The result was redirect to Limoncello, as it is a plausible typo. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable misspelling for Limoncello. Only two Google results, seemingly unrelated to the drink, and the question "Did you mean Lemon chellow?" Lemon cellow is yet another misspelling with only seven Google results. Anton Mravcek 18:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Page is badly written, all content on this page will become outdated in a very short period of time. List is **VERY** incomplete. Up-to-date information can be found here, on the official website. - ARC Gritt TALK 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This list covers a non-notable subject, expands Wikipedia toward being an indiscriminate collection of information, and seems to have been created "just for the sake of having such a list" — in short, this list is listcruft. BassoProfundo 23:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Blatant hoax. A search for "Ernest Easton line dancing" comes up with 3 hits, one of which is this article RedRollerskate 23:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Core desat 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability in this article of an Indian village. There's no references, and the style is very subjective Gilliam 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep as there is not sufficient consensus to delete JodyB talk 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Another Michael Jackson song that was an album track only. EliminatorJR Talk 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This has all the hallmarks of a bored student's hoax: no (on-topic) references, no Google hits, silly content. Sandstein 22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
as an unsigned poster said on the article's talk page, this is the most poorly designed page they've seen. It borders on incoherent. I suspect it is written by the subject of the article, their publicist or mom - who else would say some of this stuff? Besides that, I suspect extreme nn here and they are compensating by trying to make this guy seem more important than he really is. Also, it has been orphaned for a while - if this guy was notable, someone would have linked him/mentioned him in an article on things he has acted in or said something like "Actor A appeared in film B with Michael Savage" but that hasn't happened. So, his roles in these productions must be too minor to be listed. Postcard Cathy 22:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
PS The article states that this guy's original name is Ron Jacobson. If you check the author's talk page, you will see that the he wrote an article on someone named Ron Jacobson and it was deleted. He wrote this article the same day that article was speedy deleted. Want to take bets that it is the same guy? :) :) :) Postcard Cathy 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
PPS It is an autobiography. The author's name is SirTony13 which also the domain name of the actor's personal website.
The result was keep, technically speedily as the nomination was withdrawn and there are no arguments to delete. -- Core desat 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. The article is simply a list of links to largely non-existent articles - it's impossible to learn anything from it or use it for further research. The article has been in existence for over two years but still has almost no usable content, so there's no reason to think it can or will be improved.
"Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of internal links" (especially redlinks!)
andy
22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
Nomination withdrawn - the article has been significantly improved with further improvements to follow. andy 07:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comments / Request for further details
"list of links to largely non-existent articles."
"Article has been in existence for over two years but still has almost no usable content"
"It's impossible to learn anything from it or use it for further research."
SP-KP 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meow Wars (Meow Wars (second nomination) nomination)
The result was Delete. ck lostsword• T• C 17:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Orphan, no explanation of why this software product is notable, no reliable third-party sources are given that refer to this product. — Bkell ( talk) 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Band's notability is in question. Dudesleeper · Talk 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non Notable indy wrestler. Darrenhusted 21:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not acrystal ball. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and clean up ck lostsword• T• C 10:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Incoherent translated article about a marginal individual. Speedy tag was declined by admin Wafulz. Shalom Hello 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ck lostsword• T• C 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Possible conflict of interest by author on a product of questionable notability. I don't have a strong opinion because I didn't actually read the article (sorry, folks.) Shalom Hello 19:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Non admin closure. Qst 14:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Small time indy fed, seems to fail company for a start. Not enough third party credible refs. Darrenhusted 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ck lostsword• T• C 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Looks like someone dumped their research paper onto us. No pages link here and I'm not sure it's a reasonable encyclopedic topic. ( ESkog)( Talk) 19:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. -- Core desat 03:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable publication of the Ghandi Information Center ( recently deleted along with a bio of the author). Can find no significant and notable mentions of the publication online and given the failed effort to find notability for the publishing organization and author, I believe this article should also be deleted. SiobhanHansa 19:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This will be absolutely alright from my side, Siobhan Hansa, this article can be deleted at once (actually it was not my idea), because our members' information is not for the public (so not a "publication"), with two exceptions from the rule according to special permission (that is why you find the two issues on the internet). Do not worry! Chrbartolf 1 July 2007
The result was keep. Non admin closure. Qst 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable wrestler. Darrenhusted 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - arbitrary indiscriminate list, also a directory of loosely associated topics and a repository of internal links. There is no objective standard as to how much of the film needs to involve "students" or "teachers" or "classrooms" or "school" to be "about school." The list tells us nothing about teachers, students, school, education, how these topics are addressed in film or the real world. Otto4711 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
An unencyclopedic article on a subject who fails WP:BIO. Entirely unverifiable, the only references provided are unpublished interviews with the subject's son, the owner of the the subject's copyrights, a geneologist and "Gordon Kit Thorne's Diaries" (also unpublished). Victoriagirl 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Anas talk? 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Nom - previously speedied and restored. Partially redundant to Category:Wrestler Deaths by Unnatural Causes. Rklawton 18:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced essay Gilliam 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. This is a non-notable amusement park ride. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Core desat 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is the mother of Sophie, The Countess of Wessex, daughter-in-law of the Queen. There is no indication of any notability of this person beyond her daughter being a member of the Royal family. NoSeptember 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a list page. Some lists are "interesting" or "encyclopedic" but I do not believe that this specific list is any good. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. The majority of the entries are unsourced, which also leads to possible WP:BLP violations. Many of those with sources are rather unreliable. Unclear what constitutes a smoker - e.g., Bill Clinton is listed because he 'tried it but "never inhaled"'! (By that logic, I'm a smoker, however I would object strongly to being labelled a smoker.) Mdwh 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete ck lostsword• T• C 12:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
An anon tagged it for speedy deletion, but he worked on a lot of movies and there are some external links so A7 does not really apply. However, I can find no evidence that he is notable, just a few sites (Yahoo, New York Times, IMDB) that give lists of movies he worked on. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This was originally speedy-deleted as an A7. DRV overturned finding a claim to notability in the modeling work and film role. Weak delete, pending other opinions, given uncertainty over notability. Xoloz 15:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I speedied this as A3, then changed my mind. It's got a very long edit history, can anything be done with it? EliminatorJR Talk 15:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedied. -- Golbez 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is most likely a hoax, or somebody's private joke. No Google hits, and the article even claims it is an imaginary country. Depending on what exactly it is, it probably violates WP:HOAX, WP:OR, and/or WP:NOTABILITY, at least. J. Spencer 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 06:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Evil1987 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete ck lostsword• T• C 12:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable radio station. Fails to assert reasons for notability, reads like an advert. the only refernce is its own website. Greatestrowerever 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a minor character in a notable video game. It was recommended for a merge to that video game, but the name (or its variants) are not even mentioned in that article, which is featured, so I doubt that it's notable enough even for a passing mention. Shalom Hello 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND easily. Author bulldozed the PROD tag. :) Shalom Hello 14:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Some claim of notability through touring and supporting other bands, but no album yet, so I doubt if they pass WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR Talk 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to Proctology. NawlinWiki 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I am unable to confirm that 'rectology' is a legitimate scientific term; my googling reveals the word used only in a slang sense. Prod removed without comment. FisherQueen ( Talk) 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Listed as a work by Vladislav Boskonovitch Karimov, which looks like a hoax to me. Amir E. Aharoni 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Looks like a hoax. It doesn't sound like a Belarusian name: Karimov is Central Asian last name and Boskonovitch is a name of a Tekken character. Can't find him on Google. Prose looks suspiciously like something from the Postmodernism Generator. Amir E. Aharoni 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable wrestler, poorly written article with no refs. Darrenhusted 14:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable wrestler working for non notable fed. Darrenhusted 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 19:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article gives no indication of
notability with multiple independent
reliable sources.
Whispe
ring
13:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete JodyB talk 02:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Magazine that apparently fails WP:CORP. No secondary sources given; article created in an obvious COI by User:Highwiredaze; large parts of the text violate WP:NOT#DIR. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep JodyB talk 02:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article, originally created by me as a sub-section on the Parthenon article, is a redundant split from that article. It was created without consensus or discussion and defeats the purpose of my original work, which was to give historical context to the building of the Parthenon. The sub-section has now been restored, this article should be deleted. Twospoonfuls 13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton One 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be a about a fellow who intends to run in his local Democratic primary for the party's nomination for his district. It is supported by a news report in a local newspaper, and the content of our article seems to be primarily some kind of promotional piece--the kind of flier that a candidate might be expected to hand out to prospective voters. I suggest that this isn't really what Wikipedia is for--specifically it isn't a soap box. Let's cover this chap if he ever makes it to the House of Representatives, certainly, but then there will be something to write about him. -- Tony Sidaway 13:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Withdrawn by nominator after 5 days, and no other "delete" opinions. -- Tony Sidaway 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was created in one draft on 11 June, but had no further content edits by a human being until I saw it on June 24. The article was tagged as "Uncategorized people" and moved from "Bill shannon" to "Bill Shannon". That's it.
The article is orphaned and unsourced. I tagged it for proposed deletion on 24th. There were no further edits until June 30th when someone removed the tag with the edit summary "(I dunno; seems arguably notable; take this to WP:AFD if you wish".
The concern here is not "notability", but verifiability. Unless this article is sourced in the next few days, I suggest that we delete it as a violation of our core Verifiability policy. Those who think it can be made verifiable, please do so. -- Tony Sidaway 12:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as an expired prod. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax template already up for 5 days; and not notable article Gammondog 12:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Second nomination. This article appears to fail the verifiability criteria in its current form. Interestingly, an ISBN search suggests that cited references seem not to exist in the ISBN database under those ISBN numbers, suggesting that some or all of this article may be a hoax.
Although the previous AfD voted "keep", this was entirely based on voting by respondents to the AfD, rather than by providing sources.
Suggest deletion unless mainstream sources can be provided.
Please note: Since this AfD nomination regards the verifiability criteria, please provide verifiable third party sources, rather than just voting "keep". Karada 12:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. For future reference, please note that arguments based solely in notability by association have no basis in policy and may be (in this case, were) discounted. Though the nomination saw participation from relatively few editors, I do not believe that relisting will help to achieve a consensus, particularly given the length and depth of the discussion. -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - WIkipedia articles are not plot summaries and, as with the recently deleted Quint and Nola article, this is a character-specific plot summary for this so-called "supercouple." Otto4711 12:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I have stated this three times now...two of those times were with both the Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins article...and the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed article, both in which were judged keep, because they are now re-written and now provide real-world impact from reliable sources. I was going to get around to improving this article, had this funny feeling that I should check on it, and, well, it's now nominated for deletion before I have even got around to fixing it up. While I, of course, understand the fact that articles on Wikipedia shouldn't only provide plot summaries, all of these soap opera couple articles will be worked on and formatted to fit Wikipedia policy, which is why Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas exists, and is why I ask other editors to hold off on nominating these soap opera couple articles for deletion. As for the Quint and Nola article, I was disappointed to see that deleted, because I could have fixed that article up before it was deleted. And while I'm not a fan of most of these soap opera supercouples, I may re-create that article and fix it up anyway. Going around and deleting these soap opera popular and or supercouple articles is not the answer. Clean-up is. Flyer22 02:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I must point out that not too many soap opera couples are noted by Chicago Sun-Times, and this couple is. This couple is also noted as a supercouple by the soap opera media, the first telling factor of a soap opera supercouple. I ask that the closing administrator take all of this into account when closing this deletion debate, which I'm certain that the closing administrator of this debate will. This is truly a notable supercouple in soap opera history. And this article is in accordance with what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples states of supercouples or other notable couples being featured on Wikipedia. Flyer22 14:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Otto4711, I greatly disagree with your opinion of this article. No mention in Chicago Sun-Times is trivial, especially if it's a soap opera couple. A fact is that Chicago Sun-Times pointed out that Cliff and Nina are a notable couple, and by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples, that is notability. Heck, by any standards, that is notability when it comes to a soap opera supercouple. The mention of Cliff and Nina being a supercouple by Soap Opera Digest is also not trivial. Soap Opera Digest doesn't just call any soap opera couple a supercouple. A couple has to be a supercouple first. And Soap Opera Digest calls Cliff and Nina a supercouple on more than one occasion. Soapdom.com is just more proof that Cliff and Nina are a highly notable couple, just as Bennifer once were, and they still are, because of the impact that they had. So are Cliff and Nina, because of the impact that they had as one of the world's most popular soap opera supercouples.
Victory Gardens Theatre not mentioning Taylor Miller in the context of the couple? The whole reason that Taylor Miller's character of Nina is even considered popular, and the bigger reason that people stop her on a street, screaming in giddy anticipation about meeting her is because of her character's romance with Cliff Warner. I see no such trivial matters in this couple obviously being notable, and I don't see how it can be disputed that this couple is a notable soap opera couple, a supercouple, in fact. And as for what you stated with this sentence..."The article remains a plot summary of the couple's history with some trivia tacked on in the hopes that people will confuse them with substance and give the article a pass"... People here are obviously smart enough to make up their own minds and won't be confused by any sort of manipulation that I am doing, because there is no manipulation on my part to confuse them. This article is not trivial; it's not a trivia section, and fans and the soap opera media determine which couples are supercouples. They determined that Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt are a supercouple, and Chicago Sun-Times took notice of this couple's popularity, even if it is just one sentence. This couple was also pointed out as being notable by Hollywood.com, which is an independent source. There is nothing huge in being wrong with this article's plot summary any longer, since it's the length or close to the length of some good articles in which have storyline plots on Wikipedia. There isn't much more to add to an article about a soap opera couple, but plot and Cultural impact, and a History section before the Storyline section, in which the History section discusses the creation of the characters, what the producers were going for upon creating the characters or romance, or both, and if I find such details from great sites in which discuss this, I'll make sure to add them to this article. Flyer22 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Victor Newman and Nikki Reed didn't have to have extensive and or significant coverage on their love story in the mentions that were given to them by more than one independent reliable source. Just the fact that they were mentioned in more than one outside reliable source, The News & Advance, EW.com, Variety Magazine (and I'm sure many more), in what you call "in passsing" was enough to prove that couple's notability, thus I certainly don't see any extensive and or "significant coverage" needed as to having an article discussing that couple in its entirety.
In any case, Soap Opera Digest doesn't just mention Cliff and Nina in passing. They discuss the couple in more detail regardless.
Trivia sections mainly mention silly things, such as "This fictional character's favorite color is red"... Cultural impact sections more so cover a person, thing, character or couple's real-world impact, fictional or real, and that's what this article does. And if it's kept, it will certainly be improved further, at least with attempts. If's it's deleted, I can always re-create it later, and better improve it then.
Anyway, I need to go and fix up other soap opera couple articles, and some soap opera character articles, some of which like I did with the Bianca Montgomery character, which now provides a lot of real-world impact within her article, and will be further worked on as I edit articles here at Wikipedia. The Josh Madden article as well, both of these are certainly two highly notable characters, and I will have fun editing their articles for quite a while. It was/is interesting debating with you, Otto4711. Flyer22 07:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Honestly, what you claim as needing to be "significant coverage" for a soap opera couple was not brought up by two excellent Wikipedian editors in the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed deletion debate, in which the fact was/is that Victor and Nikki were cited as a highly notable couple by extremely valid independent sources outside of the soap opera media, with none of those sources referenced in their article having provided an entire article on the couple. And I'm positive that those editors in that deletion debate knew what they were doing. Your solution to deleting an article because it has plot summary is off in my opinion. Wikipedia has nothing against plot summaries, it states that an article shouldn't just be about plot; that's what it's against. And this article isn't just about plot. And this article can always be improved. Again, we don't agree on this article as of now, and if you want to continue this back-and-forth between you and I, then so be it, but I'd rather not. Flyer22 00:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Stop pointing me to policies such as other stuff exists. I'm quite aware of that policy. And it does matter whether someone brought up any particular point in some other AFD, because your "point" is off, Victor Newman and Nikki Reed were cited in more than one independent reliable source, and as User: EliminatorJR pointed out in that deletion debate upon his nomination of that article...."I'm certainly not saying every article in this category is unencyclopedic, but a huge amount of them are just plot summaries. If the unencyclopedic content can be cut right back, and the article sourced with real-world notability, then I'm quite happy to say keep - after all, AfD is for improvement, not just deletion"...that was the point, Victor and Nikki were proven notable, outside of the soap opera media even, and no article addressing the couple in its entirety is needed. In the same way that when an editor makes a statement such as Katie Holmes' favorite color is red, they have to find a reliable citation to validate that claim, not an entire article on Katie Holmes' favorite color being red.
Sorry, but it's not just a feeling that you were being condescending in this debate. You were and are being condescending in this so-called deletion debate. And if an article is about the impact soap opera couples had on the world, or about storylines in which had an impact on the world, and a couple is noted in that article, such as Victor Newman and Nikki Reed, then that is an article about that couple, that's what you're not geting. "Notability requires that the source be 'about' the couple"...and, yes, when an article is discussing storylines that changed the world and it mentions that fictional couple, then that is that article being about that fictional couple. Seriously, I don't need to debate this issue with you any longer. I don't need to be told that I'm not getting something or told to believe something in which you believe is what notability is, or pointed to some policy that I'm aware of, whether you believe that I'm aware of it or not. This debate between you and I is no longer as civil as it's supposed to be, and I do not wish to continue this tiresome round-whatever. Flyer22 11:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No it doesn't. A single sentence in an article does not and can not and never will make the article about that subject. A one sentence mention in an article is trivial. It is a passing mention. If even a single one of these had a section that discussed the couple that would be a different issue but none of these discuss the couple. Mentioning the couple is not the same as discussing the couple and it can only be your painfully obvious bias that prevents you from acknowledging that. This article is not sourced. It does not have a single source in it that meets WP:RS and that is about the subject of the couple, let alone three. The words "Cliff and Nina" in an article don't make the article about Cliff and Nina. An article about "storylines that impacted the world" (which none of the links in this article are, by the way) does not suddenly become about every storyline listed off in it. Otto4711 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Anyway, I try to maintain good faith in what you claim as to this article, and we just are not on the same side when it comes to this article. No need for us to linger on our thoughts as to this article. Flyer22 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
And, all sources on Wikipedia do not have to provide substantial coverage, and plenty of sources on Wikipedia in great articles do not. A source which mentions this couple in one sentence may not be substantial coverage, but it is notable when they are mentioned as a supercouple or important storyline in more than one independent reliable source. In the same way that Angelina Jolie being mentioned in more than one most beautiful women and or people lists establishes her notability as one of the world's most beautiful women and or people, Cliff and Nina being listed as a supercouple and or important storyline in more than one independent reliable source establishes that this couple is a supercouple. Also, the characters Cliff and Nina were merged into this article, thus deleting this article would be doing away with two notable characters as well, apart from being a part of this couple, in the show All My Children. Although, an editor here at Wikipedia could always re-create an article on the Cliff Warner character, as well as an article on the Nina Cortlandt character, it's a bit redundant, considering that most of their character history revolves around each other. Flyer22 20:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. There was no consensus to delete JodyB talk 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Yet another unsourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Yet another insufficiently sourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Yet another unsourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, no prejudice to recreation by users independent of the subject. -- Core desat 04:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has a bit of history. It used to be a user page ( User:Aabaig) I speedy deleted. The deletion was contested by the user on his talk page, asserting his company did meet the WP:CORP criteria. Since we both disagreed, I moved the page to the article space and I am bringing it to AfD. My opinion is that despite the fact that this company is on a list of accredited companies (with ~30 other companies from Pakistan), it does not make it notable, and its small size (30 employees) doesn't help. Delete -- lucasbfr talk 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted by Coredesat non admin close. Whispe ring 11:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This page doesn't seem to fit the notability guidelines and might be used as an advertisment. The images on the page are dead and most of it's content seems to be exteranal links. This article should be deleted. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was The result was speedy delete per criterion G11. -- Evilclown93 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
NN label, spam, fails WP:CORP and the intro reads like some fanboy listing! Lugnuts 10:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no need, since it was blanked it sould no longer be a problem. Try to bypass your cache (pressing Ctrl+F5 on any Wikipedia page, usually) if you still have problems.. -- lucasbfr talk 12:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Aditya Kabir 10:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This neologism can not possibly be identifyed and attributed to reliable sources, 'couse it has no tangible content. Carn 10:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep JodyB talk 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No Google hits for either the spelling of the name in the article or the spelling in the title, other than those sourced directly or indirectly from this Wikipedia article. Unless verifiable evidence from third-party reliable sources can be provided for the existence of this person, the article should be deleted. Arthur Frayn 10:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod... I think! Originally prodded as a neologism. An attempt to conflate different vernacular uses of the phrase in order to create a new concept. No references and no relevant ghits beyond everyday usage, nothing to support this as a distinct concept that's in general use. When I prodded it the author vandalised it and left a strange message implying she was done forever with WP. Not quite nonsensical enough for speedying, hence this AfD.
I am also nominating a related page from this author:
It's an unreferenced dictionary definition, now transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has not been expanded beyond a dictionary definition and there's no evidence or assertion of notability (the article even says it's not a term in wide use). Again, when I prodded this the author vandalised it.
andy 09:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
My dear learned ones. Yes my self deletion had some unusual content. There are items unwritten that you are of the blessed few, not to have experienced. I attended a family reunion last year of which upon introduction, I found my status."Oh I didn't know Claude Derrill had a son". The man mentioned was my father, I at one time was his son. Being "unique" to the point of becoming a Generational secret, made me aware of it's implications and the energy needed with in a family to keep such persons unknown. I suffered through electric shock, chemical shock and solitary confinement for 30 days at a time, just for being different. Now as I am becoming a most wonderful Transformed Woman, I find the need to remain in the shadows, sub notes, whispered entries a total waste of energy I may be speaking from another culture, that is unfamiliar to my judicial board, but am willing to dialog with any and all in my justification. For at one time was not the world considered flat, and all who believed otherwise burnt at the stake? I ask for even a subcategory of unexplored words, even if needed a category of undesirable word notation. I do appreciate being considered unique, if curiosity is of effect please to venture to my space countess_estelle. Thank you for consideration of my entries, and I do wish to have the option of self deletion, if that may be afforded.
Ms. Estelle Irene Kinkade Wilson II
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is another of those hated WP:BLP messes. (We can thank Jimbo for starting a terrible precedent with Alan Dershowitz, but I'll leave that discussion for some other time.) The article used to look like this, but in the face of edit warring, an administrator was forced to protect the page and convert it into a stub. Now there's a debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Paul Andrew Mitchell (the same person), and someone said, take the article to AFD, it's only one sentence long anyway, and then the talk page will fall automatically. I thought, great idea! The only complication is that this wasn't always one sentence long. Regardless, I believe that keeping the BLP in any form may cause more trouble than it's worth.
To be clear: I make no judgment about the fellow's notability. I just think that with certain articles - the Bogdanov affair comes to mind - it may be better to have no article than a controversial article. I'm willing to get a "speedy keep" thrown at this if only to make sure it's been considered. Shalom Hello 09:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to Benjamin Nathaniel Smith. NawlinWiki 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable victim of a spree shooting Richard 08:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Most of the arguments to keep aren't based in policy or guidelines; whether Wikipedia is or isn't becoming too restrictive isn't a reason to keep or delete an article. -- Core desat 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It is largely unsourced and consists almost entirely of original research. It has been up for months and no serious action has been taken to revise it Serendipodous 08:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, no consensus to delete. I personally think the title should be changed to Women in Iran, but I'll leave that for further discussion on the article talk page. NawlinWiki 03:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Having grappled with this article from time to time, I have decided that the reason this article is difficult to work with is because it is not a real encyclopedia topic. Under the term ill-defined term "Iranian women" (notice that the definition itself lacks a source here) a wide variety of information pertaining to females from Iranian cultures, past and present, is arbitrarily selected to be added to this article. The association of these random facts under a supposed common term/phenomenon, "Iranian women," smells like a very strange form of OR by synthesis.
Material in articles have to be relevant to the topic, but if the topic itself has no certain definition, how can information be posted here as relevant? As this is not a real topic there can be no real content aside from synthesis relying upon the OR definition held by the editor. This kind of purposeless OR has no place on Wikipedia. The Behnam 08:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Behnam is a very valuable wikipedians. However some one who is not even able to read in Persian is probably not a right person for writing this article. And I think by smelling, he wont be able to make any reliable statement about the subject.
I vote for keep. Thanks. Sangak Talk 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
*Keep - seems a perfectly valid topic although the article needs some work. Hard to say its not notable.
Bigdaddy1981
21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
If there is any ambiguities, that's not in the nature of the subject. That's due to the ambiguities in the name Iran/Persia. The same problem exists when you want to talk about German nationals or Turkish nationals etc. When one says A is a Turkish parliament member, people may automatically consider him/her from Turkish ethnicity. But we know that one third of the population of Turkey are Kurds. I know that politicians do not care about terminology. But wikipedia is a democracy and for that reason we explained these issues at the begining of "Iranian woman" page. Please note that this ambiguity does not exist in Persian language where the name of the land has been always "Iran". In English language the name Iran, was not in use until 20th century.
I do think this article has the potential to become a great article in future and I do not see any reason for deletion of the article. As I mentioned above the French version has a high quality and it reached FA status in the past. There are master programs in several Iranian Universities on "Iranian women studies". So the subject is very well-established. Sangak Talk 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment - This is supposed to be more than a Wiktionary article. Perhaps in Wiktionary you can define "Iranian women" as "women from Iran" without incident (though there is no source for that definition yet), but encyclopedia articles need to have focus, definition, scope rather than just being a collection of somewhat-related facts. And throughout this debate this hasn't happened. And I doubt it will happen even after this debate closes. Do know, however, that just as Zereshk so despises, I will relentlessly remove anything inappropriate from this article. I haven't much interest in 'creating' articles for this "encyclopedia," but rather removing crap from what exists already. Maybe after the crap is removed I'll try to make a full article on my own, but right I'm not interested. Zereshk's comment bringing up the question of my authorship of articles was inappropriate anyway. Like many Iran-related articles, this one also has issues. Considering that the problem is quite fundamental (with OR defining the topic & its scope), I suspected that this isn't a real encyclopedia topic (no, don't build the strawman that I don't believe Iranian women exist or similar BS misinterpretation of my arguments), and hence felt that deletion was best. However, since I failed to communicate my case against the article persuasively, it seems that this is heading for a "Keep," so I will simply cut the crap directly from the article upon the debate's closure.
Chicaneo, thanks for making some edits to the article, but as you don't seem to think that this article has any problems with definition & scope, can you please provide sources for the lead that explicitly back up every claim? Thanks in advance. The Behnam 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep per above, specially Chicaneo. Where's the OR? What are the new terms being defined? 'Iranian women'? Article may need more work, but it definitely is encyclopedic. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as nonsense. Peacent 09:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Do we really need to have this...? LamentIndex 08:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect all to the school district article. -- Core desat 04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm also nominating the following schools because they're all elementary schools in the same school district.
1) Elementary schools are not inherently notable and 2) All these articles are clones of each other and there's no content in any of them. Delete and Redirect to the school district page Corpx 08:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has been here for months with nothing been done to make it into an encyclopedia article. I can't really see how it can ever be an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix 07:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to Thriller (album), without prejudice to recreating an article if someone can add content showing that the song in particular has notability (like, for example, Beat It). NawlinWiki 03:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable Michael Jackson album track which User:Superior1 refuses to leave as a redirect to the album page. Corvus cornix 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep - I think that we should allow time for references to be added to this article. References are out there, and instead of mindlessly deleting articles we should strive to find them. Give it time. Paaerduag 12:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Unlike The Lady In My Life (above), this article has substantive content discussing this specific song and why it is notable, and has specific references. NawlinWiki 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album track, not a single. Creator is on a "create an article on every Michael Jackson album track spree". I tried redirecting, but the originator refused to leave it that way. See also
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speed Demon (song).
Corvus cornix
06:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure of orphan AfD Hut 8.5 09:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable DJ. Claims of notability, so can't be speedied. Corvus cornix 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep, similar to Just Good Friends (song). NawlinWiki 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album track. Every track on every album doesn't need an article.
Corvus cornix
06:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
Rolling Stone magazine IS notable. Why do you keep ignoring that one? Also, why must it be about the song itself? I don't see why comments within a larger framework are wrong? And if you start quoting WikiProjects, I'll simply direct you to WP:SONG, which states that "there are currently no guidelines for the notability of songs."-- Paaerduag 09:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ck lostsword• T• C 00:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
As has been discussed on the article's talk page, this guy isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia. WP:FRINGE applies here, as his views definitely qualify as fringe views, and it is definitely undue weight to give him an article. I have to do this through AFD because the proposed deletion, which was seconded by another user, was invalid because the page's author, User:Patchouli, removed the 'prod' tag earlier, and no exception was made to allow the prod go through even after 5 days. Anyway the guy is still not notable and hence the article should be deleted. The Behnam 06:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:Fringe or not, this guy fails WP:Notability by a wide margin. VanTucky 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fourth of july festival whose only claim to fame is the sale of fireworks. Corvus cornix 06:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable minor league baseball player. No indication that he's played yet in the majors. Corvus cornix 05:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The arguments still appear to be mostly valid even after the reversion. -- Core desat 04:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
hopelessly POV, doesn't seem to be notable Makerowner 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge without images. -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Spam, nonsense. It is not an appropriate encyclopedia article for Wikipedia and it will confuse most users. A Raider Like Indiana 00:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus defaults to keep. I am very disappointed in the number of one hit wonder votes from redlinked and anon editors (most only have thier edits to this AfD in thier contrib history). But even taking this into consideration, there were enough established editors suggesting this subject be kept. There are still outstanding concerns for this article. I'm going to tag it as needing clean up and sourced. I believe John Vandenberg makes the best case for notability, but I'm shocked that none of that made it into the actual article. This article has major issues, so I'm asking those who were in favor of keeping this article to please try your best to bring it up to wikipedia standards. Andrew c [talk] 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organization. Most of this article is not in fact about the organization, but about document formats developed by it. Valrith 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I made the suggestion in jest that Health Level 7 be deleted -- but I see that this has been suggested before. Perhaps consortia deserve a bit of special handling in terms of establishing "notability". I'd say that the notability of a consortium or standards organization rests on the notability of its members and documented adoption within the particular market the organization is intended to serve. If you don't apply this type of standard, you may well end up deleting many of the entries I cite above. However, if you do, I don't believe you will be serving the best interests of the wikipedia community. -- Chuckhr-xml 21:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Michaelas 10 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This looks like some kind of POV fork. There is already an article at Coptic flag, this article has been deleted twice, and yet it keeps getting recreated. At best, if there are references to indicate that anything in this article needs to be merged into the other, pre-existing article, then a merge may be in order. I have suggested this before, but the original creator seems more on making a point with this spinoff article. Corvus cornix 04:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete ck lostsword• T• C 12:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
There is only one Google hit for this term. I was going to tag it for moving to wiktionary, but it seems more like an ad. And where is Dhusmeka? Corvus cornix 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as author request. gadfium 06:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be blanked test page created by new user. Antidespotic 04:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The information in this article appears to be hearsay, and I cannot find evidence of notability. Gracenotes T § 04:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation (g12); also see the site's copyright notice here. Chaser - T 06:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is either a copyright violation, or it needs to go to Wikisource. No sources, no context, nothing to indicate what makes this an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:BIO notability concerns. Main feature of "notability" appears to be that he is the father of the current president of the LDS Church. Otherwise he was, as the article acknowledges, a run-of-the-mill "mid-level" leader in the LDS Church. There have been thousands and probably tens of thousands of stake presidents and mission presidents, which appear to have been his highest callings in the hierarchy. In any case, no sources are referenced. SESmith 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The following link has another quote from Bryant S. Hinckley. http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6944
Here is another one where they have a short poem by Bryant S. Hinckley. http://www.clayfieldcounselling.com.au/newsletter/newsletter_2005_07.html
In this document on page 111 there is mention of Bryant S. Hinckley's renowned style of speaking. http://avp.byu.edu/documents/pdf/shakespearesaints.pdf
The fact that there is a quote from Bryant S. Hinckley at this site is not particularly notable, but I think it does demonstrate that he is widely quoted. http://www.christysclipart.com/bedience_quotes.html
This link mentions Bryant S. Hinckley organizing the Lansing Michigan District in 1936. http://www.mission.net/michigan/lansing/page.php?pg_id=2739
Here are some people quoting Bryant S. Hinckley who do not particularly like him. http://www.tbaptist.com/pbc/2005/pbc0508.html
Here is a quote that mentions Bryant S. Hinckley's role as an author. "In the late 1890s, Roberts also helped establish the Improvement Era. He raised money, selected the journal's name, and framed an editorial policy that featured history (during its seventy-three-year history, the Improvement Era printed over eight hundred history-related articles). As its longtime, de facto editor, Roberts used some of the best local talent available: Edward H. Anderson, Joseph J. Cannon, John Henry Evans, Susa Young Gates, Preston Nibley, Joseph Fielding Smith, Junius F. Wells, and John A. Widtsoe. Later such important writers as Juanita Brooks, Richard L. Evans, Bryant S. Hinckley, and William Mulder joined the Improvement Era ranks. No one was more prolific than Roberts himself, however. During his thirty-five-year association with the periodical, he averaged three articles a year." I found it at http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/walker/02.html. This is a book published by the University of illinois press.
In 1969 there was a Bryant S. Hinckley church history group that G. Homer Durham was involved in. They were named such because Bryant S. Hinckley had written so many biographies of Mormon leaders.
Here is a reference to another book by Bryant S. Hinckley. http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/gaq/020216.shtml
Here is a link to a talk given by Bryant S. Hinckley at General Conference. http://search.ldslibrary.com/article/view/207775
Here is a reference to Bryant S. Hinckley as stake president in BYU Professor Thomas G. Alexander's book "Mormonism in Transition". http://books.google.com/books?id=u9jkQnDJExYC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=%22bryant+s+hinckley%22&source=web&ots=mvEyYd2xp-&sig=PQ7Ka-RqN_PQUj1MkLhM5aJVTiM#PPA155,M1
The result was all merged into Area (LDS Church). The Evil Spartan 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The world is divided into 29 administrative "areas" by the LDS Church. This article is about one of the 29 areas, and this one does not seem to be in any way notable as compared to the other 28. Rather than having an article for each of the 29 areas, it would probably be more helpful to have one article about the jurisdiction of "area" within the LDS Church. This is the approach that has been taken with the ~350 missions of the LDS Church. Rather than an article for each mission, there is one article at Mission (LDS Church). However, currently no such general article about LDS Church areas exist for these to be merged into. – SESmith 03:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages which are articles about other "areas" in the LDS Church:
There is also the possibility of studying the membership statistics. Also there is the fact that the areas have area presidents, some of whom are notable. For example, it was when John H. Groberg was president of the North America West Area that the first Tongan Speaking stake in the US was organized in that areas boundaries. I think this was more than coincidence considering how connected to Tonga Elder Groberg is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 July 2007
The result was keep, with a suggestion to disband the article. Three competing views are present in the discussion. The first is that the page ought to be deleted per WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. The second is that the page ought to be kept in order to divert unwanted additions away from the main B-52 Stratofortress article. Though this argument does not have any direct basis in policy, it is in this particular case supported by a consensus reached through discussion at Talk:B-52 Stratofortress#Triva, features. Thus, I do not feel that it can simply be discounted. The third view is that the content of the page should be retained (in part or in whole) in some form, though not necessarily in this article, mostly based on the argument that much of the content is not trivial.
All things considered, there is consensus to not delete the article. However, based on the comments made, I feel that there is support for "disbanding" the article. By "disbanding", I mean scattering the individual parts of the page and converting it into a redirect. There is no consensus for any specific course of action, so I will list some of the suggestions made in the discussion. Which one or ones is/are eventually chosen is up to editors' discretion.
(Note: The suggestions are listed in decreasing order based of the extent of modifications required; however, keep in mind that less significant changes do less to satisfy the concerns raised in this discussion.) -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
just a page full of trivia, which shouldn't be anywhere in the first place, violates WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA Dannycali 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete ck lostsword• T• C 12:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested Prod, non-referenced article of an "emerging" actor, notability not proven SkierRMH 03:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Do let me know if any more proofs wd be required. thanks. Karan Singhania 21:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deletion Corpx 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
These forums are not notable in any way. HeavenGames, Kongming.net, and Physics Forums, all far more active forums than this, have all been deleted. Simfish 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Nominated for CSD Corpx 06:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Malformed nom was created by User:Kesh; his nom can be found here. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
(Thanks to Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) for fixing this.)
The result was delete. -- Core desat 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Also nominated:
Subjects are baseball players who have failed to achieve sufficient notability. Per precedent, ballplayers are not considered notable until they have reached the Major Leagues. Caknuck 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable toy based on a popular animated series. No reliable sources, fails WP:V. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 01:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. It lacks verifiable sources to justify its inclusion. Tyrenius 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I tagged this article as unencyclopedic, and those who have discussed the article on the talk page seem to agree. Basically, this article is about graffiti behind pictures in hotel rooms and similar. To me, this seems like a semi-notable concept. Didn't JK Rowling do something similar after writing the last Harry Potter novel? I can't remember exactly. Anyway, the main problem with this article is that it seems to be a vehicle for an idea started by Josh Homme of the bands Kyuss and QOTSA, and the references are inadequate, not fully addressing the concept. The references may not meet WP:RS. 333 ghits for the exact phrase minus Wikipedia and mirrors. Non-notable neologism? I think the concept should be notable, but it's problematic. I'll let you decide.- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 20:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is about a non-notable, now destroyed skateboarding park. There is zero true notability and looks like complete bollocks to me. Reywas92 Talk 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable, game guide, violates WP:NOT#INFO. east. 718 01:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The claims of notability in the article are not supported by reliable sources. The subject's book is self-published by iUniverse, making the Amazon and B&N listings useless, and the two sources cited in the article do not support the point they are cited for. Note also the multiple "Keep" votes by User:216.80.113.228, a single-purpose account. NawlinWiki 12:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Subject is not notable. KenWalker | Talk 00:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780595320875&z=y
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780595664771&z=y#ACC
The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
As Schoolcruft. School does not meet the notability criteria. A unique fund-raising activity for a notable event does not qualify for notability by association, and community consensus at AfD has determined that state level inter-school competitions are not considered notable (See the Girls Sport Victoria, PSA, etc AfD's). The school's mission statement is just pure cruft. After you remove the fund raising, the marketing cruft, and the sports from the article, you have nothing left but an almost empty article which isn't even stub worthy and falls foul of WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Thewinchester (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable TV series. Article claims it's a "popular serial", yet it has only 5 (or 8) Google hits. It is also not included in {{ SP Shows}} as a Star Plus show. Anas talk? 00:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Anas talk? 11:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article fails WP:BIO. I found nothing from the 130 Google Search results. I even tried searching using Arabic and, while there were considerably more results, all I found were two news articles just mentioning his name. Anas talk? 00:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE - there's not a snowball in hell's chance this is going to have a consensus to Keep or to Merge, it can never be neutral and at the moment, it's a personal essay from an upset and confused editor. Nick 11:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A pretty clear case of POV-pushing. This article is completely unsourced, yet makes claims of unspecified "crimes" and "inhuman activities" of the Red Army. I have no doubt that such things did occur, but this isn't the right way to go about writing about it. See author's other Red Army articles nominated for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Estonia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Army crimes in Georgia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Army crimes in Ukraine. eaolson 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete ck lostsword• T• C 12:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
no evidence of notability here. Creator claimed improvements coming, but that was 6 months ago, I think that should have been sufficient time if something was to come of this. Crossmr 01:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep, let's not waste our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable historical, local football team. See also 1944 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team and 1943 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team. ck lostsword• T• C 01:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I (Iowa13, creator of the articles) am in the process of adding information to the articles which will cancel the deletion. Here is some temporary information: the 1943 team finished No. 2 in the final Associated Press Poll, and the 1944 team finished No. 6. The 1943 team was named the No. 1 service team in the nation. All three teams had numerous famous college and professional football players and were coached by legendary college football coaches. The teams were considered the finest service teams in the nation during World War II.
Service teams during World War II were generally more popular than the major university teams with whom they shared facilities, and generally performed better as well. About 15 to 20 service teams played Division 1-A football during the war, and only one or two suffered losing seasons, while nearly half were ranked in the top twenty. I'm guessing your Google hunch is correct. The teams do have some acclaim on the Internet, but it is difficult to find. Several of the online sources I have provided should be enough for anyone doubting the teams' prominence. Also, I should note that, contrary to popular stereotypes, the Iowa Pre-Flight teams played mostly non-service teams, including the 1941 national champion Minnesota, the 1942 national champion Ohio State, the 1943 national champion Notre Dame, and many other powerhouse programs of the day, and beat most of them.
The result was Speedy keep, let's not waste our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable historical, local football team. See also 1944 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team and 1942 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team. ck lostsword• T• C 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Iowa13 See my discussion of this issue on the 1942 team page.
The result was Speedy keep, let's not waste our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable historical football team. See also 1943 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team and 1942 Iowa Pre-Flight Seahawks football team. ck lostsword• T• C 01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I (Iowa13, creator of the articles) am in the process of adding information to the articles which will cancel the deletion. Here is some temporary information: the 1943 team finished No. 2 in the final Associated Press Poll, and the 1944 team finished No. 6. The 1943 team was named the No. 1 service team in the nation. All three teams had numerous famous college and professional football players and were coached by legendary college football coaches. The teams were considered the finest service teams in the nation during World War II.
Iowa13 See my discussion of this issue on the 1942 team page.
The result was redirect. Article is completely original research, so nothing is to be gained by merging. The "Other crap exists" arguments aren't enough to keep this article I'm afraid. A plain redirect to Fan translation seems to be the best way forward. Majorly ( talk) 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
DeJap Tranlations is more notable then RPGe (they translated four high profile games - Dragon Quest 3, Tales of Phantasia, Star Ocean, and Bahamut Lagoon [32], whereas RPGe has only ever done one - Final Fantasy V) and RPGe was redirected. Misterdiscreet 06:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to serial. Redirects are cheap, and there's no compelling case for deleting a "possibly relevant" redirect. Cheers, Wily D 13:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The term has been dreamed up. I can't find any evidence that people actually use it from a Google search [34]. There are also hardly any articles that link to this one, suggesting that no notable "live novel" has been produced - a fact that makes one question whether or not the term, itself, is even notable Misterdiscreet 06:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable elementary school; article completely unsourced, with very trivial content that does not fit with an encyclopedia. Angelo 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article should be deleted because I feel this is not very notable. There are many other places called "The Waterfront" which may be more notable than the one in Pittsburgh. Perhaps this article should be deleted also because it is mainly a listing showing the stores in the mall, qualifying this as spam or advertisement for this mall. Also, this article failed to cite any sources. HoustonWeHaveAProblem 06:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
— HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- trey 02:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 20:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article fails to show the notability of this mall as it says "insignificant". Also, this article does not have reliable sources. It only cites the mall's website and a blog. For this reason, I believe this article should be deleted. -- HoustonWeHaveAProblem 13:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article fails to show the notability of this mall as there is almost no content to the article. Also, this article does not have reliable sources. It only cites the mall's website. For this reason, I believe this article should be deleted. -- HoustonWeHaveAProblem 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't see the significance of this mall.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 July 2007
— HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.| -- trey 02:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article has nothing except the mall's website and a list of stores in that mall. Not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoustonWeHaveAProblem ( talk • contribs)
The result was Redirected to Truco#Truco in Brazil, virtually all the nontrivial content from this article is already there. NawlinWiki 12:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a card game guide. Will ( talk) 15:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn - I have nothing against the "one-hit wonder" title, just the "with only one pop hit" title. Will ( talk) 02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
listcruftinfinity Will ( talk) 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 05:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Most of the information in this article appears to be completely made up or derived exclusively from fansite reports and message board posts. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only reliable source in the article contains a very brief mention of one of the producers on Raven-Symoné's next album, and that's not enough to justify the existence of a separate article independent of the main Raven-Symoné article. Also nominating:
Extraordinary Machine 17:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core desat 05:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. No major media coverage or her art. No references in article to establish notablility. Nv8200p talk 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
self-promotion, and not quite true. Google finds lots of "peel-away ads", but they seem to have existed long before "June 27, 2007". (E.g. http://www.batchconverter.com/PeelAwayAds-download-49386.shtml has a 2006 copyright line.) The very model of a minor general 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Average PR [36], no Alexa rank [37]. Misterdiscreet 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article fails WP:MUSIC. No albums, no hit singles or awards. No third party media coverage. Nv8200p talk 22:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply