The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E WP:ONEVENT bio of a person "notable" only for dying. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like an essay that someone wrote for class. Though it is fairly well sourced, it's not well written and just strikes me as generally unencyclopedic. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was disambiguate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, unreferenced, and lacks clear focus on a single topic. Diego Moya (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Graphical language" should be separate, focusing on formal, graphical modeling languages used on computers. These are common, for instance for workflows - reference the BPMN article in Wikipedia. They are also used in monitoring and control, as in the GDA reference cited, or in the "Sequential Function Chart" article in Wikipedia (based on the earlier GRAFCET graphical language, used for PLCs), or in the graphical language used as cited in the Wikipedia article on LabVIEW. While the current "graphical language" page is currently a bit of a hodgepodge that needs focus, it still differs from the "visual language" article. The "visual language article is even more of a hodgepodge of psychology, art, etc., focusing on how humans interact with each other.
used on computers are not really visual programming languages, though. To me, a real "programming language" generally emphasizes specification of a series of steps - it is basically procedural (although some of those procedures are what to do to respond to events, etc.). But some modeling languages are truly declarative. That is, they don't specify steps. They are typically a model of some aspect of the real world or perhaps a computer application. As an example, consider a graphical language that allows someone to represent a fault tree graphically. That's a completely declarative representation of how faults propagate, e.g., how various root causes of something like loss of coolant in a nuclear reactor propagate to cause the loss of coolant, and then propagate further leading to release of radioactive gas, etc. That model stands by itself independent of its usage. It could be used for prediction -- e.g., mark a valve as stuck, and follow the implications to see what will happen. Conversely, hypothesize an event like loss of coolant, and trace back through the diagram to figure out what might have caused it. Or, estimate the future probabilities of events based on the probabilities of failures of each of the root causes. The point is that different "engines" treat the same graphical model differently, even though it's the same model. It's up to an "engine" to decide what to do with that model. (I've been involved with graphical languages that make multiple uses of given graphical models.) A workflow representation like BPMN is a representation of something that is essentially procedural, so might be considered a graphical programming language, but not all graphical languages are like that. Gmstanley (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 13:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Minor League Baseball player who hasn't played since 2009. (Baseball-Reference Minors Adam Penale (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scientist whose claim of notability as an academic is unsupported. I cannot find any significant coverage of his work in reliable sources. Article claims he is "best known" for a book which was published this month, which is dubious. Note: article was originally a WP:BLPPROD, but the tag was removed indicating that it was "invalid"; while the article does contain external links, all of these are to primary sources (i.e., his works) and support none of the actual biographical prose of the article, so ultimately this is an unsourced BLP. Kinu t/c 22:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, not MOS, potential BLP problems Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsupported neologism with no agreement on meaning or general usage. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Online journal started just this month. Too young to be notable yet. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Crusio (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Southern Adventist University. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Adventist University is certainly notable, this individual department? Not so much. Speedy deletion declined under school exemption. Thus, I nominate this article for 'deletion and perhaps a redirect to the main article if the powers that be so choose... BelloWello (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 declined. No cited claim of notability; she died in a convent with no indication of an influence on history. No hits on Google Scholar; hits on Google Books are a Wikipedia echo or mostly for the aunt or passing mentions of existence. Wtshymanski (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local politician, unsourced since 2007. Google News search finds nothing significant, just mentions in routine reporting about county business. MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is properly referenced with reliable sources, it is an essay and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following a discussion on Talk:Domestic_violence, it was discussed that this was acceptable content for a separate article as well as a subsection of the greater Domestic Violence page Cshaase (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the discussion on Talk:Domestic_violence, I agree that the Domestic violence and pregnancy article should be kept, and I read the Discussion page also (Talk:Domestic_violence_and_pregnancy). I think the concept is good. I don't think the presentation is neutral, and it has too many directions in one article. It seems well-referenced, although I did not check the references. It needs copy editing and cleanup. Dikonped (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I appreciate the suggestions for improvement but wouldn't Talk:Domestic_violence be a better forum rather than the deletion page? I'd like to improve the article so it is as neutral and finished as it can be, but it needs to be established that it should be kept and not deleted Cshaase (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find independant reliable sources. Not indication of notability and that this person meets WP:ARTIST. France3470 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terek, Osh Province
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, none found via Google (a blogger should be easy to find online), no indication of notability. Was prodded, prod removed by anon without improvement. Huon (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the game's official website is http://cf.qq.com/ check it out, and give the page back... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.45.3.50 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsatisfactory assertion of ntoability for 2 years now. Only one secondary source at http://ol.2u.com.cn/1_60861.html which is sufficient to summarize the game at Z8Games and other publisher's articles. Marasmusine (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this article for deletion due to poor notability of this scholar. Please see WP:PROF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dybabdulwadud (talk • contribs) 2011/03/26 00:31:16
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None appear to be independently notable. WP:NOTDIR/WP:LINKFARM applies. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 03:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no independent third-party sources to help establish the notability of this person. The article as it stands now does not, in my view, establish the notability with any of the references listed, and I find anthologies to not be an indication of notability. I also believe that nothing in the article construes importance or significance, but I did not feel comfortable placing an A7 tag on it, but rather wanted to get community consensus as to whether this person is notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Play appears to fail the GNG. Google failed to provide anything in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Whether to move it to D&AD Awards and shift its focus is an editorial decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable charity (fails WP:ORG...specifically WP:NONPROFIT). I can find no significant, secondary source coverage of D&AD on Google, and the only links the article provides are D&AD's website. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No references independent of the subject, fails general notability as well as notability for web sites. The rules for referencing and removing un-referenced material were significantly strengthened since the article's 1st AFD 5 years ago. Andrevan@ 15:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Dr Bloefeld, I'm going to assume that it was one of your doubles that made that second "keep" !vote. Even with that and considering the length of time this has been open, consensus leans slightly to the "keep" side. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFILM; no Google News results other than IMDb. The sources currently in the article are not known to be reliable sources, and in particular the reviews are not by nationally known critics. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started this article when I created Adam and Eve the song by Elvis which is the reason why I see you've nominated this as you were the admin who closed the Elvis song as a redirect. You foolishly redirected to List of Elvis songs rather than to Spinout (album) and failed to merge the information that was given. This does look like a crappy B teen horror movie I'll agree but I think its borderline notable. It does star a few notable actors like Erica Cerra for example and it is covered in the Hollywood Reporter newspaper and on the Horror Channel website, run by CBS, certainly a credible source. Obviously a fairly recent B horror film isn't going to get much coverage in google books anyway... I'd go with Weak keep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Marasmusine (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no sources, just a small indie looking for promotion. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no sources actually mentioning James A Gore instead of his brother Cedric, and even for Cedric no significant coverage. Claim of award lacks verifiable source that doesnt even show up on archive. Claim of use by fortune 500 companies not supported by citation. Article subject appears to be the author. v/r - TP 15:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is making a few claims and validations. First, the creation of the technology warrants support hence, the first claim is supporting Cedric Gore's article. Second, it was questioned that James A Gore was never mentioned in any of the references of the Cedric Gore article. So a reference was provided to support that claim. As the article is about James A Gore, his communication about his company should be considered more of a valuable claim. Nonetheless I have cited his blog in references.
Here are a few more links that support James A Gore the company and technology he helped create.
http://www.blackenterprise.com/2003/05/01/on-the-cutting-edge/">Black Enterprise - 2003</a>
"http://www.spoke.com/info/p7i7CwY/JamesGore">Spoke</a>
"http://business.highbeam.com/company-profiles/info/c2603252/javakitty-media-inc">Business.Highbeam</a>
"http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2680005/On-the-cutting-edge-who.html">Goliath</a>
"http://www.docstoc.com/docs/63177667/All-Record-Labels-in-Chicago">Docstoc</a>
Blog post of James A Gore. http://jamesagore.blogspot.com/ Jax Billione 16:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inadequately sourced, promoyionally written campaign biography for a would-be Congressional candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and the GNG. Advertising space may be purchased elsewhere Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have a question about this. Are all candidates not notable the first time they run? Do they only become notable once the mud starts flying? This is the reason I mentioned Vilsack. There has to be a standard. If you can show me a Wikipedia standard saying this sort of political article, with lots of references (I provided many) but of an exploratory committee, is not notable and worthy of deletion, I will honestly consider what you are saying and say delete too. If he does become a candidate in a couple of weeks for a U.S. House race, can we reinstate this article or does a new one have to be created? WP:POLITICIANS contains the standard, right? Should I be looking for something else, because as I said above, there doesn't even seem to be justification for a debate on it using the list there?--24.7.248.248 (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe this article should be kept because this man will soon announce his campaign once Joe Donnelly announces his campaign. Straw's exploratory committee has been announced and picked up through media sources. Many voters come to Wikipedia to learn about candidates. This page was made, I would assume, to let voters know who Mr. Straw is when he announced his committee and when he announces his candidacy for office. If Mr. Straw announces his campaign in a week, would this article be allowed to stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.181.3 (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article, while ostensibly about the "subject" of Non-Newtonian calculus, is in actuality about a non-notable mathematics text book Non-Newtonian Calculus, written by Grossman (the primary author of the article as well) and Katz. This book, published in the 1970s, receives only 19 Google scholar citations. Of these, five are self-citations. The "reviews" referenced in the article—those that actually are reviews—are mostly of the kind that any reliably published serious mathematics textbook would have. MathSciNet and Zentralblatt routinely review most new books and paper that they index, for instance. The Mathematics Gazette routinely publishes very short reviews of items likely to be of interest to its readers. These in no way distinguish the book from other books of its kind. Many of the remaining "reviews" listed in the overlong "Citations" section just show that the book appeared in some list. One is even a link to a Google books search (which, ironically, doesn't even have a user review associated with it), and at least the few others that I checked have about as little content. It is clear that, if this book were a truly notable scholarly reference, that more people would have noticed it by now, and it would have a much higher Google citation count. It is not unusual for truly well-known books in this field to have thousands of citations. So I suggest that we not be fooled here by the routine reviews that basically every mathematics book receives, and focus on the question of what distinguishes this book from the thousands of other mathematics books that are published each year. I'd say not much. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Later during the AfD I tried Google scholar. This produced a more extensive list of articles, all but one of which were by the Grossmans and Katz (in various combinations). It also produced lists of books received (which does not establish notability), a review, and advertisements apparently placed by the authors. That is, I found only one non-self-citation to this book in the almost 40 years since the book was published.
Since then, User:Smithpith (who has in the past stated that he is Michael Grossman) has tracked down many more citations. The article lists innumerable "mentions" or "reviews" of the book. The citations that would establish notability, however, are citations in papers. I picked one at random to look at: David Baqaee, "Intertemporal choice: a Nash bargaining approach", Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Research: Discussion Paper Series, ISSN 1177-7567, September 2010. The only place Grossman and Katz's book is mentioned is on page 17 (page 19 of the PDF), where the author writes: "Alternatively, one could use the notion of a 'product integral' to define the weighted Nash product (see, for example, Grossman and Katz (1972) for more information)." Product integrals have a history going back to Vito Volterra in 1887; the way I read that sentence, Grossman and Katz are being cited here as expositors, not as researchers. It is possible to have a notable expository book, but the book seems intended as a research monograph.
Are all the references like that? I am not sure. If most of them are, then any article on the book would have to present it as notable exposition, not notable research; but one would expect a notable research monograph to be cited as research, not as exposition. Perhaps someone with more patience than me will investigate the quality and kind of citations the book has gathered. Myself, I expect a notable 40-year old book to have more references. Good 40-year old mathematical books or papers have hundreds of citations. It's possible that this could change, but as always, WP:CRYSTAL; we don't have articles on the "next big thing" until that thing is actually notable. I don't think the book Non-Newtonian calculus is notable now, and I don't think it'll ever get there. Ozob (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The deletion decision on another article does not prejudice this one, supporters of keeping the article have pointed to reliable sources on the existance and notability of rivalry and there is nothing presented to overcome that. (non-admin closure) Monty845 02:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reds–Cardinals rivalry, this article purports to describe a "rivalry" but doesn't demonstrate the existence of said rivalry. They played each other in interleague play for the first time in 1997 and have since been merged to the same division. There is nothing independent of those two facts that establishes this as a "rivalry". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 02:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. LiteralKa (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the content of this unsourced BLP J04n(talk page) 12:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:SIGCOV. The short Tribune India article about his exhibition is in their Life+Style section. The other given sources are about his father, not him. Last source is his blog. Ben Ben (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very similar article (different capitalization) was deleted in 2008 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperAntiSpyware. The article is in a better shape than before, but I don't think the software passes the threshold for inclusion. -- Luk talk 10:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Film's existence cannot be verified. No Sources. Nothing relevant on Google. Suspected hoax. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Film's existence cannot be verified. No Sources. Nothing relevant on Google. Suspected hoax. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Film's existence cannot be verified. No Sources. Nothing relevant on Google. Suspected hoax. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of article improvement.. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
an unremarkable sports commentator/broadcaster who fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. most of the coverage merely confirms his role [27] or refers to namesakes in USA. LibStar (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 03:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, unencyclopedic, no reliable sources cited Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Obvious copy of T-Mobile. Blatant hoax. Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has no references and its verifiability is questionable. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 04:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unpublished manga. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. Prod removed by author ttonyb (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any reliable sources discussing this specific group of children of Nazis specifically. Also, the inclusion criteria are excessively vague: who qualifies as a "Nazi official" or as a "well-known member of the Third Reich"? There are probably tens of thousands of people out there with a Nazi ancestor notable enough to have been discussed in multiple reliable sources, simply because there were so many high-level Nazi functionaries doing so many notable things. Where does the cutoff occur?
But the main problem I have with this is the potential for abuse and for point-pushing, especially given the vague inclusion requirement. This list would be very easy to misuse; find someone you want to smear whose father was a file clerk for the Reich, claim he was a Nazi official, and add him. The word "Nazi" is so tar-and-feather that it has the potential to cause real harm.
(I have already removed the title "Nazi Descendants" from the article itself, as in English that's ambiguous enough to be taken in the wrong way - ie. that the members of the list are themselves Nazis.) Contested PROD. NellieBly (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of X Universe races#Argon Federation. And delete as unsourced. Sandstein 06:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable third party sources that can allow this article to meet the general notability guideline. Wikipedia is not just plot summaries and requires fictional topics have reliable information about reception and significance. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Article has had references added during the AfD, the need for improvement is not a justification for deletion. (non-admin closure) Monty845 01:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-based website lacking any sort of notability whatsoever. LiteralKa (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-based website lacking any sort of notability. LiteralKa (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject may well have set a record some time ago, but the reference is dead and I cannot find any other reliable sources to establish that this person passes GNG or some Athlete's version. Also, the amount of vandalism is somewhat overwhelming; dig through the history to find a cleaner version. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Can be recreated with sources. Also I will userfy or incubate this article on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I created this myself, back in 2005 when Wikipedia's sourcing and notability rules were still basically being made up as we went along. By 2011 standards, however, it falls squarely in the unsourced BLP bucket, and having done a Google search I can attest that more solid reliable sources just ain't there. Delete, albeit without prejudice against future recreation if better sources can be found. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: At this moment I am not able to delete the article due to a website error. I will try again later but, in the meantime, if another admin is able to delete it, please feel free to do so. TigerShark (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spam articles about non-notable business philosophy. No media coverage aside from press releases. Am also nominating non-notable co-author; the other co-author was deleted here.——Chowbok ☠ 01:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Topps. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not indicate notability, unsourced, the ad phrases are purely promotional. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article created and edited by WP:SPA has huge WP:V issues and fails WP:N. The article as it stands is about a game called "Nubian Jak", basically trivial pursuit with questions about black history. I could find no evidence that the board game has won any significant awards despite claims in the article.Tetron76 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Test edit Maimai009 14:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Nom rationale of "test edit" does not seem appropriate for an AFD, but while there is a claim to notability for this recently created article, there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Google news and basic web searches bring back nothing on subject. Also, it seems that WP:BLPPROD would be a more appropriate action here. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable band, no coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:BAND. doomgaze (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This company does not have the "Significant coverage" that address the company directly in detail needed for it's own article. The only coverage that can be found is mentions and trival coverage. Mtking (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I originally created this article in 2008, honestly I am not sure why I did. This article in my opinion does not meet the standards of WP:POLITICIAN and should be deleted. Marcusmax(speak) 03:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. The coverage referred to in this article refers to 1) an article that mentions this AP Dataweigh's product in passing as being used by another company (the article is about the company using the product) 2) an indication that this company presented at a conference. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long unsourced bio with little notability. Every college professor does not need a Wikipedia page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Moe anthropomorphism#Military_hardware. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an apparently non-notable subset of moe anthropomorphism. I don't see anything in the current article that could be merged to the mecha musume section in that article. Please note that the most substantial potential citation, to the boing-boing site, uses wikipedia as a source and is therefore unusable. Malkinann (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, TV journalists are not inherently notable. Gigs (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be entirely copied from one or more other sites, e.g. somosophils.wordpress.com. Jojalozzo 02:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 22:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to wikify this, but I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. There are some blog matches, and some PR-type info, but I cannot find evidence of notability per WP:BIO, WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG. Chzz ► 03:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. More importantly than notability, this is a completely unsourced WP:BLP. Sandstein 06:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive list of works, but I can not verify any publication even in catalog of National Library of Israel. The es and fr WP have even less information than we do. Perhaps someone else can find something. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this list being encyclopaedic. it is simply a directory of research groups. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
your WP:NOHARM argument hardly advances notability. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional video game character of whom I cannot find any information. I can't merge it because the article doesn't even say what game the character is from. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot like an advertisement to me Eeekster (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I did do the userfication as that is normally done upon request, and will be reversing JGreb's deletion of the previously userfied page as I do not believe that was in line with the criterion under which it was deleted. It is also inappropriate to take such an action when actively involved in a debate on the subject.Never mind, upon looking at the last version before deletion it was changed to a redirect anyway. Pursue WP:MFD if you feel strongly that these pages should be deleted entirely. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough for a article of its own. KzKrann (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]