The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 23:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable swami, vanity page, no reliable sources, etc... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidas (talk • contribs) 07:19, 19 July 2009
The result was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a news story. There's nothing here that shouldn't already be at the Hurricane Ike and Gustav articles. NJGW (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This upcoming television series has not yet announced by GMA Network, unless it is not yet confirmed and fails WP:NFF. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of an effort to promote a nonnotable brand of gin (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxley gin, closed as "delete"). One reference seems promotional, or at least based on a press release; the other deals with a method of distilling water, not gin. There appear to be insufficient reliable sources to support an article at this time—particularly one that focuses on a specific brand that has been judged to fail WP inclusion criteria. Deor (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 23:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, notability is not demonstrated here RadioFan (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of specifics. Although only 4 examples are listed (There are at least several dozen), this might as well be List of porn websites in terms of its potential. Speedy Delete under IAR. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, this is not really the point, what I care more is about keeping the list.
And I wasn't trying to be agressive, but I have to admit I dislike very much "deletionist" attitudes when some people work so hard to add content to wikipedia (not really saying the nomination of this article is a case of that...) SF007 (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a band that fails WP:N and WP:BAND. The article also lacks references and outside of their myspace page I can't verify any of this material. ThemFromSpace 22:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Big pile of issues, WP:AUTO; WP:N etc. Falcon8765 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A redirect seems unnecessary given the non-standard title with an unnecessary exclamation mark. ~ mazca talk 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, should probably be merged with List of The Goode Family episodes Falcon8765 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to travelersphilanthropy.org and responsibletravel.org.
I am also nominating the following related pages apart of the same non notable spam campaign:
Riddled with press releases and copy-vio "self-links to their site and blogs, Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Lizardmen (Warhammer). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I very carefully researched this character, with and without the "Lord". I discovered that it is not discussed in any scholarly analyses, not analysed in any independently published books, nor mentioned in any news items. The level of "internet appreciation" of this character is low; 319 Google Hits. I even compared the page view statistics of this article (less than 20 a day) to others in its game, who are in general much higher. (Those that were not I just tagged for notability.) A note on the talk page from March seems to be a pre-vote for deletion. All in all I felt reasonably confident that this would be an uncontroversial deletion. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEOLOGISM; Unsourced, potential hoax Falcon8765 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails our general notability guideline and WP:BIO. The article about him in the Hindu isn't the in-depth coverage of him needed for an encyclopedic article, and as this one event is the only thing he could be notable for I believe he would qualifie as a WP:BLP1E. ThemFromSpace 20:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted in 2007, this article should suffer the same fate today. True, point two of WP:BAND indicates that a band that had "a charted single or album on any national music chart" may be -- may be, not is -- notable, and I have no reason to doubt that a song by Kord did rank 79th on the Romanian charts for a week in 2005. However, the claim to notability is really quite thin, particularly if we look at the sourcing. The external links are an official site and, of course, a MySpace page, neither of which is very encouraging from the "independent of the subject" point of view of WP:GNG. Footnote 3, sourced to the official site, has the same problem. Links 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 are YouTube videos, which aside from violating WP:ELNEVER, can't actually be used to validate anything (published text is needed for that). Similarly, footnote 7 consists solely of eight photographs. Finally, footnotes 2, 6 and 11 are self-published sites. They are blogs, they are user-contributed, they have not gone through a peer-reviewing editorial process. Given the lack of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable", I think the case for deletion is strong. Biruitorul Talk 20:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove speedy deletion tag Kord (band)
I think it has credible claim of significance (charting single) and more others notable and reliable sources, like one of the Kord members, Stefan Corbu, was a member in a band of a notable artist named Nicola. I've checked RT100 and they had a charted single in a national music, chart RT100, for more then one week in 2005 [4]. I've checked too about their appearence in a tv show and they had performed music for a network television show, not only one performance in a television show and many performances in tv shows [5] KORD at TEO on Romantica (Romanian TV Channel) , they had been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio [6] and TV network [7].
I've noticed that the article has the speedy deletion tag. Maybe you'd like reconsider your speedy deletion tag and remove that tag, because the article it's notable.
thanks a lot.Lukasandi (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove deletion tag for Kord (band) This article should not be deleted because it has at least 3 real reasons to stay up. This band is notable because it meets more than one criteria. See Wikipedia:Notability (music). I checked some of the references and: - Kord (band) indeed had a charted single in a national music chart (see references no.1 & 2 from the article and the external links), and the song it was chartered for two weeks, not one, as Biruitorul said. - one of the members of Kord (band), Stefan Corbu, is a musician who has been a member of another notable musician, Nicola. - Kord (band) performed music in many television shows, as can be seen on Youtube, and i know that those videos can't actually be used to validate anything, but what can be more real, than when you see with your own eyes? - the references (notes) no.3 & 7 are not self-published sites, as Biruitorul said. The reference no.3 www.muzica.ro is one of the most important sites from Romania, about musicians. And the reference no.7 Radio Lynx is just a link from a website of a romanian radio, where Kord has been the subject of a half hour broadcast across a national radio. Rallyk (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted G12, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought RadioFan (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable punk band, no sources and less than 30,000 Google hits. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Nissan VQ engine. Premature non-admin closure as article's text is a translation of new redirect target. Motor VQ[edit]
Contested prod originally copied from spanish wikipedia. Rough translation to english reverted back to spanish. Short unreferenced articles which doesn't meet notability guidelines in any language. RadioFan (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There's a clear consensus that the subject of the article passes WP:ATHLETE. — Aitias // discussion 01:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not notable Penschool950 (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redundancy: the material is already covered in the discography articles; & no citations Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The keeps did not adequately answer the BLP concerns of the deleters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a person involved in conspiracy theories. I'm not finding significant coverage of this person in 3rd party sources. His name has been mentioned in a couple of JFK books but only one of those goes into much detail, others deal with him only in passing. The article itself lacks reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This article lists several online reference sources which constitute significant coverage. Furthermore, user RadioFan attests there is not significant 3rd party coverage, and then goes on to cite passages in several books. Braden is even listed in government files: [www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/cia-files.html] Not sure why Jim Braden was important enough to be included in Senate hearings, but not for inclusion in Wikipedia? Aliveatoms (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 refs are to a blog (wp:rs), the external links fail encyclopedic notability (wp:n). -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-05t20:19z 20:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not indicate in what way this product is notable, it is a minimal 2-line stub. The single reference given is to an article which briefly mentions the brand as being acquired by Coca Cola some years ago. It was prod'ed, but the prod removed with a reference to a google search which mentions the product some archived Google news articles. I did not check all of them, but the first one is again a trivial mention which merely lists this brand among many other brands in Indonesia. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:BIO. Limited number of Ghits and GNEWS hits. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Telehealth. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:DICDEF. Already exists at Wiktionary (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There do not appear to be any sufficiently independent third-party references to underline any notability. Black Kite 11:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This piece of scientific software does not appear to particularly notable. Previous 'prod' because of the same concern was removed by an IP user without giving an argument addressing the issue. Searching on google has not left me hopeful that evidence can be found that this is notable. TimothyRias (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I tried to explain to on my reply to the deletion suggestion, Materials and processes Simulation technology is a tool for the researchers and developers and I personally think it should be added to wiki, as a chemist I have used several softwares which can also be found in wiki with less to offer.
It is possible that I am having a formatting issue with the page, but I thought I have followed the page creation documentation closely. If you would like to learn more about Materials Processes Simulation, please follow this link http://www.scienomics.com/Products/maps/index.php, I would be glad if you would give me a helpful suggestion on how to retain this information on the wiki so that other chemists can help populate it too, meanwhile I am trying to rephrase my discussion to point to the fact that MAPS is a useful software, if it meets the needs pls do me a favour, remove the delete template.
Thankyou
--RosaWeber (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, MAPS is mentioned in one of the most respected peer reviewed Journals for Physical Chemistry (J. Phys. Chem. A, 2009, 113 (12), pp 2967–2974) and if you do a google search with the terms "Materials and Processes Simulations", you will find MAPS in the first page of google.
Thank you once again
--RosaWeber (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article was written by an independent journalist.--RosaWeber (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replying your comments I would like to start from the issue of the French Journal: As one can read, competition is mentioned there as well together with the interviews of Scienomics customers (Magali Charlot, from Rhodia and Hervé Toulhoat, from IFP). The article discusses the process through which MAPS is born, i.e., the IMT-Consortium. The people that where interviewed explained themselves, the concepts and advantages of MAPS. I guess that these people (together with all other members of the consortium, BASF, Unilever, Eni etc) are notable enough and their independent judgments should count.For non French speaking people who are interested in knowing what the French magazine had to say, please follow this link, but I warn you before hand...it is a poor translation, i hope you can cope with it like I did ...enjoy :-) http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/la-modelisation-se-met-a-l-ecoute-des-industriels.N51176&ei=bedkSua3GI6sjAfS6pz5Dw&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DLa%2Bmod%25C3%25A9lisation%2Bse%2Bmet%2B%25C3%25A0%2Bl%2527%25C3%25A9coute%2Bdes%2Bindustriels%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG -- About the book I had cited please in see 1.6 Software Related to Materials Modeling .................... . 20 discusses MAPS along with other similar engines. Cited Publications I had cited just a few publications, looking at other software entries in the wiki, you would agree with me too that they do not have endless entry of publications either. --RosaWeber (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
additionally I am sure you would like to see this too. http://www.materialssimulation.com/node/296. But please do not ask me for translation because I am not Japanese, I just stumbled into it a few minutes ago. --RosaWeber (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 23:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity pages on non-notable businessman.—Chowbok ☠ 19:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge tag since June 19, 2009 with absolutely no discussion. School team does not merit separate article as per WP:N. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The deletes had more concerns that just whether the song would be made, which went unaddressed by the keeps. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only source for future single is Jordin Sparks saying she thinks the song is her next single. Therefore this article fails WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jordin did not say she thinks its the next single she said it is the single, it is being advirtisedas the next single and it was sent to the media as the next single therefore it IS the next single —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.22.112 (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn as clear notability has been established SilkTork *YES! 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article asserts notability without any supporting sources. Fails WP:Company. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. A search revealed nothing more than the usual pub directory listings. Has had a "notability" tag for over a year. I am told that it is one of Europe's most significant gay clubs, though I found no evidence of that. It is listed in a London gay pub directory here as simply one of over 25 gay pubs in London with no mention of its significance. I can see an article being constructed around First Out - London's first openly gay bar, and Admiral Duncan pub quite rightly has an article - but I am dubious about this place. SilkTork *YES! 18:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A person born in 1987 (22 years old) that according to the article "is a famous Chinese historian among the most prominent ones who engaged in the historical research of Women's history and general political history of Tang Dynasty". I wasn't able to confirm any of that. Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. An arbitrary number of roles may indicate notability; but unless that suggestion can be backed up by reliable source coverage that notability is insufficiently demonstrated to meet our guidelines. ~ mazca talk 01:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Has not done notable roles. Roles played don't give encyclopedic significance to the subject. Hitro talk 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable autobiography. Beach drifter (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LC (the list is of interest to a very limited group and possibly unmaintainable), also widely obsolete because of List of fictional animals and List of anthropomorphic animal superheroes. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Funny animal is defined though, so it's not inherently POV. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This BLP stub seems like an obvious BLP1E case, no reliable sources have written about this individual apart from in regard to the one legal case mentioned. Polly (Parrot) 17:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also invovled in breaking a story over David Beckham's private life [22] and the recent phone tapping scandal [23]. Thank you Google 92.23.165.153 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Heartland Wrestling Association. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a reason this deserves its own page. It may be notable enough for a mention in the HWA's article, but not its own page. I say delete or merge.--WillC 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A user blocked indef for promoting similar software pointed to this article, and lo and behold he was right. No sources for claims of notability. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem notable--WillC 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted PROD was Fails WP:NFF. Also This article is a substantial copy from Spectacular! for the infobox. Web hits that mention this as a film project are from non-reliable sources such as blogs and gossip sites which are speculations about the future. Cast list is copy from Spectacular!. Musical numbers are pure invention and have no basis on anything. One of the purported cast is a Disney contract actor with zero chance of being in a Nickelodeon project. Variety reference is non-existant. NrDg 16:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creator contested the prod. All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should choose your words more carfully. TRIVIAL is an insult any way you look at it. Maybe there is not enough out there to make you happy. But that does not make it trivial. Shadow of Death has an official webpage.. is the first known comic book to have an official theme song. Is listed on Comic Vine, DrunkDuck, indyplanet, myspace and other websites! And if that's not enough for you then so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeathZ13 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. At the risk of antagonizing everyone present, I will state that I feel neither side has made a truly air-tight argument regarding the article's worthiness. In this "no consensus" closing, I would invite the article's supporters to work to strengthen the text and referencing. I would also invite the article's opponents to consider revisiting this as a second nomination later in the year, in the event we hear nothing further from Mr. Snowdon and/or his supporters and that his accomplishments are, indeed, a flash in the pan. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a local street sweeper who foiled a mugging and dealt with a small fire some months later - article apparently written by someone campaigning for this person to get an award and in a style that reads like a local newspaper piece. Wholly non-notable outside of his local area and wholly unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place to promote someone's campaign for an award. Fails WP:BIO. Astronaut (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considered collectively, this is clearly coverage that goes beyond "one event" or mere "local interest news." He has been recognized by numerous different people over a 2+ year span. Problems with the article's tone can be fixed via editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC) And a couple more decidedly not local sources:[reply]
--ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. | ” |
The result was merge to Birley#Charnock. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable elementary school; fails WP:N. PROD removed by article creator without reason given. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising of a non-notable production; created to take advantage of the latest Harry Potter film release. sixtynine • spill it • 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that several articles published in legitimate forums (Detroit Free Press, Michigan NPR), numerous personal and news blog postings, interviews with cast members, and thousands of viewings on youtube this article meets the notability requirements. At no point do Wikipedia's own guidelines regarding notability state how MANY articles must reference the subject in question before it is considered notable. The standard of web notability on Wikipedia (for which I think this play must be most closely categorized because it is loaded onto youtube and they are as yet no definitive play guidelines) state:
"1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."
and elsewhere it is stated:
"a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"
I will state that, in my opinion, two reliable secondary sources, the original material, interviews, etc. constitutes "significant covered" for a small, student play put on youtube. The fact that this has garnered any professional press is, in my opinion, significant because in most large cities a school production is largely irrelevant, even on a slow news day.
I also feel that, though these are not current Wikipedia rules and I respect those current rules, widespread personal blog reporting and page hits/video viewings should constitute a valid proof of notability considering the era in which we live and the very reason Wikipedia itself has become so widely used and increasingly respected. The concept of notability and the relevance thereof is widely disputed even on Wikipedia (there are Wikipages devoted to the various arguments for and against notability requirements) because of the incredibly subjective and Western/Professionally/Globally biased nature of the concept of notability and the invalid assumption that search engines provide proof or a lack thereof with regard to notability.
I do not believe that the article is written from an advertising point of view, but rather that it unbiasedly addresses the creation and performance of the play and subsequent internet popularity. I understand how it could be seen as advertising but also feel that it is near impossible to source an original play, film, work of literature, etc. without referring to the art in question and that it is extremely responsible to make the performance or piece viewable in the sources.
99.135.198.163 (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)lunamorgan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunamorgan (talk • contribs) [reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is non-notable and no reliable secondary sources are found. Deadchildstar (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should continue at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed the moment when we became a sports almanac, this entity (I hesitate to call it an "article") should go. Perhaps freestyle wrestling did occur at the 1977 Summer Universiade. Perhaps, during those halcyon days of the early Carter administration, Mr. Shells did go deep behind the Iron Curtain, surrounded by Soviets, other Eastern Bloc types (and a smattering of Mongolians, from that oft-forgotten eastern outpost of Soviet domination), a contingent of Japanese, and an Iranian competing just before the last gasps of the Pahlavi dynasty were to commence that autumn. But we are given not a hint as to why we should care. - Biruitorul Talk 15:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 15-year-old actor. Page contains lots of tivia and little substance - borderline speedy deletion candidate. Created by an unregistered user in place of a redirect; I was feeling generous and moved it to a separate page (but the user didn't respond to my message and didn't edit the page since). Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then, If I post the issues of the magazines, and the youtube direction for some videos,will it be ok??
I have them... well, some of them...
hope this helps...
just adding, the page has been under constrution, like for 3 months... when I discovered it...
So, I will add the information...
(Can I write youtube adresses??) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.55.238 (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
mmm, then I can't do anything... maybe when kleomenes.com is open... 189.141.55.238 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. SNOW closure. Enigmamsg 07:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NN autobio spam from a COI editor Triplestop x3 15:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BK: non-notable author's only book, published by a vanity press. Prod contested without explanation or improvement. Hqb (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not establish notability. Hundreds of university professors have published their work, this one is no different, and there is nothing unusual or special. Further more the article is a significant copy of pages from his employers website, as found by CorenSearchBot. Patchy1Talk To Me! 14:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:HOAX Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Unsourced article on a Channel 4 series that has apparently been on the air since 2000, but remarkably doesn't seem to have generated any evidence of existence on the Internet - no reviews, no news articles, not even any fanfic- , barring this article. Would appear to be a hoax, although possibly not quite blatant enough a hoax for a speedy deletion. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An unreleased film (no planned release date) with one source: a blog. Contested prod. SummerPhD (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE. There is no need to list every bus route in Bangalore on Wikipedia, and besides the existing list just appears to be a random list of WP:OR. SBC-YPR (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Editorial decisions are outside the scope of this AfD, so discussion to merge can continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems most of the Animal Farm pages are at AfD today and this one, by far the most unencyclopaedic one, got missed. rectified. delete. Jack Merridew 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a mess of unsourced trivia. The notion of "Animal Farm in popular culture" is not notable and having such an "article" only serves as an attractive nuisance — masses of original research about the supposed meanings of song lyrics. It's a load of dreck unfit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as per WP:LSC. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List with only one red link. Rubenescio (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable - article is about a minor academic figure, provides no arguments for his notability. Djr32 (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The article present at the end of this debate is essentially a completely different one than the one that was nominated - a very large-scale expansion [36] by Uncle G at the end of the listing period has resulted in an article with a different name, an expanded topic, and almost completely different content. Any consensus that has therefore developed earlier in the discussion is therefore ultimately rather irrelevant. With the discussion leaning towards "keep" even without the improvements, I do not see much sense in continuing the debate at this time. ~ mazca talk 01:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't assert notability. Fails WP:Company. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. This is an average local pub with no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. Research reveals a local newspaper story about ghosts in the pub - though no national sources other than the typical pub review sites, BeerInTheEvening, etc. WP:Company states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." I did consider a redirect to Grantham - however, there are other Blue Pig pubs. A possible solution is to redirect Blue Pig to Pub names, and to create a redirect for Blue Pig, Grantham to Grantham.
I did PROD this yesterday, but it was then pointed out that this article had been to a previous AFD and was kept. SilkTork *YES! 10:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Cobb County School District. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable middle school, lacking reliable sources to establish notability by WP:GNG or WP:SCH.
Prod removed by creator, with statement "Removed prod template; we don't need this anymore really; this article really doesn't need citatations yet; english" tedder (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One source for the whole page. All of the information is either copied DIRECTLY from the source or unsourced. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 08:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again...? This time there are no sources. I say redirect to T-Pain and protect the page until new information is given. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The situation is exactly the same as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia (about a character by the same author). With respect to merging, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taquinil Selei, also in the same situation. Sandstein 05:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The situation is exactly the same as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia (about a character by the same author). With respect to merging, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taquinil Selei, also in the same situation. Sandstein 05:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyhianna Selei. The article is entirely unsourced (not even to the books) and contains almost only plot summary. It violates WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it") and WP:N. The "keep" arguments do not address the lack of sources that is central to our core policy and have to be disregarded. Instead, they address the notability of the book series, which is unrelated to the question of whether there are reliable sources covering this character. The deletion of this article does not preclude, as DGG suggests, a brief and sourced description of the character in a parent article. Sandstein 05:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I can't find a suitable target for merging, so closing this as keep to allow for continued discussion on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. As no consensus defaults to keep, discussion to merge can continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. As no consensus defaults to keep, discussion to merge can continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyhianna Selei. Unsourced content should not be merged, but I will restore it for merging on request if sources are provided. Sandstein 05:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article is entirely unreferenced. Our notability guideline requires third-party coverage, which does not appear to be in evidence. The "keep" opinions do not address this. Sandstein 05:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. As I cannot find any reference to licensing on the Fan Wiki page from which the entire page was copied, I have Speedy Deleted it as G12. In regards to the article itself, as was pointed out, this one fails WP:NOT#PLOT however that disputed policy is framed, and a far better version is contained in the history of the redirected article [37] Black Kite 11:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was moved to Yankee White (NCIS) on 28 January 2007 to maintain consistency in episode naming for NCIS episode articles. The now redirected page was deleted on 7 February 2007, and again on 22 February 2007 (CSD G4) after it was recreated. A new editor has now recreated the original article, which is uncited and consists only of a plot summary, episode credits and trivia. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." This article does not conform to these requirements in any way. I nominated the article for speedy deletion, also under CSD G4, but the speedy was declined.[38] There was no need for a deletion discussion for the original delete as the article was moved to another page and the subsequent redirect became redundant. That the article is bigger than what is in List of NCIS episodes is not an issue, since the page should, in the event that there is a need to retain it, only be a redirect. The original move and subsequent deletions seem valid so this should have been a non-controversial delete. AussieLegend (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Several editors agree that the content is unsuitable for a merge at this time. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This term is not used in any analyses of Animal Farm and is made up entirely for Wikipedia. It covers minor characters, and was deprodded. Abductive (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE What makes this cheese company notable enough to warrent its own wikipedia page? The only sources are to a few small town newspapers which hardly reaches the level of wikipedias sourcing requirements. The author fails to provide any sales, distribution, or anything special about this cheese company to differentiate it among the thousands if not millions pf cheese companies in the United States. Additionally, this article reads like a press release, not giving any information other than it opened a new 2500 sq foot facility. Wikipedia space can be dedicated to people and things that serve a higher more noble purpose. Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable one time event; fails WP:N, Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), and WP:NOT#NEWS. Prod removed by article creator without explanation or reason given. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GO ON THEN, DELETE IT! AS IF I CARE! DO IT THEN! OOOH, YOU'RE TOO SCARED! OH DEAR. JUST DO IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheffieldWikimapian (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. We don't delete articles for being stubs. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE This is an unnecessary stub. The author should complete the article or it should be deleted. Wikipedia has too many stubs and uncited articles. These articles should be deleted and not given space like articles that fail wikipedias open ended and non-uniformly treated notability requirement. Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This game has not yet been officially announced, and nothing about the game will be announced until "mid August". All that is known currently is a single screenshot of the work in progress new skin that was posted on Twitter by Sports Interactive director, Miles Jacobson when drunk (see previous link). There's nothing to include in the article yet, and anything that is included would be speculation. See also prod reasoning. Dreaded Walrus t c 05:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable occurrence. Google returns nothing but blog posts, and admittedly the occasional reliable source, however none report on it in a way that actually asserts anything. They just repeat that, yes, at such and such time it will be 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:CORP, lacks third party coverage [45]. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 23:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
These articles were imported from Citizendium. There are two problems with this: 1. This requires permanent attribution of the text as coming from Citizendium, no matter how many changes we make later. 2. The licence is not compatible, as Citizendium is not dual licenced, but Wikipedia is. This sets up a class of articles that have to be treated as single-licensed, Non-GDFL article. In short, it means that Wikipedia suddenly has a class of articles under a different licensing scheme from all the others. We can't set up a special class of differently-licenced article, surely. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional availability of text under the GNU Free Documentation License:
For compatibility reasons, any page which does not incorporate text that is exclusively available under CC-BY-SA or a CC-BY-SA-compatible license is also available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. In order to determine whether a page is available under the GFDL, review the page footer, page history, and discussion page for attribution of single-licensed content that is not GFDL-compatible. All text published before June 15th, 2009 was released under the GFDL, and you may also use the page history to retrieve content published before that date to ensure GFDL compatibility.
Importing text:
If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. You do not need to ensure or guarantee that the imported text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License. [...]
If you import text under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s). [...] Regardless of the license, the text you import may be rejected if the required attribution is deemed too intrusive.
— Gavia immer (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE The article's content will fit within wikipedia's guide lines. However, it comes across as authoritative with horrible sourcing. Such an article should easily have one cite to the national olympic committee. If the authors fix this than my position will change, but until then it should be deleted. I know wikipedia is not always to be treated as authoritative but the topic of this article and the content it contains must be heavily sourced and verifiable. If not, then the wikipedia community is being reckless.Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable wife of politician, notability is not inherited. And she has done nothing special on her own to gain herself notability. Marcusmax(speak) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I read the CNMI papers and did not even know of her! Though I read plenty about her husband. I also worked in CNMI politics too. I agree this article should be merged or deleted, but probably deleted. She is a quiet figure and has not contributed anything positive to the CNMI.Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. I'm deleting this early under WP:IAR as utter crap beyond any hope of salvation. The entire thing is a mindless rant that makes very little sense at all. I don't see that it's worth wasting the community's time over this article. If you feel I shouldn't have done this speedily, email me and I'll send you the text. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic editorial that doesn't seem to have proofs or rationale for it to be included here. I nominated it for deletion since speedy deletion doesn't seem to apply here. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of why this musician/artist is notable. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 02:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list seems to be both overly specific and overly vague at the same time. What qualifies as a separate use for a building? Better question, why do we need a separate list for this? Poorly referenced besides, I'd recommend this be deleted, or failing that, merged into the standard tallest buildings list. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list contains the "tallest" multi-use buildings in the world. Most skyscrapers only have one use. Some have more than one use. I don't really understand what the big issue is here. Ryanbstevens (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As this doesn't exist (yet), this appears to be a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL violation, and is written rather promotionally besides. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that I can find is two trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP. Iowateen (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. True, we should avoid biting the newbies, but this article needs to be judged on its own merits. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally tagged for speedy deletion but there is kind of some claim to notability. He shows up a lot in Google in association with some famous people, which I know is not notable in itself, but I felt it warranted wider discussion. ... discospinster talk 00:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fix This page should be moved until it is fixed. The sourcing is bad and certain statements such as the the "first cartoonist to go green" definitely needs to be substantiated. I put little stock in the google ranking, since that is an art on and of itself and any competent web guy could help manufacturer that statistic. I would say moved before deleting, the author needs better sources and to verify some of his/her claims.Quidproquo1980 (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to copy, practically verbatim, information that is better used as parts of the articles they describe. I don't believe there is any need for this article and it looks like a content fork to me. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect. Not needed at AfD. If user keeps recreating, request protection at WP:RFPP. Malinaccier (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was re-created following previous redirect. No reliable sources found to verify notability. Redirect is inappropriate because the subject is non-notable, also the subject (Tansuit) is an implausible misspelling of the character's actual name (Tansit). — X S G 01:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Deville (Talk) 04:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hoax, wasn't sure it was blatant enough to speedy.
Also listing this related article Shaking My Maracas, another hoax by the same individual. Polly (Parrot) 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete with no prejudice against recreation once she meets WP:MUSICBIO)) Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer/actress with one non-chart single, no album, one minor acting role. No evidence of notability outside of YouTube, MySpace, Twitter, blogs & forums; and no writeup in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO & WP:MUSIC Astronaut (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). magnius (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Some of the keep "votes" provide exceedingly weak arguments. Nonetheless, there's no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing at all notable about this fictional building. Completely redundant to Waterloo Road (TV series) and seems to be another excuse to cram even more description about the plot of this show. Everything in this article is about the plot of the show; there is no need for this article at all. And, vitally, it contains absolutely no real-world context. The JPStalk to me 00:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable?? Its only non-notable to you three becuase more than likely you haven't seen WR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.58.113 (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Most participants in this discussion seem to agree that the article fails notability requirements. There are a few editors arguing to to the contrary, but with somewhat weak rationales, including "It exists". –Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about two products which are not notable. This material should not be it's own article. At most, this could be mentioned in another article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn per addition of sources. Good work, people. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only one source. Song didn't chart, was only a B-side, no non-trivial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, no third party coverage [49], google search mainly shows mirror sites. maybe some sources in Italian? LibStar (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The problems are fixable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content. Just an infobox. Biker Biker (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No consensus despite being listed for two weeks, so no prejudice towards a speedy renomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one has been around for a while (created May 2006, last edited July 2007), but given that, it is entirely unreferenced. When I do a google search I can find zero reliable sources about this production company. Based on that, I do not think the subject meets the minimum inclusion criteria as spelled out at WP:N. Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 04:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability, nor is notability evident. Google hits can be considered representative of even a non-notable OSS project. Not to get too much into WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it is a plugin for the (certainly notable) Pidgin, about no other plugins of which have articles heretofore been written. — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]