The result was redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#Elementary schools. The school was already listed there; there appears to be nothing to merge barring a fundamental restructuring of the section. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary school with little significant coverage in reliable sources, just a few notes about a virus in 1996. Shubinator (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#Elementary schools. The school was already listed there; there appears to be nothing to merge barring a fundamental restructuring of the section. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary school with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Shubinator (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing individual opinions. Sandstein 05:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Opinion piece that was never finished. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I created this article is because nothing is happening with the wahhabi article and all the while, this misguided knwoledge is constantly being propagated. I have demonstrably shown using authentic sources that the Terrorist groups are actually waging wars AGAINST the "wahhabi's" (proper name is salafi's).
As no one is doing anything and i have repeatedly posted in the discussion pages then I thought I would catch your attention by creating a page. I donot accept this page shoudl not have been created though as it is a phenominan that is occurring in teh world and I can prove it with sources and so i stand by the fact that the only people who wish to delete this article are peple opposed to salafi Islam. Leave the politics and sectarianism out of this. If you want me to stop creating such articles then get someone to actually intermediate and loko at the evidences I provide. You do nto post the article "nigger" as a person originating from africa, you have it as a derogatory word. Not as wahhabi is also a derogatory word, it shoudl be described as such. I find teh article offensive because it defines "wahhabi" as an acceptable name to call people. The sight has obviously many POV pushers and I dont see the same harshness applied to sufi's. How would you feel if I described sufism under the title "Ahlul Bid'ah" (people of innovation). You wouldn't like it woudl you. If you wish to discuss the salafi movement, do it in teh salafi article. Put wahhabi as an offensive term and give a link to salafi if people wish to know who the salafi's are and what they believe. We need intermediation and NOW. If not I will continue to create such articles in order to fight this POV being pushed in wikipedia. If we do not call ourselves "Wahhabi" then it is derogatary and yet no one is addressing thsi insulting POV being pushed on wikipedia.
David.Baratheon (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David.Baratheon (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:Bio - a Google search turns up blogs, Facebook and LinkedIn pages, occasional references to the deals on which he worked, and the SEC matter described in the article. Awards, notable contributions to the field, secondary source coverage of the individual etc. are not apparent and there does not seem to be anything to distinguish this individual from other successful dealmakers. JohnInDC (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the requirements of the relevant notability guideline. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the primary criterion of WP:BIO - no reliable secondary sources in Google. Also, appears to be a WP:AUTOBIO, original author User:Chknight. Leuko Talk/Contribs 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual known for a single local event. Some coverage, but appears to be all local. ttonyb (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. There's nothing in here to suggest this is at all a notable newspaper and worthy of an entry - the article states it was established only 5 months ago. ~Excesses~ (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There only really seems to be one source for this, copied in many places. The source admits that the scheme is only used by himself and a couple of his programmer friends. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Manning (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article proposed for deletion with the rationale that This is not an encyclopaedic topic. Furthermore, the content of the article has no context. I agree with this reasoning, and furthermore think it is a fairly useless synthesis of information that is readily available from the individual club articles, or even the 2009–10 Premier League article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Manning (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This singer doesn't meet the general notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koblizek (talk • contribs)
The result was Speedy Delete G1 by Willking1979 (talk · contribs). Tavix | Talk 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY; also, no references. Airplaneman talk 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to U.S. Route 92. We seem to have an atlas verifying that the road existed at some time under this name, but the current content is unsourced and as as such unsuitable for a merger. Of course, any merger can be done from the history if sources are provided. Sandstein 05:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a group of articles that survived mass AfD (as State Road 600A (Florida)) in August 2006, this entry has not been expanded since and is incomplete. This "ministub" references three former road sections, but gives brief detail of only one, and gives no indication if this road still exists. There are no references to enable the casual editor to help expand the article. Apart from bot and gnome edits, there appears to be no interest in expanding the article into an encyclopedic entry. I consider that such a "stub" would not now be acceptable as being of a reasonable standard, and am AfD'ing it since I cannot PROD it since it has already survived an earlier deletion review and I have undertaken not to Speedy delete such articles without review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Manning (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. As an editorial action, I'll move this to Long Distance Calling (band). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
does not show significant coverage as needed by WP:GNG and does not meet the list in WP:BAND 龗 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this request for deletion, this is a highly regarded book in the fight for social justice and social justice education. The main page could be edited because it seems to be sloppily compiled, but there can be no question as to its credibility. This is a book that has continued to shape the field and make white Americans take a good look at their life and privilege because of their race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.41.68 (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the 6 months since the previous AfD, this non-notable neologism has received zero coverage in reliable sources. It was coined by Maude Barlow and has not come into common use outside of her work. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PROF. Every professor has published papers, and this resume-style biography does not stand out in the crowd as the type of exceptional professor that our academic notability guidelines looks for. Gigs (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person is non-notable and does not meet WP:ARTIST as no reliable sources have been produced or can be found for this person to support the article apart from one self promotional website. As a check, no Google News, no Google Books and no Google Scholar articles exist for this person. Wikipedia is not a resource to reprint self promotional literature as if it were encyclopaedic or notable.—Ash (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect without deletion to preserve article history. GlassCobra 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She was a contestant that got expelled with little notability outside of that. It doesn't warrant an entire article. –túrianpatois 20:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but her expulsion was a major news story. She was also notable for her rape by a famous serial killer. Her expulsion, not to mention her other controversial statements and actions got her more coverage than many other contestants with pages; take Sheila Kennedy,Brittany Petros,Erika Landin,Nicole Nilson Schaffrich, and Jason Guy as just a few examples of much less notable contestants. With so much news coverage, how is she not notable? Landonjgsu (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the Google News Search feature at the top of this page, if you type in "Chima Simone", the first page includes three articles about events that happened to her. For proof: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Chima+Simone+&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a Landonjgsu (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this person is very notable due to her antics on national TV and no that information is not covered adequately elsewhere. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a full article that was so well written and with such full citations. 141.165.189.88 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the user above Turian. Being a rape victim doesn't qualify as notable, but being the victim of a famous rapist and having your story told on Cold Case Files does. In addition, I have added some new information to the "After Big Brother" Section of the article. I also ask that everyone interested in this topic look at the Discussion page on the article. Thanks! Landonjgsu (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history of this article should be preserved so that interested editors can complete a merge to List of Big Brother 11 HouseGuests (U.S.)#Chima. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK criterion 2.3. Renominating with the same rationale one week after the previous AfD was SNOW closed as keep most certainly fits the criterion. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to provide independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Kalium-39 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC) — Kalium-39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was redirect to Cumulative voting. Insufficient sourced content for merging, though any merging can of course be done from the article history. Sandstein 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD-G7. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After further explanation of the reason for deletion I would agree. This is a young project without much information out on the internet. I will re-write the article when I feel like I can provide enough coverage. Stephenlienharrel
The result was DELETE. Manning (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reads as a promotional piece, citing only the company's website as a source. Contains no encyclopedic value for historical information or educational purposes. Aramova (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The consensus is that there is enough third-party significant coverage, just barely, to warrant inclusion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable. there are only passing mentions in third party sources, but no independent coverage specifically about him. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled onto this article as it had been vandalized and I turned up a series of long term vandalism that I have tried to revert. After cleaning it up as best I could it seems that there may not be anything notable left. I do not know this field well, but all of the citations I could find were in sources I am not familiar with (in terms of how reliable they are). Per the recommendation on Talk:Jim_Sterling_(journalist) I'm starting this Afd to see if others who may be more familiar with this genre have better luck finding anything notable. If they do not, then it probably should be deleted. If they do, the citations should be added. Thank you! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student society that organizes notable gatherings. All of the external links cited in the article give excellent coverage of the conferences and meetings organized, but none of them at all mention the society itself except in very very brief passing (most of them not at all, or not by name). — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. no one challenged the sources so the sources have it Spartaz Humbug! 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable singer (fails WP:NOTABILITY). Most of the references are to a single blog. Some trivial mentions found in Google search, but nothing significant. Obvious COI in article creation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP BC MOZELLA IS FABULOUS <3 heard her on 107.3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.238.5 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Mozella is signed to Motown. Management looks like it is Worlds End. I don't understand the affiliation to Beverly Martel. Can someone explain ? Thanks, Youandwhosearmy (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Product is no longer available. And organization's contact / web site is no longer available. Shulini (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The web page mentioned is a page to a distributor and not the original software developer. The software is simply unavailable and therefore cannot be notable. Please let me know your views. Shulini (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 19:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is unclear to me. Being in the top 100 in the US for his age is not notable to me (being in the top 10 in the World would be). Being Utah High School Chess Champion is not notable to me. Winning the Salt Lake Open could possibly be notable, not by itself, but if he is the youngest in the world to win such a tournament or something like that. Being "top for his age in quick chess" is too vague to be credible. SyG (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith talk 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability concerns since December 2008 and doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. TheoloJ (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. there seems to be a consensus that the article doesn't quite meet the GNG but i am going to userfy and the author is welcome to contact me for a sympathetic consideration of voiding the close as and if better sources come along. Spartaz Humbug! 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no real notability shown. Main independent source about subject is of questionable reliability, some others are not about him, only other independent reliable source that mentions Phatchance has trivial coverage. nothing else sugests satisfying wp:music Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:50, 17 September 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) 00:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A watermill in a city that really has no importance. LAAFansign review 18:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a set of Discworld collectibles produced by a single small company. I don't deny that the article is neutrally phrased, and just manages to escape being an advert, but the fact remains that these are very unnotable products, even within Discworld fandom. Delete for non-notability and sailing too close to being promotional. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reply and rebuttal of the above Discworld stamps are in fact now a major division of stamps within the Cinderella stamp domain. There have been over 2 million produced and they are now housed within the British library Philatelic collection. They have become one of the few items of fan and commercial activity that has entered mainstream stamp collecting throughout the world. Furthermore their design and production is recognized as being amongst the best within the Cinderella cannon. Their commercial value is now considerable and these stamps achieve more in auction than many other Cinderella Stamps. What was once a parochial, fan based collectible is now a legitimate part of stamp collecting. Bernard Pearson Pipesmoke (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discworld stamps are collected worldwide and a search on ebay will see the interest in these individual works of art. They are mentioned in philatelic publications and are taken seriously by Cinderella philatelists, unsigned contribution by User:Demdyke.
I would like to draw people's attention to this forum thread asking people to come and argue against the deletion of this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added references to the launch of the stamps and the article in gibbons stamp special. User:Annebn
The result was delete. Black Kite 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATH - not played a game (yet) in a professional league Steve-Ho (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The principal issue is whether this is an overbroad list (WP:SALAT) or not, with some additional OR/sourcing concerns (though these do not seem insurmountable if one considers the works of fiction themselves adequate primary sources for the purposes of this list). A rough headcount shows that about 10 people consider it overbroad, while about 6½ (counting a week keep as half an opinion) do not. Since SALAT is essentially a stylistic issue, and de gustibus non est disputandum, I can't resort to policy to determine whose arguments should be given more weight. That means we don't have consensus for deletion, though if the article is not improved a second AfD might well achieve that result. Sandstein 05:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable list primarily consisting of WP:OR and random personal interpretations; fails WP:N and WP:NOT as it is a wholly indiscriminate list. Failed prod; prod removed by User:Cyfal with explanation of: "This article was proposed for deletion. I object the deletion for following reasons: First, I don't think it is OR because for fictional works, one can always read the book, watch the movie or whatever, thus the entries in the article are sourced. Then, this article was split from the article list of suicides, which was already nominated for for deletion, but the result was keep. However, a nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion nevertheless might be appropriate to discuss this more?" However, I disagree that except in a few specific instances, you cannot simply review the fictional work to determine what is or is not "suicide" unless it is explicitly stated - while list does not actually limit itself to true suicide, but also includes "attempted suicides", apparently "assisted" and "self-sacrifice" and other very broad interpretations of "suicide"; an article on the fictional treatment of the topic would be notable and appropriate, but a indiscriminate and unlikely to ever be completed random list of names and works is not. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a congregation's youth ministry. Appears to be non-notable, as I could find no reliable and independent sources on it.[30] Prod was tried and contested back in 2007 when the article was just being created. (The first source in the article does not discuss this youth ministry at all.) GRBerry 15:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The sources are indeed all from the same press release, which has me give more weight to the delete side, which has backed their position up more solidly. NW (Talk) 20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No references to verify popularity claims, or establish notability. Google search does not show any coverage in reliable sources, nor verify claims Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. The genus Cristoferus is not included in Kew garden's GrassBase [[32]]. A google search only gives the wikipedia entry. The image shows a chive plant (onion family). The snail 'doopahe' does not exist. JoJan (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability guidelines noq (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Esentially is a list of redlinks with a few links to disambiguation pages scattered about. Completely unsourced, does not meet WP:SAL (no lead in paragraph or any other descriptors), and is an WP:O without one page linking to it. J04n(talk page) 12:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autobio with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:ADVERT, CSD A7. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, non-notable software "still under its research phase...by a group of four students from University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka as their final year research project." Pontificalibus (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The keep votes are mostly all out of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; please do review that and base your comments on policy for future discussions. NW (Talk) 20:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Software which is only in beta realease yet, and which has not received significant attention in reliable independent sources. Fails our notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Today many software products are distributed actively, while they are still in beta. The fact that the product is in beta, means that it is in a development stage, where users can give their input and form a given product. Who knows, today a product might remain in the beta development stage, like gmail was for many years.
About reliable independent sources, then it is stated on the webpage that the product has been tested with the distribution sites softpedia.com and hotlib.com. Off cause being a freeware program Simple Adblock has not yet been in the newspapers, but a quick google search shows that many people in the blogging sphere is writing about the program.
So, just to summarize, I don't find that the Simple Adblock page should be deleted. The information on the page is up-to-date. Off cause in time the article will probably grow and gather more depth. --Jeanclau (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The topic is notable, but the content is not (yet) suited for publication in our encyclopedia. DionneJames, I suggest that you develop it in your userspace, at User:DionneJames/Minorities in higher education first, and I am moving it there for you. Sandstein 05:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Written like a school essay or research paper. Possibly some copyright violations. Totally unencyclopedic. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Black Kite 19:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Soccerway hasn't recorded any appearances. Spiderone 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a computer game: just a project to develop one. No evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Closing a day early per WP:IAR. The subject now passes WP:ATHLETE (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of WP:PRODded content. The subject is a 18-year old reserve/youth team player for Chelsea, with no fully professional appearances at all. The subject therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hes played a first team game,hes valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.53.175 (talk • contribs)
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an unnecessary content fork of Alice A. Bailey about a book written by her. This book does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BK. If this page were considered necessary and encyclopaedic then we would leave the door open to creating separate pages for all the other writings and concepts she published during her lifetime that she claimed were telepathically dictated to her by a Master of Wisdom. Ash (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of characters in The Elenium and The Tamuli. The content is still available under the redirect for anyone who wishes to merge it. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contains only WP:OR plot summary, no coverage by third party sources, fails WP:N. Too large to merge to the articles about the literary works. A merger into a new article about the fictional world, as suggested by the editor contesting the PROD, is also a bad idea as long as that target article would also consist only of unsourced, unnotable plot summary - we'd need some substantial third party coverage about the entire subject matter first. Sandstein 05:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article we're considering should probably go, but I feel what's actually needed is a talk-page discussion in which the future of all these articles is taken as a whole (ideally without the time-pressure of an AfD), rather than a precipitous decision on one individual article, so if it's decided to delete this article at this discussion, I would prefer that the said material is held in userspace for the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator after article re-write, Non Admin Closure. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The Transformers (animated series) characters. NW (Talk) 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Transformers character. I looked for sources and didn't find any reliable ones. Trivial listcruft/fancruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me what this article is supposed about. In its original form, it was about a neighborhood in Philadelphia, but I can't find any information about that. Now, it's supposed to be about a neighborhood in Chicago, but I can't find any information about that, beyond the comments on the article's talk page (which don't make sense to anyone who knows Chicago geography - the Howard L stop is in a completely different part of the city from Woodlawn.) To muddy things further, the poem mentioned in the article might actually refer to a place in Ohio [45], but I can't find much information about that, either. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Zagalejo^^^ 06:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Mechanical Man. (non-admin closure) Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Evil-yuusha (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete as nonsense which is the wrong speedy criteria and the tag on it was csd-g4. The article was not nonsense. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either a non-notable drinking game or a hoax. No references at all. Google turns up a few hits on WP mirror sites and such. Its alternate name, Goon of Fortune, has already been deleted three times, one as a result of this AfD discussion. Contested speedy, notice removed by anon IP (suspected to be the original author). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable, non-encyclopedic, unreferenced article. Should be redirected to Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar; however, editor continues to remove redirect. ttonyb (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The principal problem with this article is that nobody has cited, either in the article or in this AfD, a reliable published source (in any language) that even proves that such a game exists. [46] is a self-published source, hence unreliable, and at any rate only gives the name of the game. [47] is a dead link, but appears to be a blog and hence also unreliable. This means that the article fails not only WP:N, but also WP:V, a much more important core policy. I am therefore forced to agree with the plurality of "delete"/"redirect" comments. The article may be redirected by any editor to an appropriate target, and I will userfy the content on request for improvement. It may be resubmitted if adequate coverage in reliable sources is found. Sandstein 05:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been deleted via speedy twice. No context, made up, hoax article. 2005 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article was to be retained, it would probably have to be renamed. It is no great wonder why you couldn't google "мушги" - it's because it's "муушги". Here's some evidence:
All in all, we have 5 separate google hits for “муушги” and only the one already mentioned for “мушги”. Our scientist, if an Englishman, might have mistaken a long vowel for a short one. Furthermore, as exemplified by the third example, the word "мушгих" is slang for "play cards", making this confusion much more likely. Finding evidence for Mongolian card games is very difficult. I looked up Mongolian games in a South Mongolian lexicon on Mongolian customs, and of over 400 pages devoted to this topic, there were merely 1,5 pages devoted to card games. This is due, as the lexicon implicates, not to the limited success that card games have had in Mongolian society, but due to the fact that they are a recent, imported phenomenon. That is, imported as a generic class of games. Two card games are described there, but not even Hözör which is probably the most popular one, so it is no wonder that muushgi is missing. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course it is! (It was negligent of me not to try this spelling.) And, this google search gives a somewhat different perspective on the matter in question. Wanna download muushig?
http://hinews.blog.banjig.net/post.php?post_id=235528
Here’s a metaphorical use within a political commentary which indicates that the writer expected every or at least most potential readers of his text to know this word:
2004 оны сонгуульд АН хүүхдийн 100000 төгрөг амлаж ард түмнийг хошгоруулж эхэлсэн. Хувьсгалт нам энэ бооцоог тав дахин өсгөж залуу гэр бүлд 500000 төгрөг амлан муушиг тоглож эхэлсэн. http://publish.news.mn/show/id=334
Statistically, muushig seems to have a good chance to be mentioned together with poker, hözör and daaluu. Finally, that’s fun. G Purevdorj (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PRODUCT ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SNOW... Tone 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod: still has no third party sources or demonstration of notability. Durova319 02:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 01:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ENTERTAINER. One bit part does not notability make. Ironholds (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Systematic Chaos. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod; WP:NSONG tells us three things relevant to this nomination. First, "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." Second, songs must must the requirements of WP:GNG, although placement on "national or significant music charts ... [or winning] significant awards or honors" establishes a presumption of notability. And third, even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This song fails to clear that hurdle and should be deleted or merged into Systematic Chaos. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable product, lacks 3rd party references RadioFan (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted (CSD G11) by Staxringold. NAC. Cliff smith talk 16:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, no reliable references, possible WP:COI (page is listed at User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult), portrays the subject in a promoting manner. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability. This also applies to the article Island Officials. -- furrykef (Talk at me) 05:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to LSU_Tigers#Men.27s_Tennis. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. WP:NAC Metty 15:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. The subject does not appear to fulfill WP:BIO, and certainly neither criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LAAFansign review 01:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. As pointed out, individual notability overrules NFF, which is what I believe this discussion focuses on. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Future film that has not started principal photography, so it does not pass WP:NFF. Clubmarx (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This unsourced article on a small prison/halfway house doesn't make any claim to notability, and a Google News/Books/Scholar search doesn't turn up anything either. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to TightVNC. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tickle me contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is entirely mostly unsourced. Cannot find any non-trivial coverage of this population in reliable sources in English or Spanish:
Thanks, cab (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spam, and lack of notability. Abc518 (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company and software. Haakon (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William Ackman is a hedge fund manager, and of importance to only a select few wealthy investors. This page is round about advertisement (illegal according to the SEC) for his hedge funds. Mr. Ackman is not a relevant person of society, yet he has a team of marketing experts attempting to make him one by clogging our Wiki-pages with his often well disguised marketing shtick.You Talkin' to Me??? (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]