here. John Sloan (view / chat) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand where your coming from, but i don't have more than one account. Honestly what makes you think that. And as for the signature thing i didn't understand what was going on about it being unsigned. So i put mine and RL1000's names in bold. Sorry to SineBot who signed them. XF5000 19:15, 6 January 2009.
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This recreated article was previously speedily deleted. It is a list of scientists loosely falling under the rubric of "climatologists," "climate scientists," a discipline which covers so many disparate research areas as to be close to meaningless. It also appears to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is vastly incomplete, which leads me to question its utility in any case. This material is already available in far more readable form on the website it was copied from. (The article's author previously claimed to have permission to reproduce this explicitly copyrighted material.) —
RandomHumanoid(⇒) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page creator response:
This a list of notable climate scientists (CS) - not "climatologists"; there is a distinction. It's not a directory. Nor is it disparate. As the intro states, many (most) of worked together on the seminal interdisciplinary scientific efforts of our age, the IPCC Assessment Report series. However, limiting the list to eg. just IPCC AR authors would lose the notable CS context by omitting non-IPCC notables. Excess red links are an issue, but are useful to indicate WP gaps. For example, it's extraordinary that there is no WP James Zachos page, while we have endless pages on completely obscure popular culture figures. Anti-listers might like to consider whether these other similar lists should be tagged for deletion: geneticists, ecologists, biologists, psychologists, chemists, astronomers, economists, geographers, linguists, zoologists, more? Earlier discussion is here. --Gergyl (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus/keep. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An ex Minister? I can see no reason for inclusion Fails. WP:BIO Paste Talk 17:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the article meets this criteria. --Alpha166 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable single Mayalld (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear fail of WP:MUSIC. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a reprint of the afterword to the book "Weapons of Mass Instruction". While the copyright notice indicates that it may be "circulated without cost on the Internet, but only if used uncut and cost free", it would be better served on a site like Wikisource or quoted on a topic like Standardized testing. Here, it does not have any encyclopedic purpose. TheLetterM (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be a hoax; references and web searches don't offer support, and page is a magnet for vandalism. JNW (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability asserted, fails Wikipedia:NF. Tryptofeng (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of vaults shows no notability outside of the game series, and effective is a game guide material, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Presumably mention of the general description of vaults should be present in a Fallout series article but save for those critical to the plot (eg Vault 13/101) an explicit list is unnecessary. MASEM 16:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree; we have lists containing information from video games all over Wikipedia. I think it qualifies simply for the fact that certain fans want to know the info.Saberwolf116 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep main article and redirect the rest to it. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Film Critics seem to have floated in and out of existence without leaving a huge mark. The main article has been tagged for expansion for almost two years: it consists of a one-line intro, a list of the award category articles, and a list of the three award ceremony articles. Delete all SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Keep main article, redirect rest per cleanup.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per obvious consensus, or merge if anyone feels inclined and is bold enough to do so. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyerc 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There does not seem to be a reason for this page. Everything can be placed on the main conflict page, and a one paragraph page is not necessary. Yossiea (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 1) The main conflict page is already too long. 2) Details will be added to this article when they become available. 3) Military attacks on civilians are notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trachys (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTE, no outside references, sources, or anything resembling a link that would constitute notability. Fairly clear WP:ADVERT. Sammael 42 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, no clear references or sources. Strong candidate for WP:ADVERT as well. The whole tone of the article is very spammish. Sammael 42 (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Music#Songs. In particular, it was never released as a single, and the Portugese and Bulgarian charts are listed as unreliable at WP:BADCHARTS, which only leaves the Hot Dance Club Play chart position.
The article was forked from a late September version of Breakin' Dishes. The topic was previously discussed in early August and closed as a redirect to the album.
I believe the current version is substantally identical to the discussed version (diff), but an admin disagreed. None of the concerns from the previous AfD were adressed however, and only one additional review was added: " Billboard gave the song a positive review, stating: "With no signs of burn yet, a word to the label: "Breakin' Dishes" could break records as the next single." [13]. Amalthea 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Band is of questionable notability. very low number of G hits and many of them are hits on a book. Articles only citation is myspace, an unreliable source. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Edina, Minnesota#Places of Worship. Stifle (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this church meets WP:N, contested prod from a while back, not much in improvements since Delete Secret account 15:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial list, fails WP:NOT#INFO and WP:TRIVIA, prod removed a while back. Delete Secret account 15:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
page moved to correct English spelling of the venue Al Merreikh Stadium ∏∪βiατεch 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - obvious hoax. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be some sort of hoax. The article template was stolen from the Isabella Rossellini article (the name "Isabella Rossellini" has rather obviously been replaced with "Ashley Griffin" in a number of places - there is no "Ashley Griffin" at the link given at Commons, for instance.) A cursory Yahoo! search for "Ashley Griffin model" turns up nothing. Consequently, I suspect this is either a hoax or a personal page of some kind. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 14:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn, therefore Keep - despite the lack of reliable sources, it's obvious that at least one of the characters she voices has a large fan base. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO... horribly. Probably not an a A7 candidate, though. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails the basic album notability requirements listed at Wikipedia:NALBUMS. These demo tapes are not notable and have not been the subject of much third-party coverage. Also, contributors to this discussion should keep in mind that notability is not c. While The Smashing Pumpkins are very notable, not everything associated with them is. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was } Nomination withdrawn Ecoleetage (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyyyyyyyyyy, Abbott! Outside of winning the Newdigate Prize (a famous Oxford University award with plenty of less-than-famous winners), it doesn't appear that our subject has achieved any significant notability as a poet. A Google News search turns up nothing. This could be a case of WP:BIO woes. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading in Bodleian Library with Seamus Heaney, Mick Imlah, and Bernard O’Donoghue: http://www.ouls.ox.ac.uk/bodley/about/exhibitions/bodcasts#archipelago
Robert MacFarlane writing in the Guardian newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/jul/14/featuresreviews.guardianreview1
http://deconstructivewasteland.blogspot.com/2008/06/review-paul-abbotts-flood.html
http://www.clutagpress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=31
http://www.clutag-archipelago.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=5
http://sers018.sers.ox.ac.uk/about/exhibitions/bodcasts
http://buddhoblogosphere.wordpress.com/2007/07/15/a-r-c-h-i-p-e-l-a-g-o/
http://joty.wordpress.com/2007/07/15/a-r-c-h-i-p-e-l-a-g-o/
http://www.towerpoetry.org.uk/tpr/issue3.pdf All.labour.in.vain (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More crystalballery in this long-running sequence AndrewHowse (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 Author blanked article, and no keep votes have been cast. J.delanoygabsadds 20:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This information is too limited in scope to rate its own article. There is already a mention of the "flower punk" genre on the Black Lips page. The term "flower punk" can refer to many other things other than this single reference (including a song by Frank Zappa written in 1967). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Suspected autobiography, article is primarily a rant at previous employer. Article has no citations. Uncle Milty (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by OrangeMike (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable band. The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability Archivey (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:CORP. Article was previously prodded for this reason. No outside sources. Graymornings(talk) 10:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this page? It's POV advertisement at it's best! Antonio Bringing the Sexy Back to Wikipedia Martin 9:45, 6 January, 2009 (UTC)
The result was Delete. The consensus below is that the problems with sourcing and maintaining the article are not simply tempory issues to be overcome by editng but rather inevitable results of its nature. Thus, deletion is the appropriate outcome. If someone would like the content for use in creating a List of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report authors, I'd be happy to userfy it, but it should not be kept in its present form or scope. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inevitably incomplete page of no value. By contrast, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is fairly complete William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All references seem like press releases. Article introduced in it's entirety by the company itself (Impetus qlabs (talk · contribs)) and written like an advertisement. --aktsu (t / c) 08:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable group. Can't find any references for them. Article is being made by the group's founder. Could be deleted or redirected to Theodism. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. No calls for deletion, negligible chance of reaching that outcome. Maintaining standards is a laudable goal, but little good can come from a deletion nomination of an article that's likely to change too much for a meaningful decision during the time an AfD takes to run its course. --Kizor 07:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very recent news item - Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. This news item could get legs and be noteworthy in the future, but it isn't now. Delete per WP:NOT Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not Noteworthy?
This case is more than recent news -- it has appeared on KTVU for the last three nights as the lead story -- there should be some documentation of what is happening -- as it stands, now five days from the incident, there is almost nothing on Wikipedia about this story. Wayne shoter (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
*Merge and redirect for now, or until when the officer makes his statement. BoL (Talk) 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Keep per all of the below. BoL (Talk) 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Nawlinwiki (CSD G7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to be a hoax.
ttonyb1 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to have been deleted already so I think we can wrap up this process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There are reliable sources that reflect the notability of the event, and one may well surmise that given the extensive involvement of the prospective U.S. Attorney-General that it will continue to generate discussion. I agree that there are potential BLP issues with respect to the roomates, and that the article could be edited further there. I also will move the article to Murder of Robert Eric Wone, but that action is taken as a regular editor, and is not a result of this AfD (i.e. revert if you want and we'll discuss). Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Egregious violation of not only WP:BLP when it comes to the individuals named, but also violation of WP:BLP1E when it comes to Wone himself. He wasn't notable before he died, he still isn't notable. His death is not notable, either. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To deal with TL;DR issues, this is a summary intended for the closing admin summarizing the arguments from a keep perspective. It is not intended to be a neutral summary of the arguments.
Thus, since so many incorrect and inapplicable arguments have been raised by those favoring this article's deletion, a rough consensus should exclude those inappropriate rationales, rather than merely counting noses. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and protect, it's snowing in here again. BJTalk 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and the affirmative consensus of this discussion. Those who feel bold are welcome to rename or rewrite the article. (Non-admin closure) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is fit for the Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Yes, it is notable, but only as a dictionary definition at best, and certainly not in its current form that serves merely to defame a few people by name. The vast majority of sources it cites are blogs, flunking WP:RS. The remaining non-blog sources can't objectively source the claims that so-and-so is a MILF/VPILF/GILF, because they are mere opinions, and because MILF contains the first person term "I". When a columnist or blogger calls someone a MILF, that is a statement about the author, not the subject lady. Wikipedia can't objectively repeat it, or refer someone's "MILF status" or call them a "notable MILF" (unless it is somehow plausible that WP would also "like to fuck" the named individual). This term does not merit an article, and should be deleted, and redirected to a list of acronyms or expressions containing the term. Reswobslc (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to MILF, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
I have removed clear BLP violations from the article MILF. Including mainstream actresses on the basis of youtube and blog postings is unacceptable. Ditto for political figures. I shall block you immediately if you restore either. DGG (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)." And the picture of one of the most famous MILF of our time, Deauxma, have been deleted from the article among other things... Real nice, real nice... I guess this is Wikipedias neutral point of view... Well... Klassikkomies (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this page to be notable per WP:ORG. A google search returned only the company's website, and a google news search returned nothing. Another editor tagged the article for speedy deletion just after creation which was removed based on the unsourced line Carlyle Research is one of the leading executive search organisations. A prod tag was then placed on the article. I took WP:BITE to heart and decided that the original author really did not know what was going on (based on conversation on my talk page). I decided to move this here, for his sake. Ndenison talk 04:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Vandalism Protonk (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, no Google hits, notability not established. JNW (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat borderline - the man has had some accomplishments, and seems to be a known figure in the Columbus area, but he's also of purely local interest, from what I can tell. No mention, for instance, of any national journalism awards won. Biruitorul Talk 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some searches indicate he fails WP:PROF. If kept, the article could do with fewer capital letters (usually reserved for resumes). Biruitorul Talk 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice little resume there, but with nary a Google hit and zero Google Scholar hits, it seems she can wait a bit before earning a berth here. Biruitorul Talk 03:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any independent sources to confirm notability, and in any case, we are an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual. Biruitorul Talk 03:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Having a bunch of AfDs on the same topic is hard to handle. Closing this as keep for now, no prejudice on a consistent nomination. Tone 14:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced, unencyclopedic WP:OR WP:FANCRUFT, accumulated solely from articles already under AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Allen (Adventures in Odyssey) (making the creation of this article an act of questionable good faith). No third-party acknowledgement that these self-proclaimed "sagas" even exist. HrafnTalkStalk 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student dormitory. Sgroupace (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G7 per user request. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable recent book Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - and thanks, people. The book notability criteria are "bugging" me a little, but I get it. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Milk Junkies. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable anime series as there aren't any/enough reliable sources that deem it notable per Wikipedia's general notability policy. Tavix (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cinematographer. No references, no claim to notability. Working in low-level positions in not notable, even if the films are notable. Maybe if some aspect of that work is innovative, influential, or ground-breaking ... but that's not the case here, and the article makes no case for it. Mikeblas (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be mainly a spam piece; but I was unsure. Therefore, I submit it the community.There are references which mention Chakra Pyschology; although, most appear to be based on this this website (from where some of the information is taken verbatim). There is this journal which cites the Chakras; however, I am unqualified to judge its use as a reliable, third party source. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Taz-Mania. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable characters, absolutely no secondary sources, written in-universe with OR aplenty. Nothing worth redirecting or merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Massive triple-N: Non-notable neologism. And honestly, this article's continued existence here is probably a WP:SNOW case. Vianello (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Krav Maga. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to find any independent coverage of this organization (I am not saying there is no coverage of Krav Maga itself), let alone any significant coverage in reliable sources. Rather than do a speedy or prod, I am taking this to AfD because of the controversies on related articles. Bongomatic 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. It's probably snowing over there (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising, A small settlement (from google maps looked 17 houses) in the middle of nowhere. The Rolling Camel (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn, only delete vote no longer applies, further unanimous keep. Mgm|(talk) 12:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising, a small city in the middle of nowhere pretty near to Sollentuna. The Rolling Camel (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This is clearly going to end as this and given the drama around the user conduct on the page, there is no point in belaboring it. MBisanz talk 15:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find this to be WP:LISTCRUFT as only an extremely small minority of British footballers actually playing abroad. Removed prod (from User:Jmorrison230582) stated "Impossible list to maintain, which is achieved in any case by the various expatriate footballer categories." Tavix (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and thanks for the excuse to call a cunt a cunt. Juzhong (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Real place, sources prove it, merger is not suitable. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed for deletion, deleted by me. Author contacted me to ask to restore it, so I did, and automatically placed it on AfD. No vote from me, this is a routine nomination. JIP | Talk 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable show. Endorsed prod was disputed.--Jmundo (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable show. Endorsed prod was disputed.--Jmundo (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --Jmundo (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy but hasnt been speedied for 5-6 hours, Its not sure it qualifies for speedy either but it qualifies to Afd because there is no notability or the notability is not included in the page. The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect. Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD resulted in redirect. A single anonymous IP insists on removing the redirect. Another pass at consensus is necessary to determine if the redirect is appropriate. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this is person is notable Oo7565 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. The band received several notable awards and had charted hits which meets WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Nominator did nothing to explain why he believed it to be non-notable. Mgm|(talk) 09:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable bands. Yung Dong-Kung (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — Yung Dong-Kung (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a proposed suburban church and is essentially an advertisement. It is not notable. Grahame (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Hero (Mariah Carey song). History retained - there is some sourced material there, so editors can discuss at the talk page for Hero (Mariah Carey song) what to merge back in. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unnecessary split of Hero (Mariah Carey song). Individual covers do not normally receive individual articles, and I see no justification for making an exception in this case. Attempt to restore standard format was reverted with a demand to "take it to AFD", so here we are. No history to preserve, because it was all carved out of the parent article, so simple deletion is all that is necessary. "Merging" would be counter-productive when all that is necessary is to undo the split. —Kww(talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:Note: left notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#AFD for Hero (X Factor release) (Woody (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
(outdent) I believe I have: their is more than enough material to warrant a separate article, especially considering the special circumstances surrounding this single. There is more than enough material for a GA here. The article meets all notability requirements and all policy requirements. What is does not meet is your personal opinion of what Wikipedia articles on covers should look like. The reasons are all laid out here, you just don't accept them as valid reasons, which is your prerogative. Woody (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every model or subtype of every electronics product is notable; this one in particular has no references showing its notability and seems little different than anything else on the shelf at BestBuy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A new Finnish IT company, founded in 2008. Tagged for speedy deletion. After reading the official site, I understood this is not just a software company, but instead a computer science research company founded by over 40 companies and organisations. This should perhaps set it apart from other Finnish companies. Weak delete unless it can be rewritten to remove the advertising. JIP | Talk 20:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Centric CRM = keep, Michael Harvey (software executive) = delete as there has been no showing of notability, nor do independent sources showing notabiliity appear to be available. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted twice in 2006, for lack of notability. At least the second submission was by Mdh98368 (talk · contribs), who seems to be identical with Michael Harvey, an executive of the company. A few months later, the article was recreated by Telmnstr (talk · contribs) (an SPA just like the former), along with a biography of Michael Harvey (software executive). Both articles later edited by Mdh98368; none of them are based on independent sources. In short: Enough of this! If no uninvolved party is willing to write an article about this company/person, then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating also:
--B. Wolterding (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted (G11) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing indicating that this is a notable organization Wadeperson (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only non-trivial sources mention this group in passing--nothing that is actually about the group. COI issues as well--author is Cbiait (talk · contribs) Blueboy96 15:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following article about a related group for deletion, for the same reason:
Pacific Coast Builders Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; not sure whether article can be properly fixed Imperat§ r(Talk) 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was updated with additional information and references. Sarah Baicker is a feature editor with NBC universal, a blogger and published a book with WetFeet for women in business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmanjk (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is extremely bare bones, and the subject matter hasn't improved since the article's creation in July of last year. A search for external links has thus far turned up nothing citable on the surface, nor have Google News or Google Books. Proposing for deletion or at the very least a redirect to the main Neverwinter Nights article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | This project page was nominated for deletion on 17 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last AfD in 2007 closed as "keep but add sources" Since then, none have been added except for two unreliable blogs. I have searched all over but cannot find a single reliable source for this act. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains no secondary sources and has been tagged for this reason for longer than a year. I performed some researched looking for reliable supporting sources, I found only that this author's works are controversial (http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/fat_kills.html) and could find no peer-review. The advertising links formerly on this page have been removed, but the page appears largely to be promotional in nature. E8 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems somewhat notable, but there may be some COI issues--Wadeperson (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with my mind open to change if any independent sources that discuss the subject in a meaningful way are added. (I couldn't find any!) --Stormbay (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - questionable notability, and looks too like an advert to be a good starting point, e.g. it uses an online shop as a source... edit: looked back in the history & there was some good material on the fence though may need stubbing to be kept.--Nate1481 10:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs work, not deletion. The 'Aikido Journal' article, the 'Black Belt' article and the 'Meibukan Magazine' article are good quality references and should be enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability#Martial_artists. jmcw (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable medical supply company. MBisanz talk 01:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Possible concerns relating to the Biographies of living persons policy. PhilKnight (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]