The result was Delete per consensus --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination. neither country has a resident ambassador, in fact Uruguay decided to close its embassy. coverage is mainly multilateral not bilateral [1]. yes the Uruguayuan president visited in 2007, and the usual double taxation agreement but these alone are not enough for notable relations. the 2 countries played a Youth World Cup football match in 1997 and I know of at least 1 editor who thinks such info advances notability. clearly not. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wrong venue. Please list at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CENSOR; Wikipedia is not censored. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@ 23:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. WP:RS and WP:ORG requirements are more than satisfied, and it is highly unlikely that a cogent argument for deletion can now be made. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No apparent or asserted notability Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod of a porn actress who fails the WP:BIO guidelines pertaining to porn stars. Other than IMDB citations to show she acted in two films, the remaining sources are the subject's web site. There is also a conflict of interest issue in play, as it appears the subject has written the article. Regardless of who's writing it, notability isn't met. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD ended in "no consensus" due to lack of participation. Google News hits show trivial coverage. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I probably shouldn't be doing this, but I couldn't help myself. This appears to be a web-based software library that isn't notable enough to have its own article. The article is mainly a statement of the library's features, without proof of notability. Also, the references provided are simply links to the project's web site, and the tone contains a hint of advertising (although this is a secondary concern). The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, no verifiability, no apparent notability; WP:MADEUP Accounting4Taste:talk 22:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE! Koola is a well known sport for the younger generation. Ask your kids about the game, they will tell you what it is. a facebook page is already set up, to delete this entry would be pathetic. a farce! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.158.164 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a British game hence why probably you 'Yanks' dont know much about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.158.164 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Some strong suggestions for a merge to Firefox but due to the size of that article, I would suggest a standard "mergeto" proposal be made. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources to establish the notability (tagged since May) of this version of Firefox, relies almost entirely on primary sources, the single third party source has questionable reliability. All the necessary information can be covered in a single sentence in the Firefox article, with a decent source. Rehevkor ✉ 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to be advertising-sounding, IMHO, means that promotional language and weasel words would proliferate. However, this article doesn't include promotional words and phrases such as "best", "most influential", "one of the top", "bestselling", etc. The only real promotional-sounding phrase is "one of the largest medical practices". That statement probably needs either citation or removal. But other than that, I see no real reason for the AFD flag. Theinclusionist (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google Images The bodybuilder image was already in Wikimedia Commons. I don't know anything about its permissions. Voros1975 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)— Voros1975 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
My only point is: I think we as editors should do some digging to find out the facts ourselves, before just marking something for deletion or citing a problem that is really a non-problem. We hold the writers to high fact-checking standards; why should we be exempt?
Look at all the places this image exists in the public domain?
[4]
[5]
I'm simply saying, your argument is unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whothencanbesaved (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)— Whothencanbesaved (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voros1975 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article which is entirely speculation and rumour and gives no inidcation that the song is notable per WP:NSONG. I cannot find anything to substantiate this is even a Jonas Brother song, so a redir would be inappropriate - delete. I42 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an obvious WP:BLP1E. Some edit history may also violate WP:BLP. Significant edit was this one a year ago but nobody put information back into place. Magioladitis (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. I have no idea what this is talking about. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might be speedy no-context material, but it's long enough I'm sure something explains what it is somewhere, I just don't see it.
It looks to be context-free "excerpts from 'Amnesty International'", maybe copy-pasted (can't find original). The article name is a surname used with 2 different contexts in the article, part of which is in spanish.
This article's a disaster. No user coming onto this would have any idea how to improve it either. Shadowjams (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as CSD G7 at author's request. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable card game. Fails to establish notability. Shadowjams (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete; deleted as a copyvio by Anthony.bradbury, no more action necessary (non-admin closure). The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio of http://www.lightglove.com/infofr.htm — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems unnecessary to have a page with just links to two well-defined concepts. Favonian (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete – the article topic is too speculative and clearly contrary to WP:CRYSTAL. JamieS93 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Too much assuming and speculation for this article to exist. Killiondude (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Disclosure: I'll be gone for the better portion of this week, but I will be back a few days before this discussion ends. Killiondude (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nabil rais2008 (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. However, keep Edward Savage (footballer). Cirt (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Footballer fails WP:ATH as he has not played in a fully-professional league/competition yet. Also fail WP:GNG, as there are no secondary sources about the person. --Jimbo[online] 20:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail the same criteria:
The result was merge to Birla_Institute_of_Technology_and_Science#APOGEE. lifebaka++ 16:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well formatted, but possible G11 and A7.[6] — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PA announcer for a couple of low-minor league baseball teams. Practically no sources for this particular Jay Reese--and in any event, I highly doubt an announcer for a low-level minor league team is notable enough for an article. Blueboy96 20:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable playground. There doesn't appear to be a speedy deletion criterion for places. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Opinions for keeping and merging seem to be split so the best place to discuss merging is on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable one-off prototype aircraft with no external references. Trevor Marron (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think this should have been nominated for AfD. I think the real debate here is whether this should be retained as a separate article or merged into Beechcraft Bonanza. - Ahunt (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, leaning towards keep. No good argument is supplied why he does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and BLP issues can be dealt with editorially. lifebaka++ 16:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO1E, no true notability and only serves to misinform about the plaintiff and the defendant. Keegan (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article and discussion section of this article are being constantly changed by apparent affiliated persons with the Sheikh, in order to make the victim appear to be culpable. Editors like "ElMazyoona", "Hamisha", and "Venomeve" revert the article to a blog posted on the web by Venomeve, which contains defamatory inforamtion and biased opinion. The entries by Sheikh your-Bouti and Adminchium are factual and contain correct sources for both sides, not a weak "blame the victim" argument with biased defamatory/slanderous opinion. FYI- Wikpedia has made an article review process underway, with IP address search to see if parties are associated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheikh your-Bouti (talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I chose not to delete the discussion made above as I believe in freedom of speech. However if my editing does not please Sheikh your- Bouti, Ademinchium, keegan or any other account user it is certainly not my problem. I am practicing my right to edit any article here based on facts from references. The rubbish about being associated with the Sheikh is a joke and hysterical as the article written is based on the references that are listed below. It seems that Sheikh your-Bouti, Ademinchium could not face reality and instead started a case of their own or maybe apparently it seems that they're affiliated with Mr. Orsi. The other thing mentioned about the blogger.. I believe in freedom of expressing one's opinions whether from a blogger or not.. or do you expect me to be a slave to your own ideas only?? sorry to say I shall not & I shall continue expressing myself free as a bird whether you like it or not. References can be reviewed & information is not a private property of Sheikh- your Bouti, Ademinchium, Keegan or any other user. It is there for people to read, share, discuss & debate freely. I am totally against deleting the page as this shows that information is being controlled by biased, uneducated & prejudice people who like to put info they like otherwise run to close the door & hide. Leave the door open for everyone to put their ideas whether we like them or NOT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmazyoona (talk • contribs) 00:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Deville (Talk) 20:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is apparently modeled after the various "Outline of <Country>" articles. However, it does not actually deal with any specific country. Instead, it is a hodgepodge if information about Palestine (the historical geographic region), the Palestinian National Authority, the State of Palestine, the Palestinian territories, and possibly a few others. It is important to stress that none of these entities is widely considered to be a country (although some of them have some country-like characteristics), and anyway, the fact that the article doesn't even attempt to focus on one of them makes it confusing and unhelpful. The opening paragraphs attempt to handle this problem by providing an overview of the Palestine-related terms mentioned above. However, this is completely redundant given that we already have Palestine (disambiguation) and Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian. I propose either deleting this page (preferred), or renaming it (and modifying its content drastically) to apply to just one of the entities mentioned above (Palestine excluded). -- uriber (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. lifebaka++ 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jess hates written a handful of notable songs, and won an ASCAP award which is a dime a dozen or worse ("among the most performed" usually means "it charted for more than an eyeblink"). I can't find a single source that gives any form of biographical information. Every single hit on Google/Books/News/etc. is only "This song was written by Jess Cates and [insert writer here]". Simply writing notable songs DOES NOT make you inherently notable if nobody has even mentioned you more than trivially, not even if ASCAP did give you an award, don't try to tell me otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The discussion (particularly Simon Dodd's, which is well-thought-out but off target) boils down to whether an article about a notable person should be deleted because it has proven difficult to write more than a stub article about the subject based on commonly available sources. I don't know of any Wikipedia policy or guideline calling for deletion of such articles. If the laundry list of songs is deleted, the article is still more informational and better sourced than the great majority of the porn performer articles that I've suffered my way through doing BLP cleanups, and the ASCAP award much more substantial than the awards used to demonstrate notability for such performers. And there are other things out there that can be used to further expand the article. [19] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus is that the sources provided in the AfD debate are not sufficient to meet our guidelines. Fram (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion because of lack of references to demonstrate notability. The speedy was contested, however, with several users (at the talk page) saying it's like IMDB, and reliable sources can be found. I've sent it to AfD procedurally because it does not appear quite speedyable but I myself haven't taken the time to do a lot of google searching, etc., so hopefully it can be discussed here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under A7. ... discospinster talk 21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No established notability, and unable to locate reliable sources externally to confirm. This should have gone through speedy, but the author repeatedly remove the speedy tag with no reason or improvements to the article. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. General consensus seems to hold that this individual appears sufficiently notable. Sourcing problems do persist; but the general conclusion seems to be that they are solvable by regular editing and that deletion is not the best course of action at this time. ~ mazca talk 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biography with no indication of notability to explain how this individual meets the guidelines at WP:PROF. No third-party sources cited. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list which is out of date, incomplete, and unrefenced. Category:Nigerian expatriate footballers already exists and provides similar information. Previous AfDs which have resulted in "delete" – one, two, three, four – show that such lists are pointless and listcruft. Note, the previous AfD for this article resulted in a "no consensus." GiantSnowman 18:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to comply with the notability guideline. Those arguing to keep unfortunately do not address this primary reason for deletion - simply being well known in puzzle circles does not make for a verifiable and appropriate encyclopedia article in itself. ~ mazca talk 16:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod expired last year after being multiply endorsed and article was deleted. Article was restored because someone complained. No notability is established for this software. Needs multiple instances of independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage demonstrating enough notability for an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, G12 (obvious copyright violation). Blueboy96 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written article. No references, and the article claims he is still alive, while I can find no reference to support that. I believe the info was copied from here, so it would be in vio of WP:Copyright. Fails WP:BIO. Onopearls (t/c) 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for WP:ORG Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. This article meets both these criteria. Artemis84 (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough Context to determine what this article is really about. Gnews search and google search do not show many results. Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The consensus seems to be that this information is worth keeping, in some form at least. Good arguments have been made for various merges, but there is no consensus as to any particular destination or plan. Further discussion on this topic can be undertaken at the talk page; but as far as this AfD goes there is certainly no consensus for deletion. ~ mazca talk 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely trivial list of plot details. Each robot, with the exception of the main one, only appears for a very brief time. Individually, they mean nothing to the story, so there is no need for a list of them. TTN (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable author; autobiography spam from a COI editor. No evidence that he nor any of his books are notable. (Endorsed prod removed by creator of the page) Triplestop x3 15:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. 5000 copy print run is miniscule. Maybe in the future this startup will be notable, but it isn't now, and it will take a lot of money to make it so. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, also note that AFD created by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per below. Oxicleanfanatic (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted as non-notable - still no reliable sources, fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT. Tassedethe (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dismally fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT, gets zero coverage for her supposed acting career, only coverage is for being the wife of Andrew Strauss under her married name Ruth Strauss. [39], WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Srikanth (speak) 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Neighbours characters. Note that this decision is non-binding, so discussion can continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
might as well toss a few more on the barbie; non-notable fictional character with all the usual fancruft issues. a fictional baby born 3 weeks ago. delete. Jack Merridew 10:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it enough to warrant its own article? Maybe, but its probably more beneficial to Merge with List of Neighbours characters. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT, hardly any third party coverage [50]. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Both sides raise equally strong arguments; no strong consensus either way. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play in a fully-professional competition, being in a squad/roster doesn't satisfy the criteria. Sources provided fail WP:GNG as four of the five are profiles for teams he has played for, thus not being secondary. The other source regarding him signing is only about him signing for Seattle Sounders FC, nothing about the exploits of the player. --Jimbo[online] 13:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. When he plays a competitive game, recreate the article. I would not object to userfying it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following was just added to the article's talk page:
I am not sure why this article has been flagged for deletion but all the information is legitimate. All of this information can be found on Seattle Sounders FC's official website. If a professional athlete's team website isn't a reliable source then what is??
As far as his notability, he is a professional athlete for the number 2 team in the MLS. He has made his debut. He has a player profile on Seattle's website. All the other Seattle Sounders have articles and he has already made his debut. There is no reason for this deletion.
I have instructed the editor how to properly respond to AfDs in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
neither country has a resident embassy, and yes they have 3 minor agreements (including the usual double taxation one). distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, almost all is sport or multilateral [54]. Serbia played Lithuania in a football match in 2008, and I know of at least 1 editor who thinks this should be included because it adds to notability, clearly not. LibStar (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Johann Bessler. – Rich Farmbrough, 10:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC). 10:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a bunch of garbage somebody simply made up and then stuffed into the wikipedia and then spam linked it around. If it worked it would constitute a perpetual motion machine. It is not in any way notable; they have not shown notability, nor could they ever show notability. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image has a link to [55] which is a non reliable physics forum where somebody says he just made it up, and others point out that it doesn't work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE: author requested deletion. Laurent (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable app - only 7 results on Google and nothing on Google News. The app seems to have been very recently released, and the article has been written by its developer for promotion. Laurent (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. 19:06, 25 July 2009 Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) deleted "Traffic control next generation" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Maybe a section in Traffic shaping but not notable in and of itself) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software package. Oscarthecat (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a non-notable neologism. Note: Shortly after deletion, I realized that I mistakenly closed this discussion 1 day early. I'm not restoring the page and re-opening the debate myself, since there were no objections to deletion, but if anybody wishes for this discussion to run for another day, contact me. JamieS93 16:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Oscarthecat (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. inadequate indication of individual notability DGG (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable entertainer. Oscarthecat (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. A strong and unanimous consensus leads to an early closure under the snowball clause. ~ mazca talk 18:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGUIDE. Deprodded by the author. GregorB (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 10:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, we all acknowledge that AfD is not about article improvement, so I don't really want this to focus on the promotional nature of the article, which I was about to address before I realised that it was probably going to be a waste of time.
It's easy to see how this article got past an overstretched new page patrol:
Newsweek magazine called GetEducated.com “a great source for weeding out phony colleges.” [2]. Other notable references have appeared in: CNN.com [8][3], the Wall Street Journal [4], CBS Marketwatch [5], Time [6], BusinessWeek [7], WIRED [8], Fortune [9], The New York Times [10], U.S. News & World Report [11], Forbes [12], Fast Company [13], and others.
It is my contention that when many of these bluffs are called, they fall away into obscurity. A quick look down the titles of the pieces referenced gives the general idea: only the Newsweek piece actually has "getEducated" in it. All the online sources I have clicked onto say basically the same thing: " 'The sector is...' says Vicky Phillips, CEO of Geteducated.com, 'we hope to...' " or some such - the definition of a trivial reference.
I haven't been able to review the offline source (the Newsweek one looks the best) and the NYT article looks promising, but I can't get past page 1 at the moment to see what the coverage was actually like. Needless to say, I worry about their quality.
I would like to know what other people think about this puffery (if sources could be found, I at least would reconsider). Thanks, - Jarry1250 [ humorous – discuss ] 10:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Bigelow Aerospace. Closed a bit early, since this seems an uncontroversial decision. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable on its own, considering it is years away from construction, and may possibly never get built. Could be merged into the main Bigelow article. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect. This should have been done based on the previous AfD mentioned instead of nominating for deletion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game. Could be a speedy candidate I think. Gordonrox24 | Talk 08:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created twice before, first speedy deleted and then by expired prod, the creators are the same people identified at Emeon technologies (also non-notable) as 'key people' - that article also describes this game. Clearly does not meet our criteria at WP:WEB. I am taking Emeon technologies to AfD as well. Dougweller(talk) 05:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of this page. I believe this topic to be noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are hundreds of active players across the globe in 30+ countries. I deemed this as worthy as other games which are mentioned on Wikipedia such as Age of Empires. Please provide more information as to what about this article does not fit within the guidelines. Thank you. In addition, Emeon Technologies is a corporation worthy of note on Wikipedia as well, having offices in 5 cities throughout the United States with 2008 net revenues in excess of $1.7 Million dollars. A company of its size, operating for nearly half a decade is surely worthy of note. Dr dawson m 16:42, 19 July 2009
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not have it's content covered in any reliable sources. During a search through Google, what I found was fansites, video websites, shopping sites, forums, etc. As the searching went on, the sources became less relevant to the subject, and instead were sites listing mere quotations, links, etc. This article's content cannot comply to WP:V or WP:RS. This article cites only television episodes as sources, which are primary sources. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted A7, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. Fails WP:BIO. Should be Speedy deleted, but SPA removed CSD. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 10:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit odd, as I am the creator of the article. However, the subject fails any standard of notability. I think I was just new to Wikipedia, had an old book on my hands, and thought it deserved to be here. Looking back, the subject really isn't that notable. Google returns nothing of use besides people selling it or collectors of odd/old/cultish books. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Contested Prod claiming Wikipedia:GNG however player's only claim to potential notability is as a hockey player, so he would need to meet WP:Athlete. Not too sure making the World Junior Championship Tournament All Star team is a notable enough honor to establish his current notability. Pparazorback (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn, no delete votes and notability shown. Non admin closure-SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 09:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI; only ref is his obituary Falcon8765 (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 05:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artist does not entirely fit notability under WP:MUSIC (no charting song, not singed to a major label); most references are blog sites, especially NY Times link. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 10:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced POV fork, fancruft. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily per Biruitorul. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 00:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy notability requirement PROD was previously removed by article creator "Leolinder." Possible conflict of interest since the term was created earlier this year by "Leo Linder." Edison (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Apparent original research. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't played professionally, so doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Fences&Windows 02:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of compositions by Camille Saint-Saëns#Cello and orchestra. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need for this page. Saint-Saëns wrote 2 cello concertos, granted, but neither of them is ever referred to as just "the Saint-Saëns Cello Concerto". We don't have similar pages for the Beethoven symphonies, the Rachmaninoff piano concertos, the Haydn sonatas ... JackofOz (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'll provide a copy of the deleted content if anyone wants to preform a merge. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a one-shot comic book enemy, and the entire article is just made up of plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nja247 10:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted with A7 and recreated some days after. Magioladitis (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Editors may merge if consensus dictates Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
might as well toss a few more on the barbie; non-notable fictional character with all the usual fancruft issues. delete. Jack Merridew 08:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userified in lieu of deletion. May be moved back when sourced, but placing the identical article in mainspace would be subject to G4 Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a non-notable essay. It was tagged for speedy deletion twice (once by me and another time by another editor), and both times the article creator removed the tag (s/he even stated a source was added, but it never was). Then, the article appeared to have a copyright issue, so a user prodded it as such, but the creator removed that tag as well with neither reason nor improvement to the article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default to keep Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable independent act that fails Wikipedia's WP:BAND criteria for inclusion. Single mention on a non-notable amateur heavy metal fansite and a couple of MySpace links do not support notability. Fair Deal (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sole keep "vote" does not address the nominator's concerns. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod for a non notable act. No coverage appears to exist outside of forums and blogs Nuttah (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable designs, no reliable sources found to back up a lick of the information besides an interview which is not enough. Suggest deletion and moving Mark Gray (singer) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to Keep Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable game. Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to Keep Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
American charity. Article clearly written by someone with a COI. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nuttah tried to AFD this but didn't finish the job because Twinkle glitched. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Business listing for an art gallery, with not the slightest evidence for, or even suggestion of, wider impact. Has a long list of artists it represents, almost all of which are either redlinks or dab entries which don't include artists. Calton | Talk 02:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another chart hosted on Americatop100.com and blogspot. No apparent notability, no indication of source, no indication of methodology: in short, no reason to live. Should follow in the footsteps of its brethren at WP:Articles for deletion/México Top 100. —Kww(talk) 22:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]