The result was Nomination withdrawn. Article already redirected (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable road. Contains no more information than what the county road list should contain. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced, cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. —fetch·comms 21:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Acroterion (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an unambiguous hoax My76Strat (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can not find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. There is a press release that is fairly easy to find via Google news that should not be mistaken for a reliable source. J04n(talk page) 20:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Boleyn3 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, removed by author. Project is non-notable; it cites no sources and I can't find any reliable articles to prove that it's notable, so it fails WP:N. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Crystal does not apply as the show is undoubtly going to air. Crystal matters when you are predicting something whose actual occurance may or may not happen. While OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping, the existance of 42 other episodes for the series is a strong precident, while the article may not be much now, I have no doubt that it will be expanded... deleting it today to have it created in a week is just a little too much... if it doesn't get expanded after it airs, then we could revisit it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested proposed deletion. Article is on a television episode which has not yet been aired, and thus there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL probably applies. Claritas § 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Lords of the Nine Hells. . ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article concerns a set of fictional characters from Dungeons & Dragons which do not meet WP:N. Most of the article is unverifiable. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources, GoogleBooks yields nothing, and presumably the books cited are parts of the Dungeons & Dragons series, so they're not independent. Claritas § 18:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted, WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11 Guy (Help!) 21:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced article about non notable organization WuhWuzDat 18:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No references to establish notability. Unclear claim to notability as well. Google news/archive doesn't bring back anything, but again, going by the text it's unclear why subject would be given significant coverage in reliable sources Omarcheeseboro (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability seems reasonably well established within the context of Madsen's Chief Translator position on the INGA-SHABA project, the USA's largest project in Africa during the 1970s and 80s. His contributions financially, through the Bank of Zaire, ensured employment of hundreds of Americans during the time frame in question. His verifiable technology transfer publications (Int'l Academy of African Business, etc.)are noteworthy and contribute to his significance. His connections to Bill Clinton's Cabinet, directly or indirectly, are also of more than passing interest.
True, the tone of this contribution could be improved, rendering it less mellifluous and more reportorial.
Deletion, after many unchallenged years on Wikipedia, seems a bit harsh. Rewording or elimination of some portions would seem more appropriate.
Omarcheeseboro's archives indicate willingness to work with articles such as this one. Perhaps through dialogue, this colorful biography can remain, in an improved form. Sources for this bio appear intact through cross-linking to specific, well-documented Wiki articles.— User:203.145.90.192 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.
There are apparently a number of internet and published sources utilizing and discussing his material on Algeria (Ben Bella, El Outaya, etc) and The Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire), plus the IAABD site. These locations are returned by Google and Google Beta, for example:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/31004989/The-El-Outaya-Salt-Refinery-Project
http://www.ephrem.org/dehai_archive/2001/jun01/0338.html
http://www.pdf-tube.com/en/doc/El%20Outaya-1.html
Looking over WIKI's Reliable Source criteria, he fits into a scholarly category, though admittedly has published seriously on only two or three countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.92.225 (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC) — User:203.145.92.225 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
In the presence of his apparently serious deletion suggestion, still under consideration in compliance with WIKI's due process rules, I'm left wondering why Omar (15 May) removed the justified "Harvard tag" (I've just replaced it) and added "Quincy, Mass". This minor change could point to his personal frustration with the actual content of the article, rather than to a legitimate desire to delete in accordance with WIKI policy.
(1) In support of the THIRD PARTY source condition, here's an article from a New Hampshire newspaper attesting to the Inga Shaba appointment and three other periods of corporate employment, plus degrees and so forth. More sources coming as the search continues.
http://membres.multimania.fr/transnational/News-cli.gif
(2) NPOV seems to be an issue primarily because of the "ebullient style" of the article -- but this objection was dealt with in previous discussions and resulted only in a lower rating for the article, not an overt suggestion for deletion. An aesthetic argument can be made in favor of this style since it makes reading more enjoyable and less tedious.
(3)Intra-textual references are scattered throughout the bio-article, mostly linking to well-established WIKI articles dealing with Electronic Defense Labs, Inga-Shaba, Young Socialist Alliance, Notre Dame University, and Andre Gide, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.143.134 (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC) — User:124.217.143.134 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
There is also WIKI's 'occasional exception' rule whereby the text of the article can be reworked slightly and the page retained based on its intrinsic interest and notability of accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.92.225 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC) — User:203.145.92.225 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
It's curious that this bio has been selected for deletion; it had been fairly recently upgraded from a START bio, considerably above a template and stub, to one of the GREEN levels, a B at least. As Omar points out in his initial flagging statement, there is really no reason that a CHIEF TRANSLATOR, TECHNICAL AUTHOR and CENTRAL BANK LIAISON SPECIALIST (responsible for disbursal of millions of dollars for American jobs) should necessarily be recognized by 'reliable sources' in the formal sense. WIKI is liberal enough, under the occasional exception rule, for example, to recognize some unsung heroes who are indeed notable and noteworthy. I recommend some (1) re-editing of the text, (2) perhaps some abridgment and (3) giving the contributors a chance to improve the overall article, as was the original intent when rating this article between a START and an "A' or "B". (SEE TALK PAGE) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.143.230 (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC) — 124.217.143.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - so far, we have the nomination, one delete !vote, and a large volume of comment in defence from four SPA IPs, all located in Hong Kong and probably the same person. Some more independent opinions are needed. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Omar, Sodabottle, and John CD --> A photo is one of the primary 'Wiki-means' of identifying a person of historical notability and here is one of Madsen, Master of Ceremonies, taken on board the 'M/V Jack Langland' during a major christening event, attended by Ambassadors and Congolese officials, which was organized for this large self-propelling barge on the Congo River. In addition to the foregoing information, emanating from Hong Kong (you're right...but by TWO persons...a professor and a colleague of Madsen's), this should provide sufficient proof to at least maintain the article temporarily intact until some re-editing can be accomplished...but kindly remove the discouraging labels and tags at the top for a few months at least. Photo: http://membres.multimania.fr/transnational/langland.jpg Other African project photos are also available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.141.69 (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC) • — 124.217.141.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"...but in practice not everything need actually be attributed" WP:V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.92.226 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: Several inaccuracies in Nineteen's assertions... Also: Sodabottle's vote is conditional. Indeed, verifiable third party sources have been identified...Omar's original flagging, emanating from someplace close to Langley, Virginia, seems dubiously motivated as well... Anyway, good wiki-fellows, do what you wish with this article which embodies considerable merit.
Yes, I'm willing -- even as a former supporter of this article -- to accept Jaqphule's assessment which seems to encapsulate the essence of the problem. Google Beta may have produced more results than simply Google, but all of that is irrelevant due to the 'vanity issue' which, almost as a humorous taunt to Wiki, dominates the article's tone. You may delete the article. Perhaps the Inga-Shaba page can be strengthened somewhat in the near future.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NMUSIC, demo albums are presumed non-notable, unless significant third-party coverage exists. A quick google search reveals a plethora of file sharing sites, but not much in the way of independent coverage by reliable sources. Therefore I do not see why this demo album merits its own page. Imperatore (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 18:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable local councillor. Has been tagged for notability since January 2009. Prod previously removed on the basis that she has received national coverage but none of this is in the article and the only coverage I can find mentions her in passing and certainly doesn't constitute the type of in depth coverage that we'd neet to meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN Valenciano (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exiledone (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable professional golfer. Does not appear to have competed at a high level, has no major achievements and unable to find any sources to verify anything. wjematherbigissue 15:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to meet WP criteria for inclusion. Reasons for deletion include the following:
~ Homologeo (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was wrong venue. Subpages for your own userspace can be speedily deleted on request under CSD U1, or if that's not appropriate, at MFD. NAC—S Marshall T/C 15:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Created in error, was supposed to be created as a sub page of my user page steveyeu ../(talk) 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92Talk 23:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prod was contested. The remover added references, but none of them show notability. I can't find significant coverage for this service. Joe Chill (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete: Promotional Nelogism. ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability requirements as a term probably only used by a gamers forum. Unlikely to be improved with the addition of independent (non-forum) sources. Raised as AFD as removal contested by multiple accounts. I suggest the article is restored to a simple re-direct if the consensus is non-notability. Fæ (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete non-notable amateur group. ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, non-professional musical ensemble. Google searching turns up nothing to support WP:MUSIC or WP:ORG requirements. Joal Beal (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steven131 (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steven131 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 01:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a dictionary article through-and-through; it covers etymology, word history, and examples of use. It even has a section titled "Meanings" for heaven's sake! This article should be deleted so that Gringo (disambiguation) can be moved to this title. Powers T 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. Only mention I can find on Google besides site related directly to this team and its rivals is this article in the weekly Bath Chronicle which basically gives a brief run down of the whole season for a rival team (i.e. it says Bath Bees will play Gloucestershire Gladiators (Note that it also turns up a lot of links to Gloucestershire Gladiators who are much more notable). Lack of coverage is not really surprising as with a mere handful of exceptions, largely confined to mainstream British sports (such as soccer, rowing, cricket and rugby), university sports teams in the UK are of little not even in their own institution never mind in the wider world. The article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of independent coverage, the prospects of being able to reference the article seem remote. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside the nom. The name of the article can be further debated on the talk page. JForget 01:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of restaurant chains, almost all of which have their own article. This list article appears to have been cobbled together over time and the entries lack coherence. Most of the worthwhile information that is in here could be incorporated into the relevant articles. There is already a 'Restaurants in Canada' category so this article would then be redundant CosmicJake (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. British university sports teams are rarely notable within their own institution, never mind the wider world. Warwick Wolves do not appear to be one of the mere handful of exceptions. The exceptions are generally confined to mainstream British sports such as soccer, cricket, rugby and rowing. American Football itself is of niche interest in the UK anyway. Besides sites directly related to the team and its rivals, other teams called Warwick Wolves and a supporters group for Wolverhampton Wanderers (often known by the nickname the Wolves), a quick search on google, turns up a single [very brief mention] in the Coventry Telegraph (circulation 47,000) saying that they played the paper's local university team. Article is also unreferenced, given the lack of independent sources there is little prospect of being able to reference the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to be a non-notable local DJ and event promoter. An assertion of notability has been made, but there are no references, and a search has not turned up anything to support the statements. Additionally, the creator of the article appears to be connected to an advertising agency affiliated with the Hip-Hop Festival (see their projects page[12]), which would fall under CSD G11. The only reason I am submitting this to AFD is that a speedy was proposed and declined in 2008, shortly after the article's creation. Horologium (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 01:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed. Concern was WP:NOT (dictionary). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Although the keep !voters have been very vocal in this debate, none of them actually provided a strong counter-argument to either the nomination or the delete !votes- for example some arguments didn't develop beyond "it's notable" while others went with "lots of sources" type arguments, but the sources that emerged were either local newspapers or LibDem and UK Parliament publications, of which the former are of questioanble reliability and the altter don;t verify basic biographical information so, with some reluctance, I'm closing this a delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article on non-notable local councillor who has not held any appropriate national or sub-national office and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. No coverage in third party sources independent of the subject. Valenciano (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom: Original prod was: Can not be referenced, verging on speculation. The only reference is to IMDB, which is also scant of references. A quick Google search reveals but references or replicas of the IMDB entry. We are not IMDB
I agree with that. Deproded by IP........ Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by Zzuuzz as A7 (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CSD and Deprodded (actually the CSD is still live). I agree completely with the original prod: "written like an advertisement". Nothing to indicate notability. A clear prod abuse, no notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There are decent arguments made by editors on both "sides" here and it seems that the analysis of a subject against WP:ATHLETE is more subjective than perhaps it is intended to be, but the majority of !votes seem to in favour of deletion and the majority back up their opinion with appropriate guidelines and interpretations thereof. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page, and it turns out he is not notable, and this article needs to be deleted. Appeared on the Ultimate Fighter, but lost his fight and was eliminated. RapidSpin33 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henle for a similar explanation. As per WP:ATHLETE, this BLP qualifies and has notability for being in a very notable MMA television show, as well as a notable event in destroying a rival competitors' nose. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth is 4 vs. 2 consensus? Paralympiakos (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Significance not demonstrated. One "source" a simple obituary blub in a minor newspaper, the second source comes up as "not found." Am I missing something? Gattosby (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-ad (plot summary, mostly) for obscure non-notable film; "references" padded by links to directories and the like Orange Mike | Talk 06:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy G4 - UtherSRG (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declining speedy G4 as article is significantly different than the previously AFD'd version. Elevating for a full review. Looks like NN to me. delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a G4, which I've already done once. While the formatting is better, much of the article is word-for-word identical to the previous version. The article should not have been restored by UtherSRG; bad form. --auburnpilot talk 06:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of German Federal Ministers by longevity was deleted at AfD because the list was indiscriminate: it listed ministers by their age of death, but that has no bearing on their occupation during their lifetime. The exact same issue applies here; it should really have been nominated at the same time. Delete for the reasons stated here, and at that other AfD. I42 (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 01:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behdad Sami. Relisting and semi-protecting because the previous AfD was impossible to close due to the SPA activity. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep 19,000 links can't be wrong... but seriously, this does appear to be a notable hoax.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, just a silly season story, flash in the pan - WP:N#TEMP & WP:SENSATION refer. Stainless steel cat (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 01:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article about an academic who appears not to pass WP:PROF, and in addition is completely lacking in third-party sources about its subject. A recent prod and a notability tag were removed without improvement. Most of the "publications" listed here appear to be reviews, and I wasn't able to find more than 2 citations to any of his works in Google scholar, far below the usual standard for WP:PROF #1. There's no evidence that he passes any of the other criteria, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are TV stations eligible for speedy? I think I'd rather have a consensus deletion. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources\references and it is extremely short. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_· ·_Contribs_· 04:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Move to List of Johnny Cash songs. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a collection of lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; seems to be a paparazzi target as the mother of a famous boxer. Suggest redirect to Manny Pacquiao. Has been redirected and PRODed previously, but feel it needs further discussion before doing it again. RunningOnBrains(talk) 17:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails the guidance of WP:ORG on the basis of poor evidence of impact in independent sources. Fæ (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92Talk 23:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92Talk 23:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92Talk 23:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92Talk 23:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable state chapter of the NJCL. There are no external references and it does not pass WP:CLUB. Coverage is only local in scope and the limited sourced encyclopedic information is better presented in a sub-list of the main article, per WP:CLUB. Reywas92Talk 23:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Five_Iron_Frenzy#Singles. Redirecting on the suggestion from Michig. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I think redirecting this to Before I Self Destruct would be a good idea but that's now an editorial decision. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not properly source (its all primary sources) and to be frank its a from a mixtape. Its a promotional single from the album but its chart position is not notable as it is impossible to source. there really is no need for this page considering it won't grow in size and much of the information is unsourced. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song is the first single from 50's fourth album, the song also appeared on a mixtape, but that was never intended to be in place of on the album. The album was delayed several times, so the single is notable in that it was eagerly anticipated by fans. The article also shows it was number one on a billboard chart. Not being sourced is not a reason to delete an article especially when said sources could easily be contained. Furthermore compared to many other song related wiki article the article seems about decent length. All in all I say we should keep this one.--Deathawk (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be part of a cross-wiki hoax or, at best, promotion of an unpublished non-notable "Guillaume Maguire", a.k.a. "John Spencer". (Cf. sockpuppet investigation at nl:Wikipedia.) Google searches ([34], [35]) turn up no mention of bona fide reliable sources, only several wikis and other open sites such as Wordpress and Amazon customer reviews. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a hoax. The reference to the Irish Times is faked, just search for it in the Irish Times archive and you will receive zero hits. Dolmen Press never published “alternative travel-guides”, see here for a complete list since 1970 and you will find neither travel guides nor anything by someone called John Spencer. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Only because there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a family (some alive, some deceased--BLP prod declined earlier), nothing saying they're notable except that they once owned a lot of ships. —fetch·comms 00:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The !voter saying "merge" appears to be arguing for a rewrite. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could easily be merged into Kandyan Kingdom#Culture and Arts, as I cannot find significant coverage to indicate the importance of this particular jewelery. —fetch·comms 00:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable concert tour. Sources do not establish any notability, and serve only to advertise the tour dates. Article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete they released their internet song less than a month ago? Clearly fails music and N.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy contested, elevating to AFD. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters---'Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP. No coverage in reliable sources provided. (The closest I found was a few mentions on afterellen.com.) Only potentially notable role is on Degrassi: The Next Generation. That role, however, is minor enough to not merit mention in Degrassi: The Next Generation. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find significant coverage for this individual. —fetch·comms 02:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The_Black_Angels_(band)#Discography. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources found, fails WP:CRYSTAL. —fetch·comms 01:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find significant coverage for this individual. —fetch·comms 00:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]