The result was delete. This is an indiscriminate list, plain and simple. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question was created to list the names of all the casualties of the 2010 Kashmir unrest. But this particular article is not of any encyclopedic value as creating a separate article to list the names of the people killed is against Wikipedia's policy for creation of new articles. Johnxxx9 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable publication, the references are all supporting material in the book, NOT the notability of the book itself which clearly fails WP:NBOOK. PROD was disputed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Although a source has been added since I first came across it, the article is still in a very poor state, and (unless we have started to indiscriminantly allow any article that includes the "f" word) makes no assertion of passing the general notability guideline. The source that has been added is sufficient to establish that the article is not a hoax, but little more. --WFC-- 22:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely unverified BLP, consisting mainly of unverified namedropping and unencyclopedic claims to fame. Google Books offers up one or two hits--but those are not available full text and they seem to be no more than mentions. Since no sources are provided (except for the obligatory MySpace page) and I can't find any, delete. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Successive approximation ADC. NW (Talk) 21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the article history before I copyedited it, you can see that this article was created as an essay/school project. "Our interest focuses", "We will give", "We propose", etc. The text was copied wholesale from the french version, its unreferenced, and gives no assertion of nobility. This is not a real field, and shouldn't have its own article. Nolelover 22:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Starscream (Transformers). Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. An unhealthy dose of original research as well. Lacking in credible sources. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No one has provided legitimate and independent coverage. To put it very simply, no notability, no article. Courcelles 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Gobots prod. I'm taking this one all the way. Delete. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established by reliable sources, with article lately being used for promotion, evidently by its subject. JNW (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An IP user flagged up this article as possibly being promotional on my talk page.[10] Looking into it, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources (others might do better, I only found event listings), so I think that the suspicion of the IP was correct - this is promotional copy for a non-notable event. Fences&Windows 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Searched for RS, couldn't find any; not subject to A7 speedy because A7 not applicable to schools, including trade schools TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another obscure, non-notable Gobots character. Is wikipedia run for the benefit of fifth graders? Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Gobots article. Fails GNG and all wikipedian standards. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Even though this AfD was started by a banned user, the subject simply does not have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Three of the "keep" !votes are based on the (inadequate) sourcing, while RAN's was WP:WAX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, go-bots spamcruft, non notable, fails GNG, fails pretty much all civilised standards. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Quarl (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Book will be released next year; too far in the future, violates WP:CRYSTAL. Derild4921☼ 20:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hesitant to nominate this page for deletion as I'm sure a good list of floods in Bangladesh could be created. However, I think that the current article has no useable content and there does not seem to be anyone currently interested in creating such a list. The article was previously proposed for deletion about a year ago. At the time, I saw that the article had no actual content, but instead just consisted of links to non-existent sections within the article. The article creator hadn't edited it in over a year and there were no other substantive edits. I nominated the article for speedy deletion as having no content, but User:DGG declined the speedy nomination and the prod. However, he had mistakenly thought the links in the article went to actual content, rather than being to non-existent sections of the article (see here). When I pointed out that it actually had no real content, DGG changed one of the links to go to an article on flooding in Bangladesh in 1999. However, I think that just made the article more confusing, as there is now one good link mixed in with over 100 links that look blue but go nowhere. I informed Wikiproject Bangladesh of this list here about a year ago, but my post got no replies and no one has edited the article since. As there are only two floods in Category:Floods in Bangladesh and not enough content at Floods in Bangladesh to split out into a separate list, I don't think this article could be made into anything useable until someone knowledgeable on the subject decides to do work on it. Since I don't think the content in the current version will be useful once someone does get around to creating such a list, and as keeping the article around would wrongly suggest we have a list of floods in Bangladesh when we really don't yet, I think the current article should just be deleted. Calathan (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Lindsay Lohan discography. Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already covered by Lindsay Lohan discography. Contains rumor and un-officially released songs as well. Issues with reliable sources. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fra_Diavolo_(1933_film)#Earsy-kneesy-nosey. Content already merged Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a game/joke in a Laurel and Hardy film. I'm a big fan of the duo with hundreds of edits in their articles but I can't see how this game is notable so I have sent it to afd. The joke was a one off and not used in any other films. It just isn't important in the L&H world. The article was created by an established editor who declined a prod a couple of years ago. I have looked for cites but there are just a few trivial mentions, this can't change. Szzuk (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notability. According to the article she seems to have been the tragic love interest of the notorious Marshall Applewhite of the Heavens Gate cult. However there does not seem to be much known about her besides that. The information in the article could be included in his article, or in the article on the group. Wolfview (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Could find nothing in Gnews or database search on the subject. Appears, based on simple google search, to be at least partially autobiographical.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Television personality who fails WP:N. Unsourced, advertising. Article is partially copied from this [17] article. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was discussion closed as article already deleted under WP:CSD G3.[18] (non-admin closure)—Chris!c/t 03:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any results on Google, no references or citations. I assume that this article is a hoax. JJ98 (Talk) 17:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I'm sympathetic to the view that discussions concerning redirecting/merging should generally stay on talk pages but in addition to the nomination, we have two delete !voters with WP:NOTDIC concerns. However, the nominator has pointed out that the material may be "encyclopedic" (I hate that word) by recommending targets that it can be merged to. Therefore, this page will likely exist as either an article or a redirect and there's no consensus for the delete button to be hit at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dune terminology#M, which adequately defines the term and its uses in the series. This "article" merely overblows the concept and this "topic" on its own does not and never will satisfy WP:Notability. Most of this information is also covered in some way as part of other articles anyway. — TAnthonyTalk 17:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muad'Dib – "The adapted kangaroo mouse of Arrakis, a creature associated in the Fremen earth-spirit mythology with a design visible on the planet's second moon. This creature is admired by Fremen for its ability to survive in the open desert." In Dune, Paul Atreides takes "Muad'Dib" as his Fremen name, which takes on greater significance when he is perceived as a messiah.
The result was Discussion closed as article already deleted under WP:CSD A7 non-admin closure Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an undisguised self-promoting puff piece. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing but an exhaustive list of two hundred names (cities and individuals), with no references and sources, and it's rather confusing: does it include people of mainland (southern) Greece who lived in Macedonia, does it refer to Greeks including Macedonians as opposed to other Macedonians tribes who were of Illyrian or Thracian origin, does it imply that the Greeks were foreigners to Macedonia and the Macedonians were not Greeks? This list is unsourced, bares no importance and actually drives readers to ambiguous conclusions. Note that the article was created under a different title (List of other Greeks in ancient Macedonia), which was changed later and gave a whole new meaning in the article. It cannot be merged with the List of ancient Macedonians, since it doesn't list native Macedonians. It could be split in several articles like "List of ancient Atheneans in Macedonia" or "List of ancient Epirotans in Macedonia", but they seem redundant too. - Sthenel (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Runes of Magic. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally tagged with Speedy Deletion A7 as non-notable. However, I think there's enough doubt cast by the author's suggestions that it's a regional version of Runes of Magic that it shouldn't be speedied without discussion. I'm really not sure whether it should have its own article, whether some of its content should be merged with Runes of Magic, or whether it really should be deleted - so I've brought it over here for a Deletion Discussion and to seek knowledgeable input. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This neologism appears to have been created by a single website. While the goal of the website may be noble, it is not clear that the site is yet notable. Even if the site becomes notable, this article is a coatrack, purportedly describing a new word while actually reporting about the new website. Claims that the term has gaines currency based on its entry in the Urban Dictionary are specious, as the definition given at UD matches the definition given at the website. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BAND, should have been speedily deleted but cult status claim defeated A7 nomination. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:EFFORT is not a valid reason to keep, but there are indeed reliable sources to prove some of the material in the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Col. Warden has provided multiple sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic. For the most part, the "delete" !votes are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT: merely calling it "unencyclopedic trivia" does not make it so, as long as it is substantiated in reliable sources. No policy/guideline says that topics deemed subjectively by Wikipedians to be trivia are inherently non-notable; WP:TRIVIA refers to "Trivia" sections in articles and does not apply here. I understand that a lot of people are wondering, What does facial hair have anything to do with a president? I know I would too. But the simple undisputable fact is that the sources are there. The other ridiculous titles provided by the "delete" !voters are simply examples of WP:WAX and straw man argument; the difference between those and this article is that this article has significant coverage in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the list combines two subjects which have only a trivial relation. The fact that some presidents had facial hair during their presidency has no influence on anything, and isn't discussed seriously in any source/ The only sources given are an unreliable website, and one "witty" book. If anyone would have studied whether presidents with facial hair would have been more likely to start a war, seduce an intern, or otherwise do anything relevant and notable, the subject might have been notable. As it stands, it is a trivial item collected by one author in a book. Fram (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of rivers of Pakistan. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have List of rivers of Pakistan to provide better navigation of the topic...also there is no proper criteria of what is a 'major' river and what is a 'minor' river... Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to new literacies . I'm going to be a little bold, and suggest that the proposed merge would satisfy everyone. No evidence has been presented that this is a standard term in itself. I do not think it's reasonable to multiply articles on the same concept because different words are used in the titles of different sources about them. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a neologism and content fork of New literacies and fails WP:N as a separate topic. Per the article as it is right now "Web-based new literacies is a term coined in 2008 by Mahmoud Abdallah, assistant lecturer of Curriculum and TESOL Methodology at Assiut University College of Education, Egypt (rm gratuitous EL), while he was doing his PhD study at the Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, UK." I initially redirected the article to New literacies per this brief discussion which was created after a merge tag was placed on the article (which was removed without discussion by the creator). After the creator reverted my redirect, I asked that the creator to engage at that discussion via an edit summary. No luck. Upon further review of the article, it does not seem worth a redirect even. Novaseminary (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL, we do not create articles for unpublished books unless the forthcoming book has already received substantial press. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination for IP. Jujutacular talk 13:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Fails WP:NFF. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
one-sentence article with no assertion of notability for two years Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced with no indication of notability. Prod removed by creator without any improvements. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Concerns about describing the subject in a more neutral tone are a continuing concern in any political article. Mandsford 23:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fringe theory concocted out of synthesis of material that relies heavily on unreliable sources. Looks like a coatrack to push a non-neutral point of view Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“ | At the same time, there were many in India who assumed that the state of Bangladesh itself was pursuing an evil territorial design; seeking Lebensraum for its teeming population and ultimately usurping Indian territory in order to establish a Greater Bangladesh. | ” |
That is precisely what I am trying to report - the existence of such a concept and its reactions. I am not offering evidence that their claims are legitimate. The article describes some Indian politicians and scholars and a report from the Assam governor to the Indian president as proponents of that such a scheme exists.
The context of the sources may be complicated, but the article is not attempting any complicated assertions about the legitimacy of the concept - it simply reports that it exists and describes what it is.
Finally, I find that another article, Greater Nepal underwent an attempt at deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal, which failed for precisely the same reasons that apply in this article. There are other articles like Greater Armenia, Greater Serbia, Jinnahpur, which are all in the same classification. A look into the Category:Irredentism (which I guess I should add to the article) will provide many related examples. Each of those articles may be written in varying degrees of quality, but do they deserve deletion? No.
This article can be improved, no doubt about that. Any recommendations for improvement will be adopted. But in my mind, there are no grounds whatsoever to brand it as a WP:HOAX, WP:COAT and have it deleted. Shiva (Visnu) 13:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - a prior discussion can be found at this link, where the doubts about this article first emerged. Shiva (Visnu) 13:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep - Pretty staightforward and neutral encyclopedia-type discourse on a religious/nationalist movement. Beaucoup Google returns on a search for the phrase. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Struck through accidental duplicate comment. —SpacemanSpiff 18:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both. The list of villages in Rewari district has been incorporated to the district article; the list of villages in the Barwala municipality is not substantiated by any source and no arguments have been made in favor of keeping; the list of villages in Panchkula district has not formally been nominated. Mandsford 23:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a list, and no articles for each of these villages. More importantly, no indication this topic, as a list, has any references to vouch for its notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article about two GCSE media-studies student Youtube short films and a proposed third. Claims of "cult popularity" but only a few hundred views. Fails WP:Notability (films), to put it mildly. PROD contested by one of the authors. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted: article contained only "a rephrasing of the title" (see CSD A3). JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no mention of notability Melaen (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to N-Dubz. Redundant with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Behaviour. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too early; no indication that this is notable: all references are to youtube, social networking sites, or the artist's website. Convert the article into a redirect to N-Dubz. Also per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Behaviour; I nominated Best Behaviour before discovering that this article also existed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination for 69.181.249.92, nomination is as follows: Prod contested by person who works for the project. It's still an unreferenced article about non-notable software. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 09:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why this article should be deleted. It is, however, wrongly named. a move request to "malariacontrol.net" is pending.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malariologist (talk • contribs)
The result was Administrative closure Nothing has changed since I administratively closed this last week: the FLRC for this material remains open, while a discussion on this precise topic posted at WP:CENT is ongoing. Editors are encouraged to participate in either of those discussions (which could moot a WP:LOCAL consensus here), and the nominator is welcome to take up the closure of both substantially identical nominations with me at User talk:Jclemens or seek to have this closure reviewed at WP:DRV. Of course, any editor is free to renominate the list if and when its delisted from featured status, and these two closures should not be construed as prohibiting a speedy renomination once this material has been delisted. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was AfD'ed before, but wrongly closed by an admin. Was brought ot FLRC here due to 3.b (content forking) concerns. However consensus on the FLC-process has it that content forking is an AfD matter.
The result was delete. Aside from the headcount, which is firmly to delete, the delete side of the debate has done a far more thorough job of analysing the sources. The outcome of that analysis is that the sourcing isn't sufficient for the purposes of the relevant notability guidelines. The analysis has not been refuted. The previous AfD outcomes do not substantially influence, let alone bind, the outcome here. Consensus can change, as our decision-making processes become more mature. Mkativerata (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N
A topic should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
The article has 7 'sources':
It seems that this article has been through several AFDs and that, rather like the GNAA article, people have been trawling the 'net for mentions of it, trying to find a justification for KEEP, but have come up with little that's actually allowable as a source/reference for Wikipedia's purposes (the many google hits not withstanding). Checking Google news the Nicaraguan website above is the only hit in all the Gnews archives. It seems that a truly notable topic would have rather more out there than this.Sumbuddi (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Incubate. Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kittens of Woodlake Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable independent film, sources are all local and do not satisfy WP:N. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear how this person meets WP:CREATIVE? The "references" in the bibliography section are primary (point to the websites of the subject, Alcyonfilm.com). no third-party, substantial sources that indicate why he is notable. Spatulli (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources found. Redlinky, lacking in sources, tagged for sources for four years now. Last AFD was four years ago and resulted in no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be solely an extended personal essay based on original research. Although it's been around for over three years, its present references appear to be dead in-line external links and links to a historical architectural website that do not support what's being contended in the article. I'd suggest merging it into the main Brantford Ontario article; but because the material this article contains is completely unsupported, I'm unsure exactly what should be safely "merged". Deconstructhis (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although quite a bit of effort has gone into writing it, it does appear to be a reflective essay more suitable for a magazine rather than Wikipedia. Passages like "Bands from across the country would pack the bars with Brantford's more aggressive youth. Some of the more well known musicians, like Steve Goof(BFG's), Anus (Dirty Bird) Jimbo (Dayglo Abortions) have fond memories of playing in Brantford's seedy bars" seem to confirm this. Because most of the bands have no articles on Wikipedia, one can only assume that they're not particularly noteworthy. Bob talk 08:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, original reason was "Article about an article, not notable, no independent references" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Borden (company). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is largely a word for word duplicate of the article Borden (company) and is redundant. All the information can be found in the more comprehensive parent article. -- Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef. No sources. Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getaway car closed as no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. Subject is a non-notable City of Newcastle councillor. AussieLegend (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong AussieLegend he is also candidate for the division of Newcastle and runs a financial planning business. Enidblyton11 (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Regrettable, but fairly common case. Coverage appears to be strictly local, and nothing much came out of it. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Video conferencing application. Lacks any substantial coverage from reliable sources (and I was unable to find any in a quick search). Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added sources and the information about the Tech Coast Angels, they are the one of the largest investment angel pools around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeksquader (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that this player has done anything of note. Despite what the article implies, he never played first-team professional football in England. The matches referred to appear to be friendly or reserve-team games. I am not sure that seven appearances for Cincinnati Kings is sufficient to make him notable. The player of the same name shown at the "Neil Brown" website was active 40 years ago. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of Vasco Amaral Sandman888 (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Episodic list of a non-notable web series, Squatters. If Squatters is deemed notable enough to have an article, this should be merged into the Squatters web page due to the small amount of episodes-- no need to create a content fork. Also, I should've nominated all these articles in one nomination, sorry. Nomader (Talk) 05:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A declined speedy from back in May ([52]), no reliable sources show up during a search and the two sources other than the places where the videos are hosted are a passing mention on a nyu.edu blog/podcast and an extensive article on a blog called "Clicker", which is a website dedicated to promoting online video series (its about page). I'm nominating this for deletion because it is a self-published web video series (published on YouTube, DailyMotion, and its own website) that fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Nomader (Talk) 05:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Unusual" is highly subjective, I doubt reliable sources can be found, and this is possibly not encyclopaedic. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Calvin College theater facility. No third party sources to show notability. Not even any prominent performances held there, nor is it even the only theater facility at the college. GrapedApe (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable theater without reliable sources. JNW (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No secondary sources found. Claims to Grammy wins are not corroborated by existing Grammy award lists; the Grammys in question went to the artists. Large number of credits, but absolutely no biographical info found, nor anything other than Allmusic directories to verify the info. Simply having a big résumé of material isn't enough if there's absolutely no reliable sourcing to be found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD A9. Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no claim of fame, and is unreferenced. It was successfully speedy deleted under CSD A7. intelati(Call) 02:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of organizations. No reliable sources have been found for the article, even after a previous PROD. After further diligent search and discussion on the article talk page, it appears that no reliable sources can be found about the organization or its activities. Therefore the article is nominated for deletion discussion for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Character is a minor one, neither notable nor important. NotARealWord (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No agreement on whether the Grammy nomination is sufficient to estability notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I declined an IP's speedy on this, since claims to notability are made--but those claims all work by way of namedropping. This person is not notable. Article has no reliable sources that establish notability, Google News and Books offer nothing. Delete. At the very least delete that horrible photograph with the fan growing out of his head. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What this dude Drmies is suggesting is: mastering engineers aren't worth a mention when their clients only get an award nomination - that or maybe - award nominations are BS to establish notability. Either way he clearly has no idea of how difficult it's for any musician to achieve a Grammy nomination. Dude instead of tagging away for convenience look for suitable citations. I just found this with little effort at http://www.billboard.com/#/album/cindy-blackman/music-for-the-new-millennium/775151 .Maybe he thinks C Blackman is not notable too? 1 more thing - if everyone has to be like Bob L then 90% of all engineer pages would be removed from wikipedia [lol]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.58.130 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*speedy delete. this site is a joke and has no business being on wiki. A couple of credits does not make one notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.37 (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has actually been here without challenge since March 2009. What is claimed does not amount to notability, but in view of the long history I thought it better to bring it here than to just speedy it. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn no !votes for deletion, article was greatly improved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef, unsourced OR. Last AFD closed with a keep based on "This article just needs some work," but once again, everyone expected everyone else to do the work and thus we just went around in circles and did jack squat. It's always somebody else's problem isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources found. Only sources are a blog and a primary source. Presence of notable artists on label doesn't mean inherent notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Article is supported by Press Releases. ttonyb (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted more potential sources supporting the notability of the company to the talk page of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tri-State_Consumer_Insurance_Company
I also tried to make the case there that a google search for the company returns a number of discussion boards looking for information on the company, indicating its need for a page SamXMorris (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) — SamXMorris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the significant coverage needed to prove notability Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]