The result was delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. — TKD:: Talk 23:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This may or may not be notable, but the article as written doesn't show any showing of notability. Wizardman 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Cool Blue talk to me 18:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to establish notability, in accordance with WP:N. Cool Blue talk to me 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Added several links and some more text establishing Yerxa's academic and publishing leadership roles. I'm new to this, not sure of how to apply WP policy, but let me know if I am going the right direction...-- JA 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. — TKD:: Talk 23:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability; prod removed by creator. Although it's not a criteria for deletion, note that creator's username indicates a probable conflict of interest. FisherQueen ( Talk) 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I apologize for removing the notice of deletion, I wasn't aware that was not to be done. I am currently in the middle of editing the article and making it more informative. I have also added references. Explain why there's no evidence of notability. I have read wikipedia's requirements for notability and I find that this meets them. Also, being an avid user of wikipedia I know for a fact that there are articles with much less notability than this. Gnmanno 17:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't mean to sound rude, and this may come off that way but it's not intended that way. I don't know how carefully you all are reading this article, because you must have missed the fact that the show is nationally syndicated. It's broadcast from 1390 WRIV in Riverhead, but it's played on networks all around the country. Obviously the show is not huge like Rush Limbaugh's and Dennis Millers, but the show has only been around for 5 years. We were hoping that a wikipedia article would help make the show better known. Also I feel it's unfair that I've barely had a chance to put information on the article and it's already up for deletion. Whether someone is writing about the show or not I don't know, but I could easily find out, and if so, when I have the chance, I will add information and references from these sources. And I also need to ask you, why is my username a conflict of interest? Because the name Manno comes up in it? Gnmanno 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for striking your delete vote. We are aware that it's only carried by 20 stations, and we'd like it to be carried by more but that will come with time. However these are stations all across the country, which by definition make it national. Once again thank you for striking your delete vote. It's highly appreciated. Gnmanno 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I have contacted Perry and he will be supplying me with some second party sources that have written about the show. Gnmanno 05:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Your accusations of spamming are incorrectly conceived, that's all I have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnmanno ( talk • contribs) 01:41, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete JoshuaZ 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is unsourced and appears to be possible vanity. It is also an orphan article, unreferenced anywhere other than in log pages and therefore appears not to meet WP:Notability Dick G 07:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE (I merged the content to Aircraft maintenance) with no prejudice to splitting later. - Nabla 17:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is an unsourced stub, and has had tags to that effect since its creation; creator has not even edited the page since the first day. No notability claimed or established, and is a minor topic better covered in another, broader article, such as something on aircraft maintenance. BillCJ 23:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep JoshuaZ 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This says little more than what is already at Google Book Search, other than a bunch of external links to press releases, news articles, etc (which is not what WIkipedia is for. ZimZalaBim talk 23:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete JoshuaZ 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is POV fork from Single payer health care. Sole author chose to create this article rather than resolve naming dispute and other content disputes on existing article. Other than content previously disputed and deleted from Single payer health care, this article essentially duplicates the other. Sfmammamia 23:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Non admin closure. JulesH 07:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
{{{text}}} Pdbailey 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete JoshuaZ 15:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable strip mall/lifestyle center/whatever in Michigan. Tagged for references since March, only improvement was a ref for the opening date of JCPenney. Online searches find virtually no other sources (believe me, I tried to improve this article first). Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 22:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep To be clear, this article is being kept because of the presence of multiple, independent non-trivial reliable sources which is the general standard, not the number of views. JoshuaZ 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
An article for a YouTube user? Come on!! This is not an encyclopaedia. It fails WP:NOTABILITY and all of its references back cite to the user's page on YouTube. — Indon ( reply) — 22:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. Some of the delete comments below favor a "delete and merge" option, which isn't available due to the terms of content license, which encourages redirecting to preserve content attribution history. Besides this legal/policy concern, the consensus of comments (as opposed to bolded recommendations) supports such a merge. Chaser - T 02:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Recommended deletion, Merge information with the main University of South Carolina page. Nen yedi • ( Deeds• Talk) 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete This article only contains material that is better placed on the University of South Carolina page. -- Stormbay 22:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article title is inherently POV, stating that these comebacks were "great". If it were changed to simply include all wins from the sport which overcame a deficit at some point, it would be unwieldy, unmanageable, and a gigabyte long. The few genuinely iconic comebacks can be covered under the articles for their parent team. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete w. note - In the event these games are particularly notable on their own, then an individual game article would be fine and relevant text could be copied (for a similar example see: Chicken Soup Game). Otherwise, delete without prejudice. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted per speedy request. Tawker 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable Shopping Mall. Fails WP:N. Nen yedi • ( Deeds• Talk) 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There could certainly be an encyclopedic article on this topic (probably under a different title), but this WP:OR violation isn't that article. Xoloz 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be largely original research from primary sources. Also see this debate. Deprodded by anon. Alksub 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete A7 as non-notable band, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 01:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
non-notable band in single year of existence Chris 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. @pple 09:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Listcruft. Falls into same position as "list of cars in ridge racer" type article. Oscarthecat 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus leaning towards keep. No compelling explanation of why a category would be better was given and a list seems to be a convenient way of keeping those. Sourcing should not be an issue since many of the linked articles have sourcing. I suggest that those interested in keeping this list help source it. JoshuaZ 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Listcruft. Huge number of magical weapons present in fantasy fiction. Oscarthecat 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Gaming cruft Oscarthecat 21:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Gaming cruft - "list of vehicles in xxxx" type article - frequently noted as unsuitable for wikipedia Oscarthecat 20:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Though this debate is tiny, the complete lack of sources in the article weighs heavily for deletion. Xoloz 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Gaming cruft - seems non-notable Oscarthecat 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - non-notable game element TubularWorld 21:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The consensus is that this material is simply unencyclopedic. Xoloz 16:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsuitable content for wikipedia - seems to be more for a gaming wiki - characters and associated scores / bounties seem unsuitable to me Oscarthecat 20:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Non admin closure. Giggy Talk 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article provides little to no context about the race itself. 95% of the article is simply a table on the results of the race, with some statistics thrown in at the bottom. Violates WP:NOT#INFO.
Note: Nomination includes remaining articles in series:
The result was delete. WjB scribe 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Game fan cruft - non-notable Oscarthecat 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Game cruft list - non-notable list of items Oscarthecat 20:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Gamecruft - non notable list Oscarthecat 20:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
non-notability of sinlge album by defunct band Chris 20:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 23:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete article that has remained orphaned for a year. Term is not standard in psychology and not worthy of its own article. Doczilla 20:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep Refers to a psychological/healing technique. Google search finds it used in sufficient locations in such a context. 69.116.170.120 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep We many independent reliable sources discussing this movie. That it so far has not happened is not relevant to that. JoshuaZ 15:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Nominated for deletion by S. M. Sullivan ( talk · contribs) Nomination completed by Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Cruise's rep has denied that any such film is in the works. There has been no press release about it. IMO it ain't worth the electrons that it took to post it. I feel sorry for the people who worked on this story, but see no point in keeping it. S. M. Sullivan 05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by After Midnight ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Recommended deletion per WP:NOT#DICT Nen yedi • ( Deeds• Talk) 20:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Blatant neologism. Appears to be used on one internet website, but not spread outside it. Google has no relevant hits in the few dozen hits for "hack pack." The term doesn't appear in the single External Link provided, and the only reference provided has it listed in the comments to a news article. Deproded by anon, without explanation. (Thanks for that, by the way. I do so love having to go through the whole AfD process for something that doesn't have a WP:SNOW ball's chance of surviving. eaolson 19:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Without sources it isn't something Wiktionary will want. If references can be found, the article and be undeleted for transwikification. WjB scribe 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition, probably a neologism, but it's not in widespread enough use to even figure that out. CitiCat ♫ 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 05:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article has existed for over a year, but I can't see it as being anything more than original research. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 04:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - looks like it might have been written as a homework assignment by a student. I would tag it for speedy but I found this which indicates the school won a small national award a few years ago, which takes it just out of the realm of speedy. Personally I don't feel that this honorable mention-type of award is such that it gets the school past the notability threshold and so my suggestion to delete. Otto4711 19:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 23:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article that fails WP:V and WP:RS. Possible original research. Also, what's a "thing"? What's a "joke"? Well, the article itself is probably a joke as only one user really worked on it Tomj 18:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
CommentThere actually is a potential article here. J.Walter Thomson once commented that "all the best ideas begin as jokes". The frosted light bulb was developed as a result of a prank challenge. And General Gallieni, looking for a way to deploy his Parisian troops to stop the German advance on the Marne, seized on the joking comment of an officer that they could just send the soldiers by taxi-- and did so. I'm sure there are lots more examples. Neutral. Rhinoracer 09:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect to Tenedos. I am protecting the redirect pending a consensus ay Talk:Tenedos for a further move. TerriersFan 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
PoV Content fork of Tenedos. Also, and I believe largely, a name fork — in opposition to the repeated consensus at Talk:Tenedos and the relevant guideline that Tenedos should be at the name recognized by English-speakers. Delete and salt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Per the rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milky Studio, only more so. Sandstein 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This studio's page here only consists of a brief identifier of what the term is (an anime porn studio) and a catalog of their material - with a blurb that their website disappeared. No other details available. Clean it up or delete it. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 18:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Per the rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milky Studio, only more so. Sandstein 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The article only defines what the name points to (an anime studio), a catalog of their productions, and a link to the web address. That's it. No history, nothing. Either clean it up and improve it, or delete it. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film. Oli Filth 18:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Gamecruft non-notable list Oscarthecat 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. It is important to note that the sole source for this article does not use the term that is the article's title. The argument that this article comprises WP:OR thus has great empirical support. To Catch A Predator, notable here in the US, clearly shows that this practice exists, but (as an article describing it), this content fails WP:OR. Xoloz 16:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
1. Fails notability. More accurate material can be found @ Anti-pedophile activism.
2. Poorly written. Confuses pedophiles (persons attracted to prepubescent youth) with those who seek to find teens online for erotic purposes.
3. Seems to have been created to promote a deleted website called pedobaiting.com (ref now removed).
4. Just redirect it to Anti-pedophile activism. ●Farenhorst 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article consists almost entirely of external links and redlinks, with only two entries linking to Wikipedia articles and no indication that any of the listed clubs are individually notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. A dmoz link from the Korfball article might be a preferable way of providing this information. Suggest deletion per WP:NOT#LINK. -- Muchness 17:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. The nominator failed to show how the topic is "non-notable". @pple 09:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable hiking trail. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
None of the listed bands has an article, and "war metal" is not a genre. Emmaneul ( Talk) 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Minimal debate; but, as her only works are self-published, and the article's sources are not reliable, and one "source" is the Amazon.com sales page for her book, this article is nearly CSD G11 anyway. Xoloz 16:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Author whose claim to notability is several self-published books with few reviews or mentions, other than a couple of blogs. - Fordan ( talk) 17:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Certainly a close case per Sjakkalle, but the community's consensus is clear. With more mainstream press sources, consensus would very likely change. Xoloz 16:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
A guy who has a website. His site, chessninja.com, has an Alexa ranking of 268,939 and fails WP:WEB. He himself fails WP:BIO: the article does not claim notability and I can find no coverage of Greengard by independent, reputable secondary sources. Skarioffszky 17:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article has an arbitrary (50%) inclusion criteria and has a very confusing flow. Article would be better of being an image color coding ethnic composition based on data like this: Image:New 2000 black percent.gif. -- Cat chi? 16:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
In-universe list of fictional aircraft and fictional variants of real aircraft. Violates WP:NOT#INFO. Also no references, WP:N, WP:V, WP:FICTION. Miremare 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Although the numbers here would lead one to conclude that the consensus is keep, the strength of arguments, as grounded in policy, leads to a consensus of delete. In the event that sources emerge for one or both new seasons, the proper recourse is a DRV to restore the deleted content, or simply to create new articles using those sources. If I see any such sources, I will file the DRV myself.-- Chaser - T 03:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is about an unconfirmed show. Should be deleted per WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). - Danngarcia 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I would also like to nominate the following article with the same reason:
The result was no consensus. Xoloz 16:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This girl entered a televised talent competition, and she didn't win. She has absolutely no notability independent of Britain's Got Talent, as far as I can see, and there has been debate as to whether she can be considered notable. However, during the few weeks that this programme was on, she was well known throughout Britain, the tabloids lapped her up, she appeared on national television both on BGT and on other programmes. However, in just the same way, the tabloids don't shut up about the Big Brother contestants, and we only allow articles for them if they prove themselves notable outside of the programme, which, as far as I can see, Connie has not. I am personally undecided on this article, and I think bringing it here should put an end to the debate. J Milburn 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus as far as notability is concerned, but nonetheless speedily deleted as blatant advertising, i.e., an article that reads like a sales flyer and would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. Sandstein 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
LogMeIn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD) An article about a start-up that had been deleted over a year ago, after this discussion, author insists that circumstances have changed since then. It was speedied under G4, but now bringing it here for community to decide. Carlossuarez46 16:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:V. Sandstein 19:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged unreferenced since October 2006. A google search for herbal smoking blends results in a deluge of commercial websites, without a reliable source in sight. Attempting to remove the shops doesn't bring any reliable sources to the fore. In light of the lack of such sources, this fails the verifiability standard. deranged bulbasaur 16:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No notability has been established. This development is just a common day mixed use commercial and residential complex that has no notability. Luke! 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages created by the same editor within days of each other because they are all mixed use developments in Dubai consisting of several towers that have no established notability:
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Tagged for deletion via WP:PROD in Aug 2007 despite previous discussion at AFD in Jan 2006; prior AFD ended in 'no consensus'. Current re-nomination for deletion via PROD comes with the reason: "Not notable, article hasnt been updated, advertisement." Looking at the History, I'll attest to the fact that other than some re-wording, little has changed with the article and it remains a stub without citations supporting notability; rather than an ad, I would say the entry reads like a directory entry. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 16:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. @pple 09:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Only reference is their official webpage, so they fail WP:V. A Google search shows almost nothing related to them. Delete. Boricua e ddie 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, partly by strength of arguments regarding notability and deletion policy. Chaser - T 03:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:COI the article has been created by a user whose only edit is this and by a user having the same user name as the article with few edits other than this.It is about the user who has started a company .Notablity is questionable Pharaoh of the Wizards 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 05:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability for this non-notable porn actress. Fails all criteria for inclusion, including WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The "keep" side argues that this studio has produced notable porn, the "delete" side points out that the article lacks any sources except for a link to the studio's website. The latter argument, unlike the former, is based in unambiguous policy. WP:V, a foundation-level policy, mandates reliable independent sources, which this article utterly lacks. This also precludes any assessment of notability under any of our notability guidelines. Sandstein 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
So far as I'm concerned, this article should NOT be deleted, but has been speedy deleted twice so far. I pretty much based this off of Pink Pineapple and Green Bunny, which nobody has a bug up their ass about. Feel free to make a WP:POINT and nom them too. Snarfies 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 23:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The article does not meet WP:BIO. There is no indication that the person has been the subject of any independent secondary sources asserting his notability.
Based on the edit history, this also appears to be a vanity article. Although autobiographies are not strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, WP:AUTO states that they are "highly discouraged". Combined with the lack of notability of the subject, the reasons suggest that the article should be deleted. Skeezix1000 14:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
lacks nobility, does not meet requirements for BIO, advertising reads like resume. Delete does not meet requirements for TOW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apelike ( talk • contribs).
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 23:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was deleted] by Isotope23 over one month ago and rapidly re-created one week right after that. This time it was provided with an exlink (regretfully in Armenian) to be more acceptable. An IP (who may understand Armenian) prodded it and said that the exlink doesn't support any information given. Google shows no results for the definition stated in article. Non-notable, no reliable sources. Suggest delete. @pple 14:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE as nonnotable, etc. Rlevse 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
A non-notable, bootleg mixtape that has no non-trivial coverage- just a track list. I am nominating these for the same notability issues:
Spellcast 14:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP per national level, but improve. Rlevse 14:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is apparently a popular game at meets of the Metropolitan Washington chapter of MENSA, which numbers some 2,000 people. An accompanying photograph shows the game being played by perhaps a dozen people. Its cultural significance beyond being a nice little parlor game played by a fairly small group of people in one city in one country one one continent is unexplored. I suggest that we either find such significance or delete this article. -- Tony Sidaway 14:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE as non-notable and failing project guides thereof. Rlevse 14:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced orphan article about some minor MUD. -- Tony Sidaway 14:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a seventeen-year-old singer-songwriter who released some albums through a record label started by her father. There seems to be no evidence of any chart impact or other achievements except through a couple of obscure trade magazines. This is borderline at best, I'd say. -- Tony Sidaway 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 12:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Prod removed without comment by User:61.238.105.218. (A while ago -- I'm just catching up.) This losing reality show contestant has done no notable modelling work since leaving the show and is now just another struggling model in a very crowded and competitive field. Mikeblas 14:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect to her father, as is standard practice for children of the notable. Xoloz 00:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The only apparent claim to notability is that she's the niece of Kim Jong-il, which doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy WP:BIO. PC78 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
To quote the lead section:
Emphasis mine.
This is pure fluff and should be deleted if further information is not made available very quickly to suggest that this is anything other than an article about an internet rumor. -- Tony Sidaway 13:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced orphan living bio. I suggest that we either find reliable sources for this article or delete it. -- Tony Sidaway 13:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejudice against a completely rewritten, reliably sourced, NPOV version. — TKD:: Talk 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This appears to be some sort of religious essay. WP:NOT a soapbox or a Chick tract. Deproded by anon. eaolson 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 23:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The purpose of the page appears to be only to advance original research arguments for the organization being a major polluter, based on primary sources. — Duae Quartunciae ( talk · cont) 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
*Keep (a) This article does describe the products manufactured. (b) It also supplies authoritative sources for the particulate matter the plant produces. If I lived in Pittsburgh, I would want to know about both (a) and (b). In short, this is a good example of the kind of thing that Wikipedia does well.
Bellagio99 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
*Keep (repeat). I've just edited and reformatted the badly written article. You might want to read again.
: I disagree with some of the above assertions. The article is very well referenced: more than almost any other WP articles I've read. It does describe the products. To be sure, it describes the company's pollution, but this appears to be fact-based and not slanted.
: This article belongs in Wikipedia.
: Please note: I don't live in Pittsburgh, and I don't belong to any organized anti-pollution groups.
:
Bellagio99 14:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
Keep' (a) 'I have added a reference to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that discusses this facility. One of the main objections is that there is no press for this facility. This article show that this facility is a top emitter from a coal fired furnace. As other documentation in the article show, this facility was owned by Heinz, then Del Monte, Then by Bay Valley Foods. 67.163.247.142 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep (a) Keep (a) This article is similar to articles for Colgate Polmolive, Crest, Quacker Oats, tic tacs and other major multinational corporations. (b) It also supplies authoritative sources for the sections discussed. The main objection seems to be that Barak Obamas' wife is on the board of directors for the parent corporation, Treehouse Foods. I have striven to produce a good example of the kind of thing that Wikipedia does well. I wish to inform others about this company. Moreover, if you look through the discussion and history, I have been bending over backwards to accomodate the people who are insisting on deleting this article. This company is a major source of the toxins listed. This is not my opinion. It is taken directly from the permit. The permit is not online, but it can be obtained from me or the health department. Is it fair to require that all references be online? What did encyclopedias do before the internet? Other articles about manufacturers describe products and also negative aspects of a company. I had many other sections in this article, but those other sections have been deleted. Please view the history. Some of them can be put back into the article for completeness. The information on pollution is taken directly from the EPA's Toxic Release Information Database. These are not my numbers. The article does not judge the effects of this companies emissions. Instead, it merely quotes the EPA's Envirofact Warehouse's information on Hydrochloric Acid. Nowhere in the article does it mention visible plumes. I believe that there is a concerted effort here to keep this information from the american people. This article was here for months. Yesterday, I added a link from Mrs. Obamas' page to this article. Within an hour, the section on toxins in the Bay Valley article was deleted. An objection is that no notable sources are quoted. I quote the EPA, the permit authority for the county where the plant resides, and I quote the Lexdon Business Library. I never statte that the emissions are outside the norm. Many of these objections are to things that are not stated in the article. Many of these objections are slanderous. 67.163.247.142 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
♦Delete There is nothing left once the unverifiable OR is deleted. Prior to that, it was still marginal in terms of notability. The parent company might be notable; one factory is not. Since I read this page last night, much of the text has been moved around, apparently by BmikeSci. I am not sophisticated enough in using the History page to work it all out, but this kind of activity does not "smell" right, even if no text has been lost or changed. Comments should remain in the order in which they are written, and comments should go at the bottom of all previous text. I have nothing to do with elections in the U.S., being a Canadian, and have no ties to any organization or person mentioned here or in the article. Bielle 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was This article is no more. It's ceased to be. It has expired. The article has gone to meet its maker. This is a late article. It's a stiff, bereft of life, it rests in peace. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. It is an ex-article!.-- Fuhghettaboutit 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated topics. Being mentioned in an episode of Monty Python is not a proper basis for a list article. Otto4711 12:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and moved to Dang'an. ELIMINATORJR 12:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The word Dangan means "dossier" in Chinese. It's a generic word and is not notable. Atchom 12:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
(This AFD lacked a header. I've fixed it.
JulesH 13:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
reply
(Thank you, I was going slightly mad trying to figure out what it had to do with Monty Python)
Otto4711 19:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability Happy-melon 12:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 23:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has gone unreferenced since February 2007. There is no evidence provided to suggest that this is a notable drinking game. Metros 11:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 12:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Self-released album and EP + two albums and an EP on non-notable indie label (not the "one of the more important indie labels" of criterion #5). A prolific release schedule does not make one notable. Not a single reference, either (fails WP:V, as well). It should also be noted that while the article appears to have a long history, it was actually hijacked from an article about a Star Trek character in June 2007. Only one IP and two other editors (one a single purpose account) have added content other than clean-up-type stuff. I'm also nominating the articles for her albums and EPs. Her band's article is also currently under AfD here. Precious Roy 11:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
A previous AfD was in favor of merging; that was in Novemeber 2006. It appears that no attempt was made to merge or source info. Argument can be made that the article is fancruft and original research. 293.xx.xxx.xx 11:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I've AfD'd this article because I'm uncertain about its notability and I think it needs a proper debate. It's a Christian reform calendar, a rival to the usual Gregorian one. Plenty of ghits. But... when you filter the ghits to exclude geocities, blogs, wikipedia references and secondary hits there's pretty much nothing left. ("Aristean calendar" -geocities -messages -wikipedia -blog).
Most of the hits seem to have arisen from the promotional activities of the author of the article who is the creator of the calendar. There seems to be a small level of interest but nothing that approaches the requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
So IMHO it should be deleted as non-notable and COI. andy 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) andy 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep: appear to have enough to pass WP:MUSIC per the touring and refs added during the AfD. Bearing that in mind, I have also undeleted the album mentioned below. ELIMINATORJR 12:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
non-notability of a former, four year old band with a single album Chris 10:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep as this went through DRV only one month ago. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was deleted on the grounds that it was not notable, and then un-deleted in a deletion review that failed to actually demonstrate that the subject was in fact notable. So I'm nominating it for deletion again for exactly the same reason as the first time. The article is still a basic stub (though it looks larger due to the lists of Unicode blocks), and I can't see anyone expanding it. Ptcamn 10:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
wikipedia isn't really the place for tour dates. no other bands/singers have tour dates posted on wikipedia and posting tour dates is really just a form of promotion, and wikipedia isn't the place for promoting music ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 09:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wikipedia isn't for infinite lists. -- John Reaves 16:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't have hard statistics to back this up, but I'd reckon a majority of all communities in the U.S. fall under this criterion. Any list that proposes to give such a voluminous number of individual communities would take enormous effort to maintain: effort that would have to be recommenced every time there is a census. It goes without saying that the list as it stands is woefully incomplete. As for the intersection of topics represented, it might have some minor sociological interest, but is it really worth the effort? I can't think of many circumstances in which this will be found useful. deranged bulbasaur 09:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. WjB scribe 22:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non-notable school. There are many thousands of Montessori schools in the world and no evidence that this one in particular is notable enough to require an encyclopedia article. The only assertion of notability is that it claims to have been the first Montessori school in the Philippines, but the article is unreferenced. This is just a lengthy POV advert for a school. andy 09:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 09:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Largely unsourced article about an artist. Certainly a WP:BLP issue; but it is also not clear why WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO should be fulfilled. The article claims several albums, but at least his most recent one is self-released. I suspect WP:COI, but can't prove it. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE as non-noteable. Rlevse 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The short deletion reason is this: who cares? Having more than one music video is not a notable concept so why should there be a list of them on Wikipedia? It's simply an indiscriminate list full of WP:OR. Axem Titanium 06:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an indiscriminate list of near useless information. It is not a notable intersection of data and WP:OR to boot. Axem Titanium 06:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The topic does not appear to be notable and the whole article is a bunch of WP:OR ("But the 1989 film didn't predict..."). It really doesn't hold up to WP:FICT at all (ie, it cannot sustain an encyclopedic treatment since there are no published sources dealing with this fragment of the movie). Axem Titanium 06:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate list; it's like a "List of weapons in [video game]" article, plenty of which have been deleted ( here are just a few examples, in case you don't believe me). Axem Titanium 06:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 09:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I think Category:Music video directors should be adequate enough. The list adds nothing to what the category has. Spellcast 06:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 09:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism about small-scale celebrity status. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At best, transwiki and redirect to celebrity. Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable "private men's organization" in Montgomery, Alabama (I think, softball team). Unreferenced; over-the-top or WP:HOAX. Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect to off-licence. — TKD:: Talk 08:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Urban music collective from the UK. Unreferenced, not notable enough yet to pass WP:MUSIC. Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. — TKD:: Talk 09:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
There's many people known by middle names. What makes it so notable? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known by more than one given name (in combination). Spellcast 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted as a copyvio of [41]. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a personal essay failing WP:NOT#OR, an opinion piece, and a WP:SOAPBOX article, although it does contain a few references to notable topics. Admittedly, the rather blurry picture of the editor's tattoo is a nice touch. Michael Devore 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources. — TKD:: Talk 09:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is about a non-notable game (failing WP:N), and is completely unsourced, which it has been since at least July. In addition, a Google search for "Dibble" brings only results about the Dibble family, and a Google search for "Dibble (game)" yields primarily results relating primarily to an unrelated drinking came called Ibble Dibble. bwowen talk• contribs• review me please! 04:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete for lack of any reliable sources. Sandstein 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The following text is copied and pasted from Talk:Jumpswing, with minor modifications.
IMHO this article is not noteworthy.
So is it noteworthy to call something a new dance because you decided to teach the swing-out (a basic step in Lindy Hop) at an advanced stage and mix in East Coast Swing steps? I would think not since this is not unusual. There are many dance instructors who would recommend beginners first learn East Coast Swing/6-count swing before starting Lindy Hop because ECS is easier to master. Since the swing-out is a difficult step to learn, it would naturally be mastered later. If someone already knows ECS, there's no reason why they would not toss in ECS steps while dancing Lindy Hop since the two dances mix together with no problems whatsoever. You can see people do this at swing dances.
If anything, jumpswing is a neo-swing style (upright, very hoppy) of Lindy Hop. That still doesn't seem noteworthy enough to have its own page.
A few more reasons why this article is not noteworthy:
If there has ever been a news article about "jump swing" or "jumpswing", it is about a style of swing music (swing music that became popular in the late 1990s), not a dance. Info about neo-swing/jump swing bands is already covered in Swing revival. Thus it would be more correct to redirect Neo swing, Neoswing, (Neo-swing, mentioned in History of Lindy Hop), Jump Swing, and Jumpswing to Swing revival. Currently, all redirect to Jumpswing. panda 04:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
My recommendation: Redirect to Swing revival or Delete (in case it wasn't obvious). panda 20:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Skippy student Greg Avakian taught jumpswing at Omega Institute (he still calls it Retro, though), Rhinebeck NY summer 2006 and 2007. Skippy Blair is the most the most notable jumpswing instructor. True, Skippy is known mainly for having trained national West Coast Swing National Champions, and for her teaching training workshops. So, jumpswing is not a high priority for her - no big shakes on her website. However, Skippy feels that this dance has a value, and hence she does teach jumpswing to instructors in her workshops, and with the name "jumpswing." Want verification? Email her.
To start with, his comments below are conjectural, based on what is increasingly revealing itself to be a personal bias, leading me to request that his objections be considered in the light of that bias.
dances, and other things as well have a diveristy of names. That reflects on their merit in no way whatsoever. Many sources alternately have called Lindy Hop, as Jitterbug, or Lindy, or even East Coast Swing, or Jive.
is an odd objection. Waltz is danced to waltz. Merengue is danced to merengue. Salsa is danced to salsa. Bachata is danced to bachata. Cumbia is danced to cumbia. Polka is danced to polka. Tango is danced to tango. I don't need to continue with this.
authorities in the field, such as leading swing historian SONNY WATSON, links below at streetswing.com.
www.streetswing.com/histmain/z3booge1.htm
keywen.com/Arts/Performing_Arts/Dance/Swing/
johnnymillett.tripod.com/retro_swing_video.htm
www.dancefanatics.com/WannaDance/linksdance.html
www.eijkhout.net/rad/dance_specific/swing.html
www.activevideos.com/swing.htm
www.downeastdance.net/profilemainiacs.htm
www.savoyswing.com/community/links.asp
www.edu-cyberpg.com/IEC/video_favsMusicBoogie.html
The result was transwikify. WjB scribe 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No references to support the Japanese names, no references to support the "Official English Names", has plenty of game guide material ("Make Sylvia meet the coupling goals, conquer Darna Castle in Ch. 7 and have Aless visit the castle"), has crap like "Traditional Internet Name" (wtf?); I dunno. Not only is this article a big violation of WP:NOT#IINFO, it isn't even useful since, if all the game guide material is removed, it would just list every character's name. Axem Titanium 04:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete. I have deleted a bunch of POV crap which is the way forward with such articles not deleting them. TerriersFan 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This page is merely an orphaned page which is basically a glowing review of the movie in an unencyclopedic way. Virtually everything in this article is already in the House of Wax page. CattleGirl talk 04:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 23:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable stock broker, speedy tags constantly deleted by author Drdisque 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No reliably sourced content to merge. WjB scribe 05:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT#IINFO, just because something is true doesn't mean it should automatically be added to Wikipedia. Not a notable topic for an article either. Crazysuit 03:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. Most of the arguments for keeping didn't address this concern; the one that attempted to do so was refuted. No prejudice against re-creation if sufficient sources can be found. — TKD:: Talk 09:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Is an arcade game notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article? Lacks WP:RS, all web search results mentioning this game are from Sega, the manufacturer. Nen yedi • ( Deeds• Talk) 03:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax. No Ghits on this person, who did not receive the Fields Medal, leaving no notability. (An Australian did win one in 2006, but it was Terence Tao) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Mall. Nen yedi • ( Deeds• Talk) 03:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article was previously considered at AFD and has subsequently been nominated for deletion via the WP:PROD path; articles previously considered here are not eligible for PROD-based deletion. The previous AFD (March 2007) ended in no-consensus but had a low turnout of discussants. The person nominating for PROD deletion contends that the present article content "reads like advert, doesn't establish notability." User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — TKD:: Talk 09:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Mall that is currently under construction, no apparent notability. About section reads like an advertisement. Nen yedi • ( Deeds• Talk) 03:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 05:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Character from a TV show, no apparent notability. Nen yedi • ( Deeds• Talk) 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. ¿Exir? ¡Kamalabadi! 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Probably fails notability requirements for biographies, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site, as well as this is a previously deleted page, and redirected page was deleted multiple times. While I fully understand the desire for family and friends to see loved ones on Wikipedia, I also realize that the WP:NOT policy must be upheld, and it would appear this fails Biography notability requirements. I am hoping I don't get thrashed for nominating this, but I did a Google and the only news item I could find was this NCTimes memorial. Ariel♥ Gold 02:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I restored the page, cleaned a few things up, and definitely feel it is newsworthy and certainly reflects Valor, as recognized by the US President, it is sad that all of the 3500+ can not get a small tribute somewhere in Wikipedia A good link to actually see names and casualties is http://icasualties.org/oif/ to realize the sacrifice our young men have made in this effort. Swumpg 05:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Webferret (free) and does a tremendous job of ferreting out info on web pages. http://www.webferret.com/
Swumpg 05:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is current events, and the Battles for Falluja are an important part of the conflict, for historians and the public. As far as I know, Marine Jason Dunham is the only Medal OF Honor recipient, posthumous. Maybe in a few years after this mess is over, it can be archived, but for now, it should stay as a piece of history and valor for researchers. Swumpg 16:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for those supporting the Keep. I saw a reference somewhere to an article in Slate. I was tempted to add this link [ | Fallen heroes link] but it is pretty personal by friends and military types. But in scrolling down, there is a great entry by M.A.M. that puts a lot in perspective. Comments by those that were there, There was more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but qualities of the man that led from the front. While I would love to fill Wiki with tons of links, references, to Brent Morel, Matt Maupin and 3500 other fallen names, one can only rely on people that are interested to follow the links to get a full picture of a person. Looper5920 worked with me a great deal to get the article away from a memorial to being a statement of fact as a newsworthy event. Looper5920 at that time was pretty far up on the editorial food chain in regard to the Military Project and Marines info. I hope it stays this time. Swumpg 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC) reply
all the comments, eg, add Slate quotes, etc, I was afraid would put it back in the Memorial category and make it more vulnerable to deletion. Simply citing the award commendation and Bio info is unbiased, and factual. I would love to go into the too rare bond between a father and son, Brent's bullheadedness, etc, but many of the links go into that. Brian Chontos, Willie Copeland also received the Navy Cross for their actions around that time, but their Wiki articles were deleted. Since I did not write them, I have no "dog in the fight", but would like to see them restored from archives if possible. As the unpopularity of this war increases, I would hope that the Valor of our troops can be remembered and supported. I guess I need to get off the soapbox. Swumpg 03:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The argument, supported by most commenters, that this list represents a trivial intersection is convincing. With sourcing, the information could be placed in each individual's article, whereupon it might be appropriate for a cat. Present community consensus is that the information does not belong as a list. Xoloz 15:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Surely this is just as indiscriminate as List of people with breast implants where it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with breast implants (2nd nomination). If these women are notable for making their breasts smaller, it should simply be mentioned in their article. Spellcast 02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 19:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Nothing but a hoax, search brings up a short sentence written by a high schooler. Article created by User:Anich019. T Rex | talk 02:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. I'm pretty sure that this department store was in no way notable. -- דניאל - Danielr ocks123 02:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is about a non-notable primary school which has no sources and looks like it was written by someone who liked that school and possibly also as an advertisement. Delete per those elements-- JForget 02:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep There appear to be OR issues in some sections (such as the section on the contemporary United States). However, most of the article appears to be well-sourced. Some sections may have POV issues and that should be resolved on the talk page, not at AfD. The argument that this article should be deleted because similar articles about other religions were deleted is not persuasive. JoshuaZ 15:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was previously kept at AfD, in a closure by a non-admin who had already commented in the discussion. DRV overturned the result. This is a new debate on the same question. Delete, given inherent NPOV violation. Xoloz 02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted (copyvio). --- RockMFR 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I came across this about a day ago when RC patrolling. The author asserted some notability so I bookmarked this in a "Check back" folder. But I couldn't find multiple, third party sources on this person. Just that one reference in the article. Spellcast 02:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedied. android 79 02:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't understand what this article is saying. It seems to violate WP:NOT#INFO. Shalom Hello 01:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.. CitiCat ♫ 23:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Fitzpatrickjm and I have been in discussion over the article: User_talk:SilkTork#Swanky_beer. Essentially, there is no available evidence to show that Swanky Beer is anything other than the Cornish name for homebrew. Same as scrumpy is another name for cider. The name has been used by brewers in Australia who are descended from Cornish miners. Currently the name is being used by Copper Coast Wines for a brand of beer. Under notability guidelines the product should be detailed under the company: [55] or put here for discussion for deletion: [56]. My proposal is that the article should be rewritten as a brand and merged with the organisation, and all Wiki-links to Swanky Beer being a beer style should be removed. SilkTork 22:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I am the author of both the Swanky article and the Copper Coast Wines article.
I find the suggestion that the two articles be amalgamated in the manner proposed is extraordinary! Swanky is a well known type of beer.
It is not exclusively produced by Copper Coast Wines. It was produced by other brewers prior to Copper Coast Wines commencing production.
There is ample evidence regarding the existence of Swanky as a distinct product. Numerous websites are referred to in my article about the subject.
Also, since I wrote both articles, I tend to believe I have a reasonable understanding regarding their respective order of precedence.
Finally, I should point out that I am a resident of South Australia where I have:
Deleting the Swanky article would be a disservice.
I do hope that other people will support this article!!!!
Fitzpatrickjm 10:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus.. CitiCat ♫ 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No such thing as a White British ethnic group and certain editors are using the page to bring about ethnic revisionism by perpetuating this misguided notion. It is only a census classification and has no historical basis. A redirect is desired to the census, or to a disambiguation page linking to the native ethnic groups of the United Kingdom Michael talk 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
*delete merge some of it in the rare event there's anything good in it, because, all the 'meaty' bits of this are surely already in
Demography of England. It even stops discussing one classification, and discusses all the others.
Merkinsmum 01:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy copyvio. android 79 01:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article may be a copyright violation or at least it is written as an essay or a story. Delete-- JForget 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
List that transcends music style, could grow but never end. WWGB 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result is speedy close - see the entry below which has the initial nomination, Non-admin closure.-- JForget 01:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article asserts no notability, cites no sources, only external links are to company website. Has been tagged with AfDM template since April 2007. Talk page does not exist, so no apparent discussion. Advertisement. Dean Wormer 01:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is just an advertisement for a non-notable company. Delete per lack of sources and advertisement.-- JForget 01:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Linux distro still in beta. Article gives no assertion of notability; and no useful content. Oli Filth 00:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete with no prejudice against creating a redirect to a suitable target. — Black Falcon ( Talk) 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. Oli Filth 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete non-notable upcoming film, crystalballism. Motorun0 20:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply