< 28 February | 2 March > |
---|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i don't believe that notability has been firmly established, and i am suspicious of self promotion and feigned notability. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrew (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP Consensus was this is not synthesis or OR and is a proper list per WP:List Mike Cline (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating on behalf of Dragonflysixtyseven, who says he has lost the habit of starting AFDs. Seems to be an examplefarm, laden with OR and synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never-released album by marginal performer; prod removed on theory that every album by a "notable" musician is inherently notable, an obvious WP:NOTINHERITED fallacy. Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Article was deleted via prod on 22 December 2009 and recreated on 8 February 2010. Pohick2 (talk · contribs), who recreated the article, left a note on the talk page objecting to the original deletion by prod. Article was prodded again on 22 February but the talk page note indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial. Prod rationale this time around was "Minor academic, fails notability criteria for academics."
I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article author) Prod'ed as non-notable academic. i'm saying notable per managing editor of Best New Poets series, which has multiple reviews. WP:AUTHOR 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Pohick2 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable software product; article by single-purpose user who is a manager at the company. I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources and I cannot see any indication that this article passes WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything that is promotion - I just see factual software information similar to the wikis of the other 45 issue tracking products in Comparison of issue tracking systems as such I recommend keep User:Nahouw —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC). — Nahouw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are myspace and forums. No notability per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. He has not yet competed in a professional game. PackerMania (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. He has not yet competed in a professional game. PackerMania (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete and salted by Peter Symonds. Note that this had been speedied several times in addition to three AFD; band's album articles were deleted per A9. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, per WP:BAND. Self-released recordings and no significant independent coverage. I42 (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP Consensus is that it Meets minimum notability requirements but article does need sourcing Mike Cline (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. He has not yet competed in a professional game. PackerMania (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet criteria for WP:GNG. This would be better suited to Middenmeer, which is already very limited and devotes a good deal of its time talking about the airfield. avs5221 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the airfield has an ICAO identifier. Recognition by an international organisation is an indication of notability. It's not a private farm strip but a publicly available airfield. A little of the history of the airfield can be found on the nl.Wiki article on Middenmeer, which states that it was a Royal Netherlands Air Force base in the Second World War. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For one, every other Dutch airport has an article (see List_of_airports_in_the_Netherlands). Middenmeer is without a doubt small, but how big does an airport have to be for it to be notable? It doesn't actually have an ICAO identifier, though you do see EHMM used on occasion. I'm not sure why this is, possibly this identifier has been requested but not yet granted (like EHOW is due to be assigned to Oostwold_Airport). Also, purely by chance - I'm a subscriber to an aviation magazine and this month it features a four page article on an aircraft (a Gyrocopter actually) being tested from this airport, so in aviation circles at least it doesn't seem to be that obscure. The airport is home to five different flying schools as well, has a fairly large amount of hangar space and there's 25 aircraft resident at the airport. And as said (though the article doesn't mention, but I'll add it), in WWII the area was used as a military airfield as well, giving it some historic notability.BabyNuke (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is complete enough to add value to Wikipedia as a whole. That the Middenmeer page would be bleak without its references to the a/d says more about that page than about this one. And indeed, if any aerodrome is worth a separate page then they all are. I regret however that NOT all Dutch aerodromes have their page as yet, one I am missing is the Axel gliderfield. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A disputed PROD. No reliable sources indicating that this has any usage beyond a single restaurant, let alone in a widespread area; strong overtones of advertising for branded products; an unsubstantiated neologism. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to lounge music. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a genre a neologism made up by one person. Ridernyc (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two sources given as external links actually indicate it is a neologism and not a genre. Most of the bands listed more immediately fit into obvious genres.--SabreBD (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (article creator recommended deletion) Enigmamsg 16:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability provided. Claims of playing in the lowest level of Argentinian football is only on the borderline of satisfying WP:ATHLETE, but still need a WP:RS to back them up. Playing or "would have played" for a national Under 19 team is not enough. Has previously been deleted at AFD and CSD:A7. Could be considered a CSD:G4, as I don't think there is much new here, but I can't be sure. The-Pope (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tennis-star-nr.1 (talk) 1 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Yes i read that, and this: Wikipedia:Assume good faith Tennis-star-nr.1 (talk) 1 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Unless reliable sources are found that he has played in a professional league or significant coverage in reliable sources is found (I have made a good faith attempt but found nothing). None of the references in the article mention this person as far as I can see. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Camw (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tennis-star-nr.1 (talk) 2 March 2010
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While interesting, and conceivably a useful analysis, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which may not contain or synthesise original research Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage from reliable third parties, and there is no such references in the article. Haakon (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article was prodded by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) with the concern "written as a howto guide rather than an encyclopedia article." Comment by author on talk page indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial, so I'm bringing it here.
For my part, the article is not an encyclopedic subject and written like a how-to guide; therefore, my opinion is delete. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a non-notable professor. The fact that he has published articles/books does not indicate notability. There are zero third-party independent sources to establish his notability. The external links section only includes articles that Abraham himself published and pages on the University of Texas site. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, referenced, but ultimately an essay.
Given that we've already got Westminster system and plenty articles on Politics of the United Kingdom etc., I can't see much scope for anything other than an essay here. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Possibly non-notable window manager. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Primarysources tag has been languishing on the article for years. Psychonaut (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.235.14 (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS default to KEEP Notability claims clearly on the fence, give this one some more time. Mike Cline (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
New journal, only 1 issue published as yet. Does not even have an ISSN. Article creation premature: this cannot yet be notable. The article mentions that the journal is indexed in the World Shakespeare Bibliography and by the Modern Language Association. It is not clear to me how discerning these databases are and I feel that this confers at best a marginal notability. In short: this does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Hence delete. Crusio (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, yes I understand that distinction very well, believe me. And I agree with your assessment that this is a continuum and that it is fair to remark that BC may be currently at the "lesser end," which is part of why I stated to Crusius that he might want to take a breather and wait and see what happens over the next year or even six months. He naturally replied that Wikipedia can't really make decisions based on unsourced statements from academic proles (:) like BenJonson. But I have followed the Shakespearean question as a topic in intellectual history for nearly twenty years now, and the shifts and realignments which are currently taking place behind the scenes are momentous indeed. Some of today's experts will be tomorrow's discredited cheaters, and some of today's nobodies will be tomorrow's experts. Take, for instance, the credentials of Dr. Carole Chaski, one of the editorial board members of Brief Chronicles. She is probably *the* world authority, certainly one of handful who might be regarded as such, on the subject of linguistic identification of authorship. She currently consults with the secret service, among other high profile clients. There is an awful lot of chicanery in this field, much of it by academicians, and some of it by distinguished "bigwigs" in the Shakespeare industry such as Donald Foster, who no longer works in academia after he was successfully sued by Stephen Hatfill for misidentifying him as the anthrax terrorist. Only five years ago, Foster was a "bigwig" in Shakespeare studies. My point is that when you consider what expertise really consists of, Chaski is the expert -- Foster was a wannabee who violated the protocols of scholarship in the course of pursuing his "bigwigdom." He got caught. (If you have the interest, see the introductory essay of BC, here: http://www.briefchronicles.com. Again, thank you for your thoughtful moderation on this point and your consideration of my remarks. I am unfortunately overfamiliarized with wikipedia participants who cannot seem to hold a discussion without larding it with insults. --BenJonson (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tom Reedy
I was wondering when you would guys would show up. Tom, you seem upset that I have made a lot of comments on this page. That may be true, but it is also a red herring. Neither you nor Nishidani have answered my basic question about why Wikipedia standards for notability should be ignored in this case. Your answer seems to be that, according you, any discussion of the Shakespearean authorship question constitutes indulgence in a "fringe theory." I don't think anyone involved in this discussion, in either a minor or a major way, needs to hear that again. It may be that under the protocols as established by Wikipedia, the Shakespeare Authorship entry has been defended in one way or another by other editors under the "fringe theory policy." I have never done so. What I object to, moreover, is the vulgar manner in which you, Nishidani, and others have had recourse to this piece of linguistic property as a stick to beat up on those who have a different perspective than your own, the dominant one. Saying that any doubts about the authorship question amount to indulgence in a "fringe theory" is your way of avoiding the substance of the doubts which have historically been raised as to the bona fides of the traditional Shakespearean attribution, which is increasingly doubted, as you know, even within the academic community on which you and Nishidani depend for your definitions of reality. What you and others really are objecting to about the inclusion of an entry for Brief Chronicles is that to accept it would force you reconsider your own history of the cavalier misuse of these sorts of argument by epithet, by demonstrating that the dispute in question is taking on an increasing level of credibility within higher education. That is manifest by the academic qualifications an affiliations of the members of the BC editorial board, however modest they might seem in comparison to such wunderkinden and Prometheans as a Greenblatt, a Marcus, or a Shapiro.
You seem to have overlooked my call, based on the narrow Wikipedia definition of the term "fringe theory," for some clarification. I am still waiting for someone -- anyone -- to explain to me what would constitute grounds to determine that the theory in question was no longer "fringe." This seems like a reasonable question, to which all Wikipedians would want an answer, but perhaps there are some here who feel that it is not and we should instead all be free to use that term whenever we like without specifying more carefully the conditions under which the label would be removed. But it seems to me that if Wikipedia wants to remain relevant in negotiating disputes of this nature, which are fundamentally historical in nature insofar as they respond to new evidence and evolving standards and modes of inquiry, it ought to pay some attention to such questions. The justice of any quasi-judicial proceeding (of which the present discussion is an instance) necessarily depends on understanding the circumstances under which another judgment would be rendered. This concept is fundamental to any system of justice which recognizes that even courts sometimes make mistakes. So, to, the history of ideas instructs us that experts are routinely wrong, even about matters of their alleged expertise. Can anyone enlighten me on this point?
You write: "It also appears that the Wikipedia community apparently doesn't care that its encyclopedia is being used to promote a fringe theory that is dismissed by almost every Shakespeare academic. So go ahead and let him have the article, but I think it only fair that it should be limited to the same word count as the article for the Review of English Studies." You say that the subject is "dismissed by almost every Shakespearean academic." This is simply not so, and it is a telling point against your interpretation of the present moment that you should feel the need to continue to express your convictions in such quasi-absolutist terms. It is quite true to say that the Oxfordian and anti-Stratfordian positions remain a distinct minority within higher education. But that is not the same thing, at all. More importantly, I beg to differ with you on your statement about Wikipedia. It seems to me that the Wikipedia community is in fact doing an excellent job of airing the opinions relevant to the points at issue. It is evident, however, that the community is not entirely in agreement with your characterization of the nature of the dispute. That being said, I appreciate your not jumping into the fray with an immediate recommendation for deletion. As you know, I have great respect for Review of English Studies, as well as for Cahiers Élisabéthains, The Shakespeare Yearbook, and many other academic journals which have been kind enough to publish my (or your) work.
I established the wikipedia page for Dr. Chaski for many reasons, not the least of which is that she is a notable modern intellectual whose accomplishments have been deemed notable by every editor who has commented on the talk page of the entry. If you dispute the notability of the entry, I request you to so in the appropriate venue, and not to violate the fundamental rule of Wikipedia editing, namely to "assume good faith," by imputing to me motives about which you are wholly uninformed.
Finally, let me address your point about the good and learned Dr. Foster. Firstly, if I erred in stating that he was no longer employed at Vassar, Dr. Foster has my heartfelt apology. Secondly, as to your extraordinary statement that this error was motivated by some personal malice, I respectfully repeat my comment above about motives. You need to be careful here, Tom, because malice is a legal term, and you have not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate it. Having apologized for perhaps misunderstanding Dr. Foster's current employment, let me ad that it is wholly undeniable that Dr. Foster's work has been substantially discredited in the eyes of many over the past ten years. It is evident that his scholarship over-reached his understanding of his subject matter. Anyone who has followed his case will be aware of this. As for my alleged "jealousy" of Dr. Foster, Tom, you surely are creative about psychoanalyzing people of whom your acquaintance is grossly superficial. That is really really quite funny. Believe me, there are people of whom I'm jealous, Tom. I'm jealous, for example, of Dr. Chaski. I'm jealous of Graham Holderness. I am jealous of William Leahy. I am jealous of Douglass Brooks. I am jealous of Marjorie Garber.I'm sometimes even jealous of Daniel Wright (not, however, in any of these cases from psychopathology you ironically impute to me). I am not, however, jealous of Donald Foster, Tom. I do not regard him as a credible or noteworthy scholar, and credibility in my book (which means having a credible argument, supported by facts, and when you make a factual error, being able to admit it candidly) would be a prerequisite to any jealousy I might feel for a fellow scholar. If a person does not have credibility in my eyes he is unworthy of my jealousy, no matter how famous he may seem to be. Notice, however, that I have not involved myself in editing Dr. Foster's Wikipedia page. While he is not notable as a scholar, in my estimation, he is notable, as a lesson of how not to do scholarship. It is never wise to expose oneself to a multi-millon dollar lawsuit by falsely accusing an innocent man of being a biological terrorist, and I advise you, as a fellow Wikipedian, not to follow his example. --BenJonson (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. 2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. 3. The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history.
(my emphasis)
Crusio, Thank you for the clarification and for restating your position. Since, however, at least two participants have alleged or implied that the issue in fact is one of "fringe science," that has tainted the discussion. There is therefore documented in the discussion an unresolved conflict over the basis for a decision; allegations of "fringe science" have inappropriately been used to determine "notability." This seems particularly significant given that no one has still offered even a grain of a response to my question of under what conditions a journal in this question might actually obtain "notability," since the suggested guidelines articulated on Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) have not been applied by those voting for deletion. Instead, it has even been suggested that notability should be denied, hysteron proteron, because at some future point in time, those guidelines might actually be changed in order to justify the deletion of this very article! One reason the discussion has involved so many words is that so many seem reluctant to engage in good faith to clarify such matters of common concern to Wikipedia. Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, some light deserves to be shed on that question. --BenJonson (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "memory serves"? What the heck does that mean? Can you possibly be any less specific? In any case, please be advised that your scenario that I recruited RetProf because he is part of some Oxfordian cabal is simply a fantasy on your part. I posted the links in my response, Paul, which documented the history of my acquaintance with him. I didn't ask you, moreover, for your opinion about "what is considered appropriate." I asked you for a link to the policy to which you allude. I think I am not the one to whom you primarily owe an apology.--BenJonson (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Crusio is right. I took the time to fix format and obvious typos. (Crusio's English is very good considering it is a second language). I don't envy the Amin who has to sort through this AfD. This is a good faith edit and if anyone takes offense, feel free to revert. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, there is doubt. I give particular weight to Crusio's nomination and DGG's supporting remarks, but I also give particular weight to Drmies' response about the MLA database.
Given that there is doubt, I can only go with weak keep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The closer is looking for "consensus", which is not a word that Wikipedia chooses to define (and there are good and valid reasons why it should remain vague. You will come to appreciate why this is so if you participate in significant numbers of AfDs). "Consensus" does not mean "unanimity", but it does mean that an opinion from a well-established user in good standing can sometimes be sufficient to prevent an article from being deleted--the more so if there are several such users.
In particular, the closer is looking for a consensus to delete the article (which should be supported by well-reasoned arguments that are not refuted). If no such consensus is apparent, then the closer may decide that the outcome of this debate is "no consensus"--which means "no consensus to delete", i.e. the article is kept for the moment.
However, a "no consensus" outcome does not prevent subsequent deletion discussions, so if you strongly feel this article should be kept, you should add reliable sources which are independent of this publication to it as soon as these become available.
The (admitted) lack of reliable sources, apart from the MLA database, is the deletion camp's strongest argument and to be completely candid, I am not at all sure that it has been overcome. If the debate is closed with the arguments as they currently stand, then this matter will fall within "admin discretion", i.e. the person who assesses this debate would be within their rights to decide either way.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, should you have disclosed that you were asked [17] to participate in this AfD by Drmies, one of the weak keep proponents per Nsk92 (talk) ? ? Again, this is a good faith question as I respect your weak keep, but stand behind my Strong Keep - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect all to respective album articles. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This individual song, along with The Glass Prison, This Dying Soul, Repentance (song), The Shattered Fortress, make up Dream Theater's Twelve-step Suite. Although the Twelve-step Suite has received enough coverage in reliable sources to make it notable, each individual song in the suite does not have enough coverage to warrant an entire article to itself.
As such, this nomination is not just for The Root of All Evil (song), but also for:
Note that Repentance (song) is currently a redirect to Systematic Chaos, the album it was released on. Una LagunaTalk 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism which seems to be sourced to a single incident. The exorcism is described as ridding the person of a "homosexual demon" -- not of homosexuality -- so is really just a "normal" exorcism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
W* Page contained potentially libelous text about a living person. Not neutral. RobertC - Hari (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of the vandalism surrounding this article and others related to it, someone has signed that they are Robert Campagnola. This is untrue. Robert Campagnola has never written that last comment. I should know as I am him. I have added historically accurate information into the history of Harikesa Swami. If you do not like this information and cannot tolerate that someone could have done something worthy of historical note in 30 years, then kindly agree to delete this page. I did not create it, I do not want it. However, if it must be there, then it should at least be true and relevant. If the only relevance that you can conceive of is that this person was initiated into a religious movement, then he took some medicines and then left the movement, then there is another agenda here and this is not neutral, neither does it fit within the category of being historically relevant to Hinduism. --Hari 23:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Hari 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcamp108 (talk • contribs)
Wikidas© 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a New York law firm, whose managing partner's page I'm nominating separately. I don't see any recent news hits on the firm. The only google news hits at all were listings in 2006 asking for a paralegal. Shadowjams (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. There is sufficient evidence that there is indeed a field of study that involves researching reincarnation. If there are problems with the way the article is written, they can be addressed through editing the content. If the perceived problem is the title, a rename discussion can be held on the article's talk page. The argument that we don't have a similar article on the research of other beliefs is entirely irrelevant. Merger into the main reincarnation article is a bad idea given the length of that article already. I would add that I do not care for the tone of a few of the participants. There are many millions of people from numerous religious traditions around the world who believe in reincarnation, and mocking that belief to score points in an AFD is despicable. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an original research sythesis of a variety of research programs both legitimate and dubious that involve reincarnation. There are no academic programs, departments, or professional research societies that are organized around "reincarnation research". There are billions of human beings who believe in reincarnation just as there are billions who believe in virgin birth. But we do not have special articles on virgin birth research for obvious reasons just as we should not have an article on "reincarnation resesarch". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Public_holidays_in_the_United_States#Legal_holidays_by_states. I think it would be a valid redirect (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (G3) by Hit bull, win steak. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
person does not exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaferM (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. The only keep argument seems to suggest a wish to use this article as the project's documentation, but Wikipedia is not your web host. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article currently reads like an advertisement and not wikified. Have tagged it for both of these and notability, since it does not suggest the notability of the subject. Cloudbound (formerly Wikiwoohoo) (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Innkeeper whose notability is not established. In contesting the prod, the creator did assert notability - that of the town this person works in. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as WP:CSD#A7 by Dlohcierekim . This was also speedily deleted in 2008 for the same reason.
A search on Google and Google News shows no independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. The page appears to have been created with a conflict of interest and is only supported by self published sources or derivatives thereof. Ash (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Seicer (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A3: "Article has no meaningful, substantive content." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be jargon Wikipedia:NOTADICTIONARY applies. External links only to an empty website NtheP (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.scrufflesmedia.com.au WIFI Hotspots provider within shopping centres.
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO. No proper reliable sources, and being the first doctor in a district is not enough notability to otherwise pass. Ironholds (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. This is obviously a close call, however, the fact that he appears to be "the leading author -- or at least the most prolific author -- in his field" sways me towards keep. The article needs wikifying and having links added to RS sources -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
out of scope Ysangkok (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an article already exists on an author or artist, then a separate article for a list of that person's works (such as Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges or Robert A. Heinlein bibliography) is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable.
The result was delete. It is unusual to continue an AfD after the nominator withdraws, but as at that point an admin decided not to close it and others have since presented arguments for deletion we should consider all the views. Doubts centre on the lack of references about Ms Serafine rather than by her: the five inline references are: our article on Rutgers where she was a student, which does not mention her; three references to do with her political candidacy, of which one is her own manifesto and one merely mentions her in a list of candidates; and the citations for her book. My assessment of the consensus is that though she has achievements as lawyer, as author, as academic and as politician, they do not individually, or even taken together, add up to notability. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. No Reliable Sources available. Request AfD delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This person is notable for several reasons:
We are working on it. I was not aware that setting up a wikipedia page was that difficult. I assumed it to be much more user friendly for a layman like myself, but I was clearly wrong. Last night, a friend of mine said he had the knowledge of the code to write it out, so he did. We are trying to make things better and correct a lot of the vague terms given as well as the resume information given. Quite literally, I am figuring this out as I go. Thank you for your patience, and we'll try to get it in form ASAP --Jmay9 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the subject not being notable enough, she has received various awards and notices on the national stage. She is, however, very behind on technology and I am thus trying to collect all of the relevant sources as well as I can.--Jmay9 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The x86-64 architecture is now a de facto standard, and all modern Free and proprietary software packages are inevitably going to support it. This list is therefore unmaintainable; already thousands of software packages are eligible for inclusion here. Psychonaut (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Clear copyvio, speedy deleted. Usually it is enough to just replace the tag, though. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is a copyright infringement of http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Music-Network/245142782954?v=info and http://www.vanessaamorosi.net/?paged=3. It was tagged for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by an editor with no other editing history at all, giving the edit summary "remove notice for speedy deletion- sites were referring charts owned by music network, not vice versa", which does not address the copyright issue at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. This is a redirect and thus not appropriate for discussion at AFD. No prejudice against nomination at WP:RFD if someone thinks it is an inappropriate redirect. RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
POV title JokerXtreme (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see any reason to remove this redirect. It's completely harmless and is useful. I still have no idea how it's supposed to be pushing a POV -- at worst, it's pushing a definition of the phrase "national awakening" that you personally disagree with, and that is very far from being grounds for deletion (and I'm not even sure I understand your definition of "national awakening" or that the redirect actually conflicts with it, at this point). We should only delete content when it helps the encyclopedia to delete it, and in this case it seems clear to me that deleting it isn't helping, and is arguably hurting, assuming that others (and this is obviously the case) don't share your view of what "national awakening" means. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Crystal. One of the sources is a year old, the other is from October 2009, and is IMDB. A more recent source (it's a blacklisted site, but it's the only other reference to this film that I can find, - which is significant in itself, may currently fail WP:N as well) says filming might start "later this year" and that it is rumoured that Knightley and de Caprio may feature. Let's wait till they start filming, shall we. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete, as none of the "keep" !votes actually providing RS information -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
promotional autobio with no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources (none of the possibly independent reliable sources verify claims made, multiple sources are just links to pages that do not verify claims, all others are not independent or are not reliable). original research. unsourced blp. prod removed by SPA, saying "Removal of spam from previous contributor". multiple SPAs suggest something else. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per G11 by Materialscientist. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unmanageable list with no obvious criteria for inclusion. Nick—Contact/Contribs 09:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to Your compliance with the terms and conditions set out in these Terms, Scribd hereby grants to You a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, freely revocable license to view, download (including, without limitation download to a portable device), print, and have printed User Content for personal use subject to any express restrictions contained in the license under which such User Content is distributed.
The result was delete. No evidence for the notability of the clan (as opposed to individual members of the clan) has been presented, and no RS produced by the opposers. Census is to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article titled Marwat on Wikipedia where most of these details are available except these vanity and POV entries for which this separate article has been started. This does not qualify and fulfill the criteria of wiki notability as well. Similarly it can not be merged either with that parent article due to these vanity entries. MARWAT 08:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established; no independent sourcing; appears to be a vanity article by her biographer. Offenbach (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete, without prejudice to recreation should notability be established in the future -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, without improvements to the article. Proposed deletion reason was: "Fails WP:BIO. No indication why he is notable: no independent reliable sources about him: the two sources given are one personal and nearly empty (new dawn), and one not really reliable (IMDb) which indicates that his role in movies has been very limited so far. I couldn't find good sources for him (there are many for Brian Joseph Burton, AKA Danger Mouse, though)." Fram (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No such game has been announced or even exists. WWE Socks 07:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of musicians who use a particular brand of guitar effect. It is not a legitimate topic for an article, and therefore not a legitimate topic for a list. Redirecting doesn't make sense because this isn't a search term that anyone would ever enter. Conical Johnson (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Clearly a synthesis of ideas not directly verified by sources. Could it be true? Sure, but as we all know that is not enough, it must be verified. I would add that the amount of personal animosity in this afd is not acceptable. Limit discussion to the relative merits of the article and not your opinions of one another. If you want to go headhunting, initiate a request for comment on user conduct, but keep it out of content debates. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCRYSTAL WP:OR based on primary sources in violation of WP:SYN. No WP:RS that confirm or even mention that there is an "Unknown Tajiki captive in Guantanamo". IQinn (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Crystal Nothing on G News and only one web hit when the full title is searched CTJF83 chat 05:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One sporting event This sporting event is in no way notable CTJF83 chat 04:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism made up by one reviewer. Ridernyc (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original research essay, trying to describe musical comedy that uses a guitar. Ridernyc (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. That the only source attached to the article is about this genre's demise is telling. Anything that can properly verified can be pulled from the page history and merged. Redirecting as opposed to deleting as it is a plausible search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sub sub sub genres. This one is a "more radio- and commercially-friendly form of grime music". Not unique, no real history or development. Ridernyc (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable pressure group. The article creator admitted limited coverage when removing the prod but justified that on the basis that it has a few members in its facebook group and the budget is approaching. If it gets more significant coverage it can be recreated then. noq (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article gives no references and a search turned up only different games with the same name, [33] and [34]. The Soltrio Solitaire article links to this but the name of the game given there is Four Colors. I searched under this name as well but found nothing relevant. It's difficult to tell if this is a real game but if it is then it seems it only exists in Soltrio. An article could be written on one or both of the other games of the same name, but it would be a complete rewrite. So delete per WP:N. The article was PRODed previously per WP:GAMEGUIDE which seems to be not applicable here, but as a result the article was transwikied to WikiBooks. RDBury (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to drum & bass. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sub sub sub genre. This one is "usually much more complex" drum and bass. Not unique, no real development, or history. Ridernyc (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. As no one commented, there is no consensus to delete, so default to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Event does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be confused with Miss Dominican Republic, this particular event does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for events or organizations. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Convert to a disambiguation page. The two references on the article are not reliable sources, so the content is basically unsourced. While this may be a valid sub-genre there seems little if anything to say about it that can be properly verified. Given that there are numerous meanings for the term "dream house" this should be a dab page regardless of whether is a stand-alone article on this genre, as this is obviously not the most prominent meaning. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a short lived sub sub sub genre. I'd love to say what is unique about it but the article basically describes every other form of modern dance music. Ridernyc (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Hardcore techno. Any content that can actually be verified by a source can be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another sub sub sub genre. This one is slightly slower then one of the other sub genres. Ridernyc (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to house music. Any verifiable content can be merged if appropriate. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another sub genre of a sub genre ...... This time the sub genre is unique because it use elements from one of the parent genres. Again not notable, not unique, another one of the endless minor and arbitrary variations on dance music. Unsourced for 5 years. Ridernyc (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne G: Hot British DJ brings hot new beats
Project Q Atlanta - Buck Cooke - Feb 18, 2010
I wanted to include new productions, some classics mixes as well as classic songs, giving me the chance to move from the funky disco house of “Love ...
deBonton Grab Bag Launch Party
News de stars - 2 hours ago
Pour cette nuit placée sous le signe de la synthpop, de la new wave et de la disco-house, deBonton, prototype musicalement androgyne, se propose de prolon. ...
RockOnNet
House v 4ki
RockOnNet - Feb 16, 2010
Na koncu sta za mešalke stopila Crazy P Soundsystem, ki sta ponudila zelo kvaliteten in plesen disco-house, pri katerem je res bilo težko ostati v mirnem ...
Hot Chip: Linéaire ***
Cyberpresse - Feb 6, 2010
... belles mélodies sur des structures rythmiques très disco-house, façon Moroder, une influence musicale dominante sur cet album fait de hauts et de bas. ...
Entrancing & dancing With sold-out shows, packed clubs, even its own ...
$1.95 - Denver Post - NewsBank - Aug 1, 2002
Note: Styles are often mashed together to create a slightly new style (ie: disco + house = disco house) :. Dance: Sometimes referred to as "club," rhythm ...
Head to St. Pete for Fort Rave, THE MOSCOW TIMES | Article from The …
Pay-Per-View - Moscow Times - HighBeam Research - Jul 18, 2003
11:30 p.m. DJ Jeff (Russia, disco house) 1 a.m. DJ Lottie (Britain, techno house) ... 5 a.m. DJ Rudyk (Russia, disco house & progressive) ...
Disco house at escape
Pay-Per-View - South Wales Evening Post - Factiva, from Dow Jones - Feb 11, 2005
Their first tour for 10 years brings them to Escape in Northampton Lane, with special guest DJ Joey Negro. Universally acknowledged as the master of all ...
House Music in the Mix
Go Certify - Sep 27, 2004
The disco house mix of Burning is included-too bad, considering there ... Track 3 is a dubby disco house track. Track 4 throws in a bit more female vocal. ...
All Bar None.(Features) | Article from Liverpool Echo (Liverpool,...
Pay-Per-View - Liverpool Echo - HighBeam Research - Dec 27, 2002
They are promising the "best disco house without the trash", ... On Saturdays more funky disco house numbers can be heard, plus another room for chart ...
STYLIN' ON THE SOUTH SHORE
$2.95 - Boston Globe - NewsBank - May 13, 1999
The new Friday DJ is Tim Collins, who spins disco house, Top 40, and some hip-hop. ... He plans to feature '70s and '80s disco, disco house, and Top 40. ...
A Night Out With Vicious Grooves - Mixed by DJ John Course
Resident Advisor - May 24, 2003
A pumping disco house tune featuring a big bassline, synth stabs and some quirky beatbox samples, this tune has gained massive praise from the likes of ...
Out & About: Our Sonia is to sing live.(Features) | Article from...
Pay-Per-View - Liverpool Echo - HighBeam Research - Jul 6, 2007
They are promising the "best disco house without the trash", and "compulsory flirting" with Ian Cole sweating it out for a disco house frenzy. ...
The labours of Hercules
The List - Mar 13, 2008
'Classic disco house is what excited me when I was young,' says Butler. 'The album was driven by memories of getting up on various dancefloors. ...
CLUBS: G-whizz it's Great.(Features) | Article from Liverpool Echo ( …
Pay-Per-View - Liverpool Echo - HighBeam Research - Aug 16, 2002
With DJ's Ian Cole, Jon Hooper, John Cotton and Sarah Furey, we've had Pop, R'n'B, Funky House, Disco House and Dirty Classics, all ... ...
The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
another neologism created by mixing the names of two sub genres of music. Ridernyc (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete - the option to merge/redirect was considered, but I do not feel that this is appropriate in this case -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another sub genre of a sub genre of a sub genre. This time it's a term some people to describe a slightly slower version of the same music. Once again these dance music genres are endless and none of them are unique from the others. Ridernyc (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is clearly to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a one sentence stub for 5 years. Not really a genre just a neologism someone made up. Ridernyc (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another sub genre of a a sub genre of a sub genre. This one created by one person 2 years ago. Again these dance sub genres are endless and barley unique from one another. Ridernyc (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
totally wrong, this is an up to date and a useful description of a popular genre that is more than just a "sub genre of a etc etc" Chillwave despite its annoying name is a very varied genre and also not really a dance genre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.95.74 (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Feel free to redirect after the fact, as an editorial, non-admin decision. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mix two sub, sub sub genres together and you get a article that has been a one sentence stub for 5 years. Not notable, doubt it's really a genre. Doubt development and history can be sourced. Once again this tiny deviations of dance music are endless and not notable or unique. Ridernyc (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is too recent and the notability of the subject won't last through next week. This information is already covered at List of captive orcas. This just mirrors the other. Jojhutton (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to breakbeat. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sub genre, of a sub genre of a sub genre. These variations on dance music are endless. Might be a real genre, certainly not a notable genre. Article has been an unsourced stub for 5 years. Ridernyc (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is delete - a redirect would be inappropriate according to the final comments made on this AfD -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This science fiction concept from the final episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation really isn't notable enough for a standalone article. Appears to have been deleted before under the title Anti-time, see Deletionpedia. –Grondemar 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Although this article is in ned of reliable sourcing, the consensus is to keep. Hopefully some of the "keep" proponents will take the opportunity to find reliable sources for this -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an indiscriminate and thoroughly unencyclopedic list that is almost entirely sourced to blatantly unreliable sources. Much of it is apparently based on original research, in addition. If this list is to be kept, it requires immediate overhauling, as the descriptions are written as in a fan-site or chatroom. I don't see such cleanup imminent; this needs to be removed from the project. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Already redirected. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article page contains no verifiable sources regarding a time, location, participants, etc. As it stands, the article does not yet meet the criteria for WP:GNG as there is no coverage of the event. Also, the article is WP:CRYSTAL and should remain under future UFC events until more information is known about the fight. avs5221 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list is a back-fill construction made from full sections of the articles it points to. There is little or no attempt to summarize the information from those articles, it is just copied and pasted in place. J Greb (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid list in the context of WP:LIST and WP:CLN. Could it be improved? YES! but ask yourself, if all those other articles did nto exist, would the nominator's rationale hold water. No. The fact that the list's contents are derived from other article's content is not a reason for deletion. If the entries are valid and can be sourced, this is a valid list. This list needs improvement, not deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus leans towards keeping, in that it has enough notability on it's own, and that redirecting to Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy might ignore the other uses of the phrase. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Obviously this phrase attracted a lot of attention in relation to Ward Churchill. It was used by a few people before that in various contexts, but I can't find any sources discussing the phrase itself. Anything related to Churchill's use of it can be covered in Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy; in fact this article doesn't really contain any information that that article doesn't. Prezbo (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wkiquote, certainly. Although it wouldn't solve the issue raised here for inclusion. Wiktionary, no. It is not an actual word. As for the need of having sources discussing the phrase itself, I don't think you could be further from the truth. ¿Por qué no te callas? has sources concerning an event, where the phrase is a reference. Ward Churchill wrote an essay with some hundred words and somehow that expression, little eichmanns, is the center of attention through out the media. Maziotis (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
N. K. Naik fails to meet all the conditions set in WP:PROF from Engineering academia, he is not there yet, his books are not widley held, no outstanding achievements or awards in the field kaeiou (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was What nyttend said Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blatently adverty article about a "cinematographer" (although the article's defintion of cinematographer is someone who "documents....weddings") who I can find no sufficient notability for. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Punk rock. Since punk rock is a featured article, it's probably better to redirect the article than to merge it as of now. Content from Toronto punk rock can be merged as seen fit by editors familiar with the genre. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary content fork. Claims to have been started by a red link band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Rutherford County Schools (Tennessee). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable middle school from unknown district Eeekster (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Notability asserted and supported - a picture would be nice. Mike Cline (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable New York City apartment building whose sole claim to fame is one famous tenant. Does not meet WP:GNG. Warrah (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page reads like an advert, which is not surprising given that it is almost copied verbatim from this. Note: This is my first ever nomination so if I have made an error please let me know on my talkpage AIRcorn (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep Blatantly WP:POINTy nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now especially amid the news of the Chilean earthquake, and given the fact that Wikipedia is not a news source, it is time for the article to go. Content may be useful; merging to Earthquake, Haiti be best idea. --SydneyHoonDriver (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song, no content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is clearly to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. One of several stubs made for this album's tracks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]