The result was delete. Sandstein 05:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod and then an attempt to list at AFD by someone else didn't work. I am trying to fix this. Reason for deletion given was "This article is about a non-notable musician. It's only links are to disambiguation articles on non notable webpages and commercial RP releases. The subject is not notable enough to merit an article and does not meet general Wikipedia notability guidelines. The article does not link to notable sources. The artists has not release any material on any notable record label, publishing house or achieved any record sales or chart success. The article claims that her notability come from her video being banned from Youtube.com. Inappropriate sexual content postings on youtube are not a criteria for a wikipedia article. The article has clearly been created by the artists as self promotion." I agree that it should be deleted, so count this as my delete too. DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Premium Outlets is part of the unquestionably notable Simon Property Group, but I do not believe Premium Outlets has standalone notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally nominated this article for deletion in September of last year, with notability concerns. I still have them, particularly as the article has been mostly untouched since the AFD closed (I see two edits that weren't by a bot or a user using popups). The COI, which I was wholly unaware of last time, seems to still be an issue, and that user has exactly three edits since the last AFD closed. He (and others) have had plenty of time to improve the article, and it hasn't been. I just feel that this article really shouldn't be. Nosleep break my slumber 23:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Direct copy of Alfonso Plazas Vega Conspiracy, currently being discussed for Afd, created by confirmed sockpuppet of main author the first article. RolandR (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No evidence of notability or existence. SilkTork *YES! 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely hoax Can find no trace of her, or her purported husband Prince Friedrich of Hesse-Homburg (1802-1879). Even if this is true - just being the wife & daughter of someone does not constitute sufficient notability be justify her own article Passportguy (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Merge or redirect was considered, but as people have said, there is no worthwhile content, and search term is unlikely. SilkTork *YES! 21:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising for likely non-notable building project Passportguy (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, a merge is entirely unnecessary because there is no encyclopaedic content to merge, and a redirect is unnecessary because this is not a plausible search term.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As noted, there are no reliable sources. SilkTork *YES! 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been flagged for notability issues and lack of reliable primary sourcing pretty much since its creation. Subject does not seem to have received significant independent coverage. See talk page discussions. Nothing substantial has been able to be added to address concerns, leaving the subjects notability and some of the claims made rather tenuous or unable to be substantiated. Mfield (Oi!) 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While sources are provided, they are not substantial enough to prove notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom on behalf of User:Evangeline.a, who added the AFD template to this article but didn't complete the nomination. On the talk page, she wrote 'This is not an article. This is a promotional piece and has to be deleted.'; I take it that's the reason here. Robofish (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The last two keep !votes were based on WP:USEFUL, but the delete !votes were not convincing enough to establish a consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and unreferenced list that does not show why the bands listed are considered notable (aside, presumably, from their inclusion on wikipedia) and is entirly subjective as to what someone would consider "soft rock". BlueSquadronRaven 21:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
talk:DunkinDonutBoy|talk]]) 04:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. As pointed out by Kim D. Petersen, of the article's two references, one calls the other a hoax. SilkTork *YES! 21:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. This has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. (A good example of selection bias.) Atmoz (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a pair of articles in the Washington Times [7] and the Telegraph [8] which assume that the Gore effect is a known term. However I have also turned up evidence of an earlier meaning [9] which confuses matters slightly, and the references I could turn up in academic papers mostly seem to use that meaning. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No reliable sources. I will userfy on request if somebody wishes to work on finding sources. SilkTork *YES! 21:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. No non-trivial coverage found ... only sources found in Yahoo and Google appear to be press releases. Blueboy96 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one that created the article. It's largely based off of GemStone's technical white paper. This paper has some great information on distributed caching in general that I believe adds to the value of wikipedia. It gives an example of a distributed caching solution that fixes the scalability issues most IT architectures have, and how exactly that solution goes about solving them. In my searches on wikipedia I couldn't find any other documents that even attempted providing coverage of this area like mine does. I know there isn't really any unbiased information on the web to counteract the two references found within the document, but that's just the nature of this industry. Along those lines, I will attempt to find some objective links I can throw under an external links header. If there is certain language you'd like me to remove, please let me know. I would really appreciate it if this document was allowed to stand. Thank you for your consideration.
I threw in all of GemFire's competitors at the bottom. Also note that I used microsoft/windows entry on wikipedia as a guide for writing this. plamb85 —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The result was Nominator Withdrew - thinking back, definite conflict of interest, due to my extreme dislike of mormons and feminists.--Unionhawk Talk 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable blog with practically no third party sources. Unionhawk Talk 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No coverage in reliable sources neon white talk 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn when sources were found DGG (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability questionable under WP:POLITICIAN. Position on County Board of Supervisors does not confer automatic notability as a legislative position would have, so issue falls on sourcing. In this case, I have been able to turn up three mentions in the Sacramento Bee discussing votes or quotes from him, but I do not feel any of the three sources cover the subject in sufficient detail to meet WP:GNG. A fourth newspaper source covers the death of his father, and I feel it is insufficient to prove notability as well, as the subject of the article is his father, and the coverage of him is only in that context. There are numerous career listings and a few public documents that confirm his position, but no significant biographical coverage was located. I am nominating for AfD with the personal recommendation that the article be deleted. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purely unsourced information pertaining to a biographical subject, and therefore fails WP:N and WP:BLP. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn. While I still stand by my point that this list needs urgent sourcing, even I'm going to admit this was a bit rash. For now, I'm going to agree with the unanimity in keeping the article for now to give time for sources to be added. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This article fails WP:N; there are no multiple, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the topic, and the embassies are already recorded in the Diplomatic missions of Indonesia & Bulgaria lists. Biruitorul Talk 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod, no indication of how this poem is notable. RadioFan (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Syrinx#Syrinx_in_popular_culture. Merged content to Syrinx#Syrinx_in_popular_culture - delete title as unlikely search. SilkTork *YES! 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just trivial listcruft at best. If there is any actual important notes: they belong in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is for editors like Mintrick to not take the lazy way out in the first place, and to address cargo cult writing head on in the article at hand. This may, indeed, involve talk page discussion, which was not done in this case.
The idea, that human knowledge that is merely the perception of "the common" is not human knowledge, is going to impede that process, and Mintrick would do well to lose that attitude. It's just as valid to address the portrayal of something in 20th and 21st century literature and art, based upon sources that make that analysis, as it is to address its portrayal in 19th century literature and art. The correct solution to bad writing is good writing, not taking the lazy way out and sweeping the bad writing under the rug (and then edit warring without discussion when someone reverts that).
There's no reason to keep this fork; it's authorship is not correctly attributed in its edit history; this isn't a title that we need as a redirect; and the correct action for Mintrick to have taken, when xyr erasure from Syrinx was reverted, was discussion on Talk:Syrinx. Indeed, the correct action in the first place was rewriting, so that the article addressed literary and artistic representations properly, not sweeping bad content under the rug at all. (It's worth noting that the content on 19th century representations isn't any better in quality than that on 20th and 21st century representations. That's cargo cult written bad content, too.) The same outcome should happen here as has happened so many times before: Delete. The disagreement over the content in the original article should be discussed on its talk page. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced list of productions masquerading as a BLP. The only link is to a primary source. Google search throws up nothing biographical. Perhaps it would be better as a category linked to those publications that have articles or in the form of a list of publications? HJMitchell You rang? 18:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 22:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable producer, only 1 google hit (the person's website) Passportguy (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Alexf(talk) 18:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hoax, page title likely taken from William H. Barnes Passportguy (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No evidence of existence, let alone notability SilkTork *YES! 22:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, WP:MADEUP Passportguy (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. semi speedy or whatever per improvements. Pretty clear this isn't going to be deleted per the improbements made. Am assuming nom made in good faith, thanks to al working on the article StarM 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced one-liner, no indication that this film meets WP:FILM. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Letting Off the Happiness. Redirect as standard for songs on albums already listed on Wikipedia. Both spellings. SilkTork *YES! 22:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Padriac" should be spelt "Padraic";it was a typo and obviously created by error
The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one-liner unsourced article about a shopping center, without any indication why it's notable. WP:GNG Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 22:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod placed by 2 editor removed by author. Unsourced article about a non-notable, unpublished book, zero Google hits. Passportguy (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Keep as DisAmb page. SilkTork *YES! 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Straight-up dictionary definition laced with WP:OR. I see no way that this can extend beyond a dicdef without automatically lapsing into a list of songs that should be title tracks but aren't, pseudo-title tracks that are extensions of the album's title, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Never Breathe What You Can't See. Per WP:NSONGS SilkTork *YES! 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 22:27, May 7, 2009
Article has no reliable sources, nothing to show any notability. Article created by an account whose only edits have been to create this article and promote the Greenstreet company on other pages. Blatant spam. DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 23:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no assertion of wide use; an old neologism (oldolgism? Whatever.) Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR Ironholds (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced list with arbitrary distinction for inclusion Tomdobb (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod - no indication of Notability and no Sources added that could establish it Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This assortment of trivia and plot summary fails the general notability guideline with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. McWomble (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Band does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Discography consists only of two singles. References seem to provide only trivial coverage. No clear indication that the distinction as one of "the ten hopes for the near future" is significant. Is Xfm a major radio network and are they in a national rotation? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Based on my interpretation of the consensus here, WP:BLP1E/WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply. As noted many times throughout the discussion, BLP1E applies to low-profile individuals; Mr. Johnston is far from low-profile. Overall, the arguments in favor of retaining the article are stronger than those in favor of deletion, which at times bordered on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This may be revisited in a few months, once the dust settles a bit. On a side note, I'm closing this a bit early, as it's clear that the result isn't going to change. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect which existed in this namespace was deleted due to Rfd. Article was created in same space, then deleted by me as a BLP violation; subsequent discussion on the drv indicates editors would prefer a full afd. From BLP not a tabloid paper from the intro should cover it, but also read Presumption in favor of privacy, and WP:1E: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Given that this individual was deemed, by Rfd, to be only possibly barely notable enough for a redir if his name remained at Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 13, he's not notable. Johnston is not 1E, he's 1E once removed, as Bristol is the 1E (no article on her due to 1E as well.) Arbcom has instructed that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance." then clearly deletion in a BLP context is an appropriate choice. Those who read the Special enforcement on biographies of living persons linked to will note that appeals to actions taken under that provision are to go through ANI or appeal to the committee; as there is clearly disagreement whether this was a BLP violation or not (as evidenced by the Drv) I waive any such process-wonkery and strongly urge those tempted to indulge in that kind of irrelevant minutia to also ignore that proviso and approach this as a plain vanilla Afd.
Further, as the article made zero claims of notability (I consider calling Johnston a "celebrity father" intensely bad writing, not a claim of notability) it also qualifies under A7. Finally, as a side note, the article is in the space of a redir which had been deleted due to the nn of the subject, it seems unlikely the subject is actually notable enough for an entire article - which contains the date of the child's birth, which has been removed elsewhere as violating privacy of a minor; this makes the article a coatrack for trying to get that irrelevant detail in past those watching the Palin family of articles. The article also highlighted Johnston's "I don't want kids" and "I'm a f - - -in' redneck... Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass" from his MySpace, which he took down the minute the news media found it, which is precisely the kind of thing BLP protects him from having to endure - his old bs comments on MySpace should not haunt him forever, and he clearly doesn't want them public or he wouldn't have taken them down. As an OTRS volunteer, I would certainly remove should someone open a ticket requesting such youthful folly be expunged, as it is not news, not relevant, and is embarrassing. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, with nothing better to do than embarrass people over trivial details of their past. Add it all up, and there is zero reason to have this article on WP and quite a few not to.
My preferred outcome: Delete article, replace with Redirect to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy where Johnston's mention has remained stable. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I think the article's previous content and history should be deleted is because it is not encyclopaedic in nature and is in conflict with the guidelines and policies I cited a moment ago.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
[out] Well, not quite. Rather, I recognize that a number of Wikipedia's guidelines are far divorced from my own sense, and I recognize that I can neither ignore these guidelines nor cheer on while others do so, but instead should (a) work to change the guidelines, (b) find policies that trump them, or (c) cite "IAR", which is something that people should only do after careful thought, and openly. I don't think IAR allows me to interpret WP:NOTE and the like to mean what I think they should mean; rather it allows me to openly acknowledge that they mean something else and to flout them all the same, IFF I have a very good reason. ¶ I'm not aware that covering such talk-show-circuit non-entities will make Wikipedia more like a tabloid gossip column than a serious encyclopedia. I certainly concede that it's fully compatible with making it so, but as long as the write-ups for tabloidy personalities and events are done scrupulously, as this one is, I'm untroubled. ¶ We agree that OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no defense of this article, but EXPRESSLYPERMITTEDCRAPMOUNTAINS might give pause for thought, and I therefore proffer for your consideration the WP:BIO criterion "Is a Playboy Playmate". We read that "As of April 2009, 666 women have been Playmates of the Month." (Christian conspiracy theorists take note of that number!) What this means, as I understand it, is that WP-"notability" is obtained by the mere display of your tits for the center pages of this venerable and fading publication for the male shopper. No other achievement whatever is needed. Just how obscure are these people? Consider the list "Notable Playmates": a typical entry reads briefcase model on Deal or No Deal; contestant on VH1's Rock of Love with Bret Michaels. The "Playmate" article tacitly admits that the great majority don't even reach this level of "notability"; ergo, well over five hundred of these people are complete nobodies. Now, does their inclusion harm WP? I don't suppose it does. The typical person arriving to read up on, say, Fibonacci number is I think unlikely to be troubled to learn that the same work of reference/trivia would tell them of Janet Lupo that Family reactions to her appearance in the November 1975 issue were mixed. Her father was very upset about it, but her mother liked it. Eventually, her father did come around, and he became very supportive of her decision. After touring the United States, Canada, and Japan to promote Playboy, Lupo started working as a bartender at a restaurant owned by a friend's husband. (All of which we can anyway flag with "((fact))" if we wish.) ¶ Back to Johnston. If, or so far as, you are interested in my own intuitions or beliefs (which I don't think should be a factor), my hunch is that he is actually important to Gov Palin, as Palin repeatedly (endearingly or tiresomely) packaged herself as a "mom" rather than as a stateswoman, driving her brood to hockey matches and otherwise concerning herself about their welfare. She, McCain, her own or McCain's handlers, or the Party, also chose to display the brood, together with Johnston. This may for all I know have been a reluctant concession to a sexist infotainment industry that has little interest in the offspring of male contenders; but whatever the reason, that's the way it was. And however improbable or depressing or silly it may seem, Johnston now has a "media presence". -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) tweaked 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. | ” |
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable youth sporting event. PROD denied (by author without explanation.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Audofleda appears to be notable primarily as the wife of Theodoric the Great, and to have no notability in her own right. A search on Google Scholar brings up a handful of German articles that note she was the wife of Theodoric; searches on JSTOR and Cambridge CrossSearch reveal nothing at all. The fact that she married Theodoric is already mentioned in the article on him, and suggests this article might be a candidate for removal. Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Original reason for PROD was "There are not enough third party sources to verify the historical significance of this match. This is also extremely likely to end up being loaded with POV." Reason given for removing PROD was "the "no historical significance" argument carries little weight, speaking from experience at AfD". The fact is that the only third party sources exist because the match happened yesterday, and there are no sources to indicate that, unlike the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final, this match will be historically significant in 50 years. – PeeJay 13:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Koos (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Was listed by User:RadioFan with rationale: "tagged with notability concerns for over a month. Lacks 3rd party references" - The unreferenced and notability tags were removed by the article's creator along with the prod notice with an edit with no edit comment and marked m for minor, with only addition to the article being links to reviews on some extremely minor sites and a link to the publisher. We need nontrivial coverage from reliable third parties that demonstrate notability to have a Wikipedia article, not just any old site putting up a half-assed review hoping to make some money on ads/affiliate links to Amazon. DreamGuy (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 23:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. No references can be found to verify the existence of this band; the reference provided refer only to the existence of the individual members, but do not mention this band specifically. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unnecessary and virtually useless disambiguous page. Every Nightmare article has a template (Template:Nightmareseries) that links every single Nightmare related page. We also have A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), which is linked in the first sentence of each of the film pages. Having a disambiguous page that does nothing but link film pages that are already linked like that twice is unnecessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. SNOW, withdrwwn by nom. DGG (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable researcher User A1 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this can be closed per WP:SNOW User A1 (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Palace of Justice siege. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. May be recreated when there are reliable sources. SilkTork *YES! 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. We have no information on it other than the fact that it is going to start casting soon. Delete, with (of course) no problem with a recreation should more information become available. The fact that casting hasn't even started yet suggests that information won't become available for quite some time. Ironholds (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of official use that I can find. Ironholds (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no record of this feature in any offical Antarctic names gazetteer Polargeo (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This stream is not listed by the USGS GNIS antarctic names gazeteer. It is not listed by the more extensive SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica. On googling the only non-wikipedia originating reference to this feature that I can find is the external link given on the article page itself Research on Streams and Lakes in East Antarctica. This external page gives a picture of the feature which has also been added to the article. I suspect that the feature has been confused with Lawson Creek. The list of steams flowing into Lake Bonney does not include this stream but does include Lawson Creek. Polargeo (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just double checked the article which the info on this stream comes from. It is a blog (okay granted a USGS blog). In the blog they also wrongly name Santa Fe Stream 'Santa Fe Creek'. So I think it unreliable to base the existance of this feature on it. Polargeo (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. The article is the typical company-speak, resembling an advertisement or. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Execom+Novi+Sad shows nothing but PR (prlog.com, openpr.com, linkedin.com), facebooks, company's own websites and similar. The creator, Apopara (talk · contribs) has the same username as company's contactperson. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your company's promotion. No such user (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Designing your own degree program does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (namely those pertaining to 'significant coverage' and 'sources'). Temporary, insubstantial news coverage; second source is a school newspaper; second source is a dead link. Article has received similar criticisms over the past year (see page's discussion and history). Author denies and speedily deletes edits. Kallath (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anything, it is the certificate itself that is notable, not the person, see WP:ONEEVENT. There are a few non-bloggy references (http://www.canesinternational.org/?p=591) but they are trivial in mentioning his name, I see nothing that meets WP:RS that discusses Mr. Dodge outside of earning the certificate. He's not the first "space lawyer", merely the first person to have a certificate in it from a school. Also, has this claim actually been verified? How do we know there are no similar certificates issued in China, for instance? That's why reliable resources that research and fact-check are so important. Something else to ponder: if all of his classmates had received the same certificate instead of a certificate in criminal law, would they be equally notable? Drawn Some (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the deletion debate for Earliest living Mayor of San Francisco it was mentioned that this should be deleted too. I agree. This is trivia, and in the unlikely event that this info is needed one could refer to List of mayors of San Francisco. Delete. TheCoffee (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination, non resident embassies. the only connection is a place called Armenia, Colombia. and the only real media coverage of Armenia and Colombia is that the town had an earthquake. otherwise no actual coverage [58] LibStar (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. -- User:Docu 17:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
another random combination, neither country can be bothered accrediting an ambassador preferring to have relations from their own capital cities and not even via Moscow which seems logical. No state visits [59] Most relations happen in Armenia-EU or football context.[60] LibStar (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM LibStar (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Marasmusine (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a new installment to The Elder Scrolls franchise. Author removed prod-delete tag. Violates WP:CRYSTAL: the only article that provides evidence of an upcoming sequel doesn't even offer anything other than "it's happening". Unless more significant and substantial info about the upcoming game gets posted pretty soon, this article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist who apparently only currently has notability in the Syracuse, New York area. Most G-hits are to his own site and craigslist with only minor coverage in some local papers. No evidence of notability outside Syracuse. Violates WP:N. Oh, and the entire article is also a clear cut violation of WP:COI as it appears to be by Mr. Weismore himself. Redfarmer (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete, good arguments for both keeping and redirecting. IMO the arguments for keeping are slightly stronger (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject, Ammerman, is apparently notable for appearing on America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12 and the BIO is an extended recap of her appearance on the show. Lack of notability could be classified as WP:ONEEVENT. The article is well sourced, but the sources seem to be mostly supporting trivia about Ammerman. This article was originally a redirect and was recently expanded into a full article. I personally recommend reverting back to a redirect and merging any useful material into America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12. Plastikspork (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this page should be deleted. Far too much information about her Next Top Model experience which is not important and already recapped on the cycle 12 page, plus she has done nothing else of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.102.195 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Game guide is a violation to video game guidelines. SkyWalker (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. -- User:Docu 17:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
as per Romanian speaking User:Biruitorul: Under Communism, Romania was far closer to India (which followed a socialist economic model until 1991), and that hasn't really changed in the last 20 years. According to this (rough translation here), the "relationship" is what you'd expect - a few visits (which I'm sure some will seize upon to "prove" they're best friends), a few agreements (including the obligatory double taxation avoidance one), two-way trade of $55 million, Pakistan's economy being $504 billion in size and Romania's, $264 billion. Other than that and a few news briefs like these, there really isn't much there. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all articles to the tune of Xth United States Congress - summary and Xth United States Congress - state delegation, as the consensus appears to apply to all articles of such a theme and not just the 46th Congress. This is license to delete these pages as CSD G6 "Housekeeping", assuming I do not get there first. —harej 11:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm AfDing all articles in the format "Xth United States Congress - summary" and "Xth United States Congress - state delegations". They are essentially direct copies of "Xth United States Congress" articles, and completely unneeded.
As an example, lets look at 46th United States Congress - state delegations, 46th United States Congress - summary and 46th United States Congress. The two spinoffs are almost identical information with different formatting; the summary is indeed not a summary at all, being around the same size as the central article. The summary contains almost identical information to the main article, almost word for word, while the state delegations article is simply the list of representatives/senators in the main article organised "list of delegates from state X (rep and senator)" rather than "list of senators from state X" "list of representatives from state X". This is meaningless and useless cruft. There is not even any evidence that the creator considers them viable; he as good as admitted that these articles were created as a place he could play with away from an editor he was in a dispute with.
Note to closing admin, if this closes as delete - I've avoided adding them all here because there are about 200 of the damn things. The format is summarised above, and all the articles are found in here, so it shouldn't be too hard to bag them all. Ironholds (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through Stilltim's contribution history, the edit history of the first of these articles he created, and of the article it was based on, I just don't find the protestations of having had a substantive distinction credible. The first article created was 50th United States Congress - summary. It had its genesis in a very short dispute at 50th United States Congress. As best I can tell, the only major changes were to revert the inclusion of an infobox and to re-link dates. I am not going to check all the articles, but I am having a lot of trouble believing the assertion that the summary articles were created over a dispute as to content rather than style. Most of his contributions to the main Congress articles have consisted of changing dablinks and other minor changes. The suggestion made, through Gordonrox24, that Stilltim was reverted multiple times before getting frustrated is also hard to swallow.
He was reverted once on each of the articles where he deleted infoboxes and linked dates, but he did not follow up on any of those on any talk page. Moreover, his deletion and link edits were all marked as minor and contained the deceptive edit summary "cleanup". In the end, this behaviour is hard to justify and even harder to understand. It is inconceivable that an editor of such long standing made no attempt whatever to discuss the matter on the talk page of any of the articles involved or the editor who reverted him. The attempt to sneak in his preferred format one last time, in my eyes, detracts from his credibility.
Stilltim's only attempt at an explanation was to User:Ironholds, who seemingly had nothing to do with the dispute. That explanation, here, has a whiff of wp:own about it. In the explanation, Stilltim speaks of another editor "disrupting" his attempts to create consistent format over a period of years. The infoboxes, though, were only added fairly recently and had only been reverted in this recent round of edits. What that shows is that Stilltim is not discussing a pattern of his adding material only to have it deleted. Rather, it shows that Stilltim will revert anything that does not comport with the way he wants the articles to appear. The articles now up for deletion cannot be kept just because not everyone agrees with his vision of how the ordinal Congress articles should look. -Rrius (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Layout of the ordinal Congress articles that should have occurred before the summary articles were created. -Rrius (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New discussion here.--gordonrox24 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Move to Anouk. SilkTork *YES! 23:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced one liner about a name, without any indication why (if) it's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, being in school plays is not an assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; nearly an A7, which I declined because some assertion is there. (Lack of reliable sources is not sufficient for A7.) Frank | talk 03:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:NOTDIR LibStar (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created by the BLP himself. I don't think it meets the criteria outlined in WP:PROF or WP:ACADEMIC even though the BLP is an editor of two journals, no article links to the page Johndowning (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
only Uruguay has a resident embassy in S Africa. no notable coverage of relations except on the rugby and football field [78] LibStar (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
((subst:spa|username)) |
Non-notable performer whose "the world-touring hit" comes up with 19 Google hits. Repeated requests for sources and for proof, and a speedy deletion tag, have been removed with no sources provided. Note also that the article appears to be an autobiography, but the autobiography and coi tags are repeatedly removed without justification. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some reviews of Burn the Floor bud. Read Up.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=burn+the+floor+review&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's their sound designer. I met him at a show in Boston.
http://www.talkinbroadway.com/regional/dallas/dallas81.html http://www.maryellenhunt.com/artsblog/2009/02/burn-floor-ballroom-for-new-generation.html http://www.yelp.com/biz/burn-the-floor-post-street-theatre-san-francisco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 02:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I met the guy, saw his work. The show is coming to Broadway. It was a hit in San Fran last month. Sheesh, man, cut some slack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 02:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What must be verifiable? That the show got rave reviews in San Fran? I posted those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many sound engineers get mentioned in reviews of shows? It's the nature of audio engineers and other fields of work that are in the "background" of a show.
In any case, there's a already a link to Hugh Wilson's website that mentions his music and partial discography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art
You can say it's about consensus, but when a majority outyell a minority and pages and lines and information gets perpetually and needlessly deleted, the sham that is Wikipedia is exposed.--Melchiord (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The majority. Wikipedia is a farce. It's a numbers website plain and simple. Mob rules. Absolutely no credibility whatsoever, and every needless delete proves the point. "Notable" is subjective. Many "notable" people had articles written in the press before the internet that may have since faded from the public. This is no reason to remove the information from Wikipedia. It's just powerplay from people with nothing better to do. And yes, this belongs up top as it's a discussion of the template, NOT of Delboy.--Melchiord (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008.
As a varied, noteworthy and currently active member of Australian and International arts communities, it seemed that an actual page, as opposed to a user bio was appropriate. In my experience and observation, Australian artists are regularly ignored by the media both in Australia and overseas for a multitude of reasons. I didn't think that a supposed encyclopaedia would harbour regional bias.
I am disappointed in User:Who then was a gentleman? for poor and misleading research tactics. It is plainly clear that as an audio engineer I use my real name - "As it's audio engineer, Wilson has"... So using a search for - delboy +"burn the floor" to justify Burn The Floor's apparent lack of credibility is alarming. A search for "burn the floor" is far more revealing in that respect. A search for "burn the floor" +"derek wilson" does not come up with much because as previously stated - "How many sound engineers get mentioned in reviews of shows? It's the nature of audio engineers and other fields of work that are in the "background" of a show."
A search for "Drowning Jester" also show a different set of results.
I am not claiming to be as famous or notable as Michael Jackson for example, or even famous at all. But whether Wikipedia 'ratifies' it or not, my contributions to the industry at large are undeniable. Delboy-db (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | Remember to assume good faith on the part of others |
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
whilst these 2 countries have resident embassies, their relationship is not widely covered and mainly limited in a multilateral sense with other countries [81] Swiss govt doesn't say much either [82] LibStar (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the same thing could be asked of any article on any topic in the history of Wikipedia that has been deleted not just bilateral relations, you are welcome to request a deletion review, if you disagree. mind you, you would think other (not all) editors would show proof of searching themselves if they supported delete.LibStar (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.
The result was delete and redirect to Tea Party protests. Contributors are unconvinced that this is a sufficiently distinct topic from Tea Party protests or that the organization even exists and is notable; if the best source for this is a Weekly World News article, we have some WP:V problems. Sandstein 05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a clear content fork of the larger Tea Party protests article and covers the exact same subject. There is no actual political party called "New American Tea Party", rather this is a euphemistic way of describing the organizers of the protests (as is covered in the other article). As a content fork, this article is veering down a more POV path than consensus would allow on the larger article. This article should be deleted and redirected (or possibly merged and redirected if any useful and unique information about the subject are contained here). Loonymonkey (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bearian suggested WP:AfD. The creator's talk page shows a lot of related activity. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC) - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band with no sources apart from member created or submitted content, let alone reliable. XenocideTalk|Contributions 01:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started this article for Jasper Wrath because it was one of the first bands for James Christian and Jeff Cannata. Christian later went on to be the frontman for the notable '80s band House of Lords. Cannata later went on to start the '80s band Arc Angel. I think it is important to showcase the history of musicians and their earlier bands. Jasper Wrath, in their own right, was a very popular band in Connecticut and the rest of New England throughout the '70s. They even released an album through MGM Records, a major record label. 2112guyTalk|Contributions 21:55, 6 May 2009 (EST)
Yes, there are reliable third-party references. The article has been updated and references have been added. 2112guyTalk|Contributions 22:32, 6 May 2009 (EST)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A local political party with no indications of notability. I found a few mentions in the local paper, e.g. here. This organization has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:ORG. Atmoz (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article's subject is not notable as a actress and only being notable for getting murdered fails WP:BLP1E. BJTalk 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-intended how-to article. However, it runs afoul of WP:NOTHOWTO. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete G3. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax article. I did a google search and I got no hits. Statements like "Jimmy is going to be a Nurse because he really likes to clean butthole." and "saved many American lifes in Iraq while killing thousands of Muslims (AKA Terrorists) and being the best Medic to ever step foot on earth." also point it to being a hoax. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:N 2 google news searches couldn't find significant coverage [96] [97] LibStar (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a repeatedly deleted article that was finally brought to a point where I felt it was borderline - I unsalted it per an RFPP request and thought that this venue was the best way to decide whether or not it passes muster. While there are now some possibly reliable sources, I am still not sure that this meets notability requirements - there are no RS articles that actually feature Gamma Beta; the articles merely mention that GB participated in this or that event. Tan | 39 16:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why these other articles aren't scrutinized as this one. (Hawee (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 04:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established with reliable third-party sources. KurtRaschke (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Creator does not have an article, and the play has no reliable sources to establish notability. GlassCobra 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to American_Doll_Posse#Track_listing. Redirect "without prejudice". Consider this a "no consensus" close combined with an editorial decision to redirect (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no attempt to establish the notability of its subject. --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically an original essay. No reason why whitewater rafting in Malaysia is more notable than anywhere else. No indication of why the places listed are better than any of the other places in Malaysia. Shall we create an infinite number of (Hobby) in (country) articles? Deprodded by author without explanation after the author removed the speedy delete template (though speedy didn't really apply here). eaolson (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is an original post from me to introduce white water rafting in malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveling2u (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. The subject is a former Episcopal priest, the author of one novel, and was the subject of a brief bit of news a few years ago when he resigned his orders. The subject himself seems to think he is not notable ([99]). Tb (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the article in question, I would point out that Melnyk did receive additional press mention recently--not by his own intention, but because of several later Episcopal cases analogous to his. I suppose he is keeping a low profile, and have no desire to disturb this. He perceives an effort by conservative Episcopalians to embarrass liberal leaders by drawing attention to stories like this. This strikes me as plausible, but still, I found out about him without looking for him. Dawud (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Listed for 20 days with nobody but the nominator arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability I can find (unless an EM entry counts?), fails WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject User234 (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Listed for 20 days with nobody besides the nominator arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although article tries to indicate notability, the only web references to this band or its albums are self-promotion sites such as YouTube and MySpace, or through file sharing sites. MightyWarrior (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Dream Police. Wizardman 23:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Been listed for 20 days, it's time to close this (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unrefed 1 liner BLP about a local sportscaster; fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Tiptoety talk 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate list. Scope is too wide. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created the list. The main list is Category:People from Northumberland (i.e. born or raised there) which is just a long list of names. I wanted to break that list down - which is why I started this. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be me misunderstanding what a list is meant to be. I had/have no intention of providing sources for any of the entries. What I wanted to do was make Category:People from Northumberland more helpful i.e. by grouping them by occupation. Note that the list includes all those in the sub categories of People from NBL. Or is there a better way of doing it? p.s. categories won't work - I started with 'Northumberland footballers' and that was immediately Afd'd Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was proposed for deletion on April 2nd with the following reason: "If she is 'best well known' for a bit part, that suggests she is not particularly notable. . .", contested by IP without reason given on the next day. I re-PRODed it by mistake. AfD nomination on the following grounds: No independent reliable sources to show this person passes WP:ENTERTAINER. MLauba (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
company with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is quite the mishmash. First of all, the title is an adjective, which is strong evidence that the article is about a word rather than about a concept (which are almost always expressed as nouns). Second of all, much of the prose portion of this article is about the word itself, rather than the concept underlying it. Third, the discussion of the actual phenomenon of merchandising of licensed characters is covered by Merchandising#Licensing. Finally, the bottom portion of this article is nothing but an unsourced list of properties which one or more unknown editors considered to be "toyetic". In short, this is not a suitable encyclopedic article. Powers T 18:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: Here's a quote from the first source (written by Ernest Sternberg, professor at the University of Buffalo), that makes the argument against redirection: "The output of toyetic production need not be merchandise." Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g11 advertising, g12 copyvio, directly cut and pasted from Green Party website. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently unelected politician, candidate in forthcoming election. Seems prominent in the local community, but no indication they meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. CultureDrone (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is simply a mathematical error, as I explained in detail on the article's talk page. It attributes the idea to Milton Loyer (hence the name). Milton Loyer has recanted after reading my explanation on the article's talk page. I waited a long time before listing this for deletion because the creator of the article, Gknauth, after acknowledging the error, said he would replace the content. At first he said he would do this within 24 hours, then in a later exchange of email suggested it would be done soon (less specific). Some time has gone by with no progress on this. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]