The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale from November 2010 stands. I don't know where this content came from, but as best I can tell it isn't either of the books cited, which don't in fact support any such thing as this. This biography appears to have been extrapolated from what the books do say, which is not much about this person, and not enough for even a stub biography. Again, as with the other biographies (There were several that were supposedly sourced from these books, but turned out not to be supported by them when I actually looked at the books themselves. See Michael "Spider" Gianco (AfD discussion) for one that I put through AFD before I realized how many of these falsely sourced biographies of purported organized criminals there were.), there are no other sources that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, this article has no sources and contains OR. JJ98 (Talk) 22:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per past AFD consensus, we don't normally want separate articles about each individual local chapter of a national political party, and there's no real indication of independent notability here to suggest that this particular one should be the exception. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a commercial product sold by one single general store in a small town, with no properly sourced indication of actual notability. I suppose it's possible that similar products exist elsewhere — but even if that's true, then we should have one article about the generic name for it and then redirect this there, rather than creating a separate article about each individual name for the same thing. And if that's not the case, then delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Left Behind: The Kids. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Article does not have sources cited per WP:RS, and the prod was declined on the basis that similar articles exist. But WP:OSE usually covers this argument as baseless for keep. Phearson (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article has become non-encyclopedic, not notable, and unreferenced after recent removal of non-contextual content Mjpresson (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would challenge you to find that. The article is specifically titled Purple Haze (cannabis), while you are approaching it as a general colloquial term.--Mjpresson (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: None of the references given above can really be used as they are just mentions from non-citable sources. I seriously tried to incorporate them all but it just doesn't work, if you look at them. Again, this article pertains to cannabis per its title, so the numerous references to LSD are not pertinent here and doesn't belong in the discussion, in my opinion. Of course there was probably a strain with this name, so what? There is a strain called Cat Piss and another called Charlie Sheen so do they qualify to have 2-sentence, unreferenced articles about them?--Mjpresson (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-notable. There are two citations currently on the article. The first is to a user generated geneology site (ancestry.ca) which is not a reliable source. The second is to a passing mention in a book, not enough to establish notability. I have been able to turn up several more hits on other user generated content geneology sites, which do not appear to be reliable sources. Barring any significant reliable source coverage, it appears the subject is not notable. I am happy to withdraw the nomination should reliable source coverage be introduced by someone with better luck turning it up. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to clean up the article a little (make it feel less like a family tree book) and to clarify the references. The Barkey family is clearly a "prominent" Altona family (as noted by Altona historian Joe Nighswander), but not of the stature of Abraham Stouffer. I'm open to either keeping the article or deletion.
The result was keep. , with leave to discuss a merge on the article's talk page, per the usual processes. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially a permastub. Has very little content, and not all the content of the page deals with the topic. Suggest deletion or merge to Native American music Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a Canadian rock band which is entirely unverifiable as written; with the exception of MySpace profiles, every single "reference" here is to the front splash page of an organization or media outlet mentioned in the article, and not to any content which actually verifies the existence or the notability of the band. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the person who created this is the same person who created the article about the artist management company that now represents one of the band's former members (and even that article is skirting the edge of being deletable as WP:SPAM.) I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination if somebody can Heymann it up to a keepable standard by actually tracking down real references which actually demonstrate the band's notability — but right now, it's a pretty unequivocal delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Single event/news blip; not notable. tedder (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any notability, let alone significant coverage in independent sources, as per WP:GNG The-Pope (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article about Mornington is correct information. As a former employee there (and Moonah as well), I played at the centre, I'm also longtime friends with two former managers of the facility and also, a lot of information provided comes courtesy of the 1992 STTBA (Southern Tasmanian Tenpin Bowling Association) end of season report from that year. By the way, Charles Martin Construction were a well known business in Hobart during the 1980s who built and ran the centre for tax purposes, they had a manager who oversaw the centre manager and made decisions on their behalf. They unfortunately went broke in late 1989. Forfuxake (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice against recreation in...er...2050 :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, the title is wrong (this article is not a "list" at all), but I'm not sure it can survive even with a different title. The references are not properly cited. It is impossible to tell what is original research / synthesis, and what is actually from the sources. The author also added the same content to 2050, where it might be better there. Singularity42 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character. JJ98 (Talk) 16:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It also meets WP:FICT. Bailo26 17:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Keep. I mean, c'mon. Jimmy Neutron has one. Spongebob Squarepants has one. Why not Ed?
— 989 RVD
WP:OSE: —
- Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article.
I do not mean to get into an argument, I just cannot see how you can write a response simply stating that other stuff exists. It makes little or no sense to me. Bailo26 22:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an entirely unsourced (and unsourceable) article about a small and non-notable island in a small and just barely notable lake; prod was disputed (albeit without explanation or referencing improvements), so I'm bringing it here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested proposed deletion - originally nominated by The-Pope (talk · contribs): "Junior footballer, who, according the refs provided, has not yet played in a fully professional league, nor for his country at senior level." The tag was removed by an unregistered user. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted per A7 by Neutrality (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no third-party reliable sources supporting that this person meets WP:MUSICBIO. Singularity42 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Sajjad Afghani. This seems nonobjectionable even to those advocating deletion. Sandstein 09:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not every terrorist's death is a notable event. I do not believe this meets WP:EVENT at this time. Singularity42 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article presents the subject as a pseudoscience. While I am sure it is, I can find no reliable sources to back up the claim. The link provided by the author on the talk page is only for general water-related pseudosciences, and not this particular type of product. At the moment, I do not beleive this article meets WP:FRINGE. I am willing to withdraw my nomination if a reliable source can be identified - that is, a source that meets WP:RS, and states that this type of product is a pseudoscience. Singularity42 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was : Speedily redirected to Battle of Orléans. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articel is a double from Battle of Orléans Night of the Big Wind (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per consensus and per CSD G4. This version of the article doesn't even have any sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT as well. The article meets WP:CSD#G4, in my opinion, but speedy deletion was contested by an IP. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. KiloT 15:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources, no out-of-universe notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been here for a couple of years without any real evidence of notability or decent references. While the group have created some interesting work, they do not appear to have received sufficient coverage to justify an encyclopedia article. The Allmusic link used as a reference is to a discography, which lists only two EPs. There are no reviews and no biography there. Michig (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 13:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did not win a major award in the QMJHL. He was nominated. Shows no signs of notabillity. USA1168 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The many published feature stories about Beaulieu pushes this article well over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as hoax. I have awarded a barnstar to Voceditenore for her efforts in identifying this elaborate hoax article. Thank you! Neutralitytalk 05:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article about an allegedly "minor composer of the Baroque and early Rococo periods" appears to be a hoax. No mention of him can be found in any reference books, despite the elaborate and completely unreferenced description of his life and work. The only mentions of him on the internet are Wikipedia mirrors. The article was created in 2008 by an editor whose first and only contribution to Wikipedia was this article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED warships and spacecraft. Consensus is that this is not notable, and per WP:V unsourced content should not be merged. So I'm redirecting for now; if any content is sourceable that can be merged from the history. Sandstein 09:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional spaceship fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Although a previous deletion discussion in 2008 closed as merge, due to the fact that all the information in the article is unsourced plot-only coverage, I would suggest deletion instead. Anthem 10:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. This mass nomination includes articles with very different lengths, notability, and referencing. There was some indication that some of the shorter individual articles might be better merged into List of air guns, but there was not sufficient agreement on which to constitute a separate consensus. CBD 11:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Series of orphaned, dead-end articles on air rifles and pistols lacking any references consisting completely of original research. Might be appropriate for a product section within articles on individual manufacturers that meet notability guidelines but these products do not rise to level of notability warranting a dedicated article for each of these:
RadioFan (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yunuy 23:48PM, 11/5/2011 (UTC)
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a term, not a encyclopedic article and its already covered in School prank. Cannot be expanded much farther than a dictionary definition. Stickulus (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this product/company really notable? My google searches failed to find significant independent coverage, although maybe some exists in German. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not-notable Night of the Big Wind (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is badly written, unnecessary, and lacking citations. Ybrik222 (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
vanity page created by the subject without sufficient notability established Warfieldian (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
self promotion, non-notable company Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, no sources. Autobiography. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was RESULT: Snow keep. Nominator withdrawing AfD, after MichaelQSchmidt did a stellar job of finding sources and, essentially, writing the article from scratch. —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No explanation of notability, no sources. Film has 124 votes on IMDb. Does not appear to have had a wide release. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any information about this application. The name makes the search very difficult, and it states that it was just released - frankie (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. CBD 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only coverage is by the primary sources of the various publsihers of the D&D franchise over the years. Unlikely to ever have significant coverage in reliable third party sources as is required for a stand alone article. Active Banana (bananaphone 23:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The character only exists in the Dungeons & Dragons universe. ----DanTD (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Minor League Baseball player who hasn't played since 2008, so it looks like is career is over. Adam Penale (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No real original material. Content is largely stuff that was rejected from original neoconservatism article. Chmtp (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC) — Chmtp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article shows some signs of notability. I would like to seek an aoutside opinion. mauchoeagle (c) 02:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the first criterion for musicians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles Here are a few online news media sources from a google news search: http://www.ospaparazzi.com.br/celebridades/oracao-da-banda-mais-bonita-da-cidade-vira-hit-4086.html http://moglobo.globo.com/integra.asp?txtUrl=/megazine/mat/2011/05/24/banda-mais-bonita-da-cidade-vira-mais-parodiada-da-internet-uma-semana-depois-de-estourar-no-youtube-924528364.asp http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/a-banda-mais-bonita-da-cidade-a-brazilian-prayer/2011/05/25/AG1TJEBH_blog.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjayant (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The corresponding article on the Portuguese Wikipedia has also recently been nominated for deletion (on June 1), and the debate also focuses on the band's notability. There, those who wish to keep the article have argued that it has received significant coverage from reliable outside sources and that it is far from the only Wikipedia article that focuses on an internet phenomenon. Those who want it to be deleted have mentioned that it qualifies as a garage band because it has not produced a CD, played at a well-known venue, or made revenue off of its music. For anyone who speaks Portuguese (or likes to use Google Translate), this page may be of interest.Armadillopteryx (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded under A7. Prod was removed. I cannot find how this meets wp's notability requirements, and prod remover failed to indicate it as well. Others are welcome to try to find indicia of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Cartoon Cartoon Show#List_of_shorts. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet the article's notability. JJ98 (Talk) 01:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Mastodon (band). T. Canens (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND, not notable independent of Mastodon (band). Suggested merge (Talk:Mastodon_(band)#Merger_proposal) was ignored, save one comment that I should "Try to improve the article first before make this kind of comment." After 1 month, redirected to the band. This was reverted by the commenting editor, suggesting AfD. I still cannot find any evidence of notability independent of Mastodon, so here we are. SummerPhD (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to O.A.R.. (non-admin closure) MacMedtalkstalk 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no notability independent of his band duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Per BLP an admin may delete any BLP of a borderline notable subject while closing an AFD if there is credible evidence that the subject of the article requested deletion. Consider this done. Spartaz Humbug! 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for deletion for a number of reasons which, while not individually mandating deletion, add up to what I feel is a convincing argument:
Lets take that all together: We have a person of borderline notability/verifiability who tried to get themselves a promotional biography on Wikipedia while trying to suppress use of any negative coverage that exists and then, then this failed, requests deletion.
I say we give him what he wants! We don't always agree to such requests but there have been cases where we have and I think this is similar to those. The subject is not so famous that the absence of an article leaves a hole in Wikipedia. The article is more trouble than it is worth to anybody and I don't like the idea of the subject of an article dictating its content. Lets lose it and get on with writing more important articles. DanielRigal (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of news hits by this journalist and a handful quoting him but nothing about him. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Pburka (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My French is too limited to say for sure, but it looks like this team does not play at the highest level of its sport, and the article doesn't appear to include any reliable, independent sources. Is this a team which does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? Or is this just a situation in which someone who is knowledgeable about French volleyball can help to identify sources and make the notability of this organization more clear? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Consensus is that this is not a valid article and that some content could be used in the main article. A redirect is only needed if this happens. So I'm redirecting for now, if no history merger occurs in a reasonable period of time the redirect can be deleted based on this discussion. Sandstein 08:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No notability in its own right; some of this is possible contents in the article on the society, but the title is non-distinctive and a redirect would not be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Autobiographical vanity article about a non-notable disciple of a non-notable guru. This search has only 103 hits, some of which are irrelevant and none of which link to reliable sources. The references in the article mention him in passing at best and don't show notability. The only major contributors are the subject of the article and his puppet. andy (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion and your understanding of the Wikipedia approach and protocol. I nominate the article for speedy deletion. (tdharris (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was previously nominated for deletion on the basis that its subject was not notable and was closed as no consensus. Several self-published sources were presented, none of which met any WP:RS requirements. The situation remains the same today. The article is essentially unreferenced; the only citation it has is to the library's project site.
Using "Simple and Fast Multimedia Library" -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum, Google Web returns 151 results it deems unique. None of these results are reliable sources that can be used to establish notability. For example, the first ten results are a blog, four Debian project pages, three Facebook pages that mirror Wikipedia, and pages from a hobbyist game mod project. Google News returns no results; Google Books, one result, a book republishing Wikipedia content; Google Scholar, seven results. The Google Scholar results do not appear to be substantial coverage of the subject, nor do they appear to state that the subject is notable. Rilak (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tpiwowar is reminded that a user may only !vote once in an AFD. Courcelles 09:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is. not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article offers no value ChrisUK (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is an unremarkable respin of the Gentoo Linux distribution that does not satisfy the general notability guideline. The article is unreferenced; and no coverage in reliable secondary sources could be found in Google using +iloog +linux -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum as the query. Similarly, Google News and Books returns no results relevant to indicating notability. Rilak (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page is more or less useless. A lot of this is subject to personal opinion as a "big natural disaster" is completely relative to the area in question. Regardless, this type of article is best suited for an end of the year news story, not an encyclopedia. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]