The result was Delete -- JForget 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable social movement with very limited evidence of notability or, for that matter existence. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Mattinbgn\ talk 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It just needs to be up until the end of the month, then they will be finished with it. Is it such a big deal if there is not specific references? Its just teaching kids how to research 124.189.36.39 ( talk) 11:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Local event with little or no references available. The term "Orange Massacre" returns no ghits referring to this incident, nor does the name of the alleged offender. Local media references from 1992 does not a notable article make. X Marx The Spot ( talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. With regard to Bagh (garden), per WP:SNOW and withdrawal of the original nomination. As to the redirect, that isn't an AfD matter, and belongs instead at WP:RFD. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 11:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. The article has already been moved to Wiktionary. Corvus cornix talk 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep and move to Bagh. This article has the same relevancy as this, it is used as determination of a places such as Kara-bagh. It has potential to be improved and expended. VartanM ( talk) 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete If this is not a hoax, reliable sources are needed to verify this article. Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Prior to this article, this cave was unknown to the caving community. While trying to verify, I contacted the Texas Speleological Survey and several National Speleological Society members who know San Saba County well and they had no record of a cave at the published location. The cave is now recorded in the TSS database as a rumored cave and that is the only known record of it outside of this article. There has simply been no opportunity to create a verifiable source.
There are over 600 TSS records for San Saba County and a lot of them have bad air. There is nothing particularly notable about this one. WTucker ( talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A deletion nomination can be made based 'original research' without objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycrab ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I know that there is assertion that he's been referred to by several newspapers -- but is this really more than 15 minutes of fame? I don't think the article establishes persistent notability. Unless notability is further shown, delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. - Clear consensus that this BLP does not demonstrate notability. Possible hoax. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be notable. No reliable sources included in article. Aparhizi ( talk) 22:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:NN publication, autobiography of unpublished WP:NN person, possible hoax. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod removed by IP without comment. No verification or encyclopedic content, simply an unverified list of people and companies, and external links to commercial sites. Deiz talk 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep refs need to be put in the article, but they exist. 99 google news mentions [6]. Merkin's mum 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article clearly states album was never realeased. Does not pass WP:MUSIC. Links are to the band and are not independent references bout the album. Reywas92 Talk 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that the article does meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person failing WP:BIO. Not verifiable by third party sources. Aparhizi ( talk) 12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Notability has not been established.. Fabrictramp ( talk) 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet notability requirements (per WP:Music and WP:Notability). A self-released album with no significant coverage in any independent reliable sources. Dgf32 ( talk) 21:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
[7] — Punchbowl1030 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
comment I can't see any sources via my usual touchstone, google news [9]. Merkin's mum 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:BIO#Politicians this person is not notable because he only got 0.03% of the vote on the presidential elections, and no other claims to notability outside of his failed political career are presented. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Non notable BLP. Clear consensus to delete, but BLPs ought to be deleted unless consensus was not a clear keep, hence would still need deletion. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Possibly a vanity article. No references provided and no ghits on the subject. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Coccyx Bloccyx ( talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is technically speediable as A, since it makes no assertion of notability. It also lacks reliable independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. This is an unsourced BLP about a non notable mayor of a small town. Cambrassa's argument is refuted by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and Dendodge's by the lack of any sources showing notability. It could be argued that there is no consensus, but the delete arguments are more compelling, and further, for low notability BLPs we should be deleting on no consensus rather than keeping. Therefore, by all these arguments, delete. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be notable. No reliable sources included in article. D.M.N. ( talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. While this may exist, notability has not been established. Fabrictramp ( talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No independent sources show notability for this student "order". This was previously nominated under the title Gorgon's Head and the result was to redirect to this title, but I don't see where the notability is under any title. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. If we count noses, there are more keeps than deletes, by one. (discounting Monkey80, a now indef blocked sock of the article creator), or even steven if we include the nominator. But AfD is not about nose counting, it is about strength of argument. While the subject does have a Barron's mention, and a fairly lengthy one, as carried on the subject's own website, (Barrons itself only has the opening para for free, but it's a match with the subject's copy so it's highly likely to be as the site has it) it's a bit of a puff piece, and Barrons is a daily that needs fodder every day. The NY Sun article is also somewhat puffy. I find it odd that his father's article seems to be a redlink. HIS notability seems pretty clear, CEO of major corporation, etc. But his son? Not so much. 40M in assets under management is not a whole lot, really. It's too bad that the father didn't have an article, we could propose merging this into his... but this article? It smacks of a promotional piece, and I'm not seeing the notability. Note that this search on Google gives 636 ghits, (which is hardly "all over the place" as Monkey80 says) and I have 26000 last I checked... and I'm not by any stretch of the imagination notable. So that's a bust. The delete arguments to me outweigh the keeps, there clearly is no consensus to keep. With a non notable or marginally notable BLP, unless the outcome is clearly "keep" we ought to be deleting, not keeping. Therefore, delete. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable businessman, article created by subject, speedy delete tag already removed by author. Paste ( talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense, probable attack page. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a test page/nonsense. RC-0722 247.5/ 1 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 17:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Band "known locally" in Swansea. Doesn't come anywhere near WP:BAND. Article obviously created by a pal of the band, even quotes band member as "recently declaring that 'it's a bit up our own arse to have a Wikipedia entry!'. Let's save them the embarassment and Delete. Camillus (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Although Branson03 makes some impassioned argument, the counter arguments are strong, and the consensus here seems clear, this ball player is not notable. And even if the consensus was not clear, marginal notability BLPs really ought to be deleted. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Very non-notable baseball player. Notability comes in the Major Leagues, he's still pretty low in the minors. Wizardman 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep He plays in a professional league, which is notable according to WP:N. Many other minor league players have articles about them. Branson03 ( talk) 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: The standard for WP:BIO requires that a person has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, and Kiker meets that standard: [16], although there's not much evidence of that in the article as it is. The standard for WP:ATHLETE requires that a person has played in a professional league which Kiker has done. The standards for notability by WP:BASEBALL standards for minor leaguers is: "Have played in at least a whole season in AAA baseball, played in the All-Star Futures Game, won a notable Minor League Baseball award, or been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues." From the information at hand, I don't see where Kiker has accomplished any of those things. Should someone find evidence of one of those standards being met, I would be more than happy to change my Delete to a Keep as I am an inclusionist who would like to keep all minor league baseball players. But, we have to live with the compromises that were arrived at through consensus. Kinston eagle ( talk) 20:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per current guidelines. No awards, all-star appearances, only brief "A" ball appearances. Spanneraol ( talk) 15:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be advertising for the company; possible conflict of interest by the only author. nneonneo talk 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable comics - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Angelo ( talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails general notability criteria and notability criteria for footballers EJF ( talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Merged Although the first AfD outcome was keep, that was in 2006. Our standards for BLPs have moved since then. There is little to say about this person outside of what is or could be said in the Rocketboom article. and except for Gnangarra's argument, the rest of the commenters feel a merge is appropriate. Hence, merge. But even absent a delete consensus, the right thing to do with BLPs is to not have them unless there is a clear consensus for keep. ++ Lar: t/ c 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was merged into Rocketboom on 11 March after no objections were made on the talk page for several months. Intent was to remove this article after the merge; I am posting here for guidance and consensus. What little remains of the article (in current stub state) lacks references (I tried). Although Baron has produced a notable work ( Rocketboom) there seems to be no independent, verifiable information about him personally outside of his work on that (very) notable project. Recommend deleting due to merge into Rocketboom, WP:V and WP:BIO (due to lack of sources relating to Baron personally). - Cleanr ( talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 07:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A term with no notability outside of Magic: the gathering and probably not much notability within it. Not even the official name for the mechanic, according to the article itself. UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The WP:GAMEGUIDE argument is not compelling enough to force a deletion without consensus: that policy prohibits "how-to style manuals", but it does not cover a mere reproduction of game rules that do not focus on advice how one should play. Copyright violation has also been alleged, but the copyrighted work that this text supposedly infringes on has not been specified. Sandstein ( talk) 06:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The page is nothing more than an instruction guide on how to play the game, with no encyclopedic value to it. It's completely unsourced and what little outside notability the rules themselves may have can be mentioned in the main article. Many of the MtG related articles have similar problems, but this one probably the biggest violator. There is no reason to have a detailed explanation of the rules on Wikipedia. UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - with no evidence of notability offered and no dissenting views, this one is obvious. You probably should have just prodded this one, Doc :) --++ Lar: t/ c 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. He's a "recognised" (by whom?) mobster - so what? we seem to be generating hundreds of these BLPs. Docg 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, unsigned opinion discounted. Sandstein ( talk) 07:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
One huge neo-communist original research and POV fork of Stalinism (the article itself says it openly: "Anti-revisionism (known to its detractors as "Stalinism")"). `' Míkka >t 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 17:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted, protected form recreation `' Míkka >t 17:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website/project group. This has been CSD A7 deleted twice already [23] but keeps being recreated. Dougie WII ( talk) 17:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Marginal notability at best. Nom and both commenters make case for deletion, no dissenters. Unless there was a clear consensus to keep, BLPs like this one should be deleted. ++ Lar: t/ c 17:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A rather nonnotable person, whose only claim for notability is his claim that he coined the term " Beatlemania" in olden days when he had something to do with music. This claim is only confirmed from his radio and newspaper interviews. I failed to find any independent confirmation in rather scant 132 unique google hits, and the article Beatlemania (an various beatlemaniac mailing lists) cast doubts on this. For example, "Richard Buskin in "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Beatles" says that the term was definitely not coined following the Palladium concert, but instead first appeared in the Daily Mirror on Saturday, November 2nd." I don't think wikipedia must be a promotion vehicle for this guy. `' Míkka >t 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mymelody-Molly Jones. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
insufficient notability: essentially, she appeared in one episode of That's So Raven; I can't determine that she's done anything else immediately notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is entirely unreferenced, probably original research and reads entirely like something someone just made up themselves one day. Jayron32. talk. contribs 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. BorgQueen ( talk) 12:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. I do not believe this is really serving any purpose as a Wikipedia article as this resource is not meant to be a HOW-TO guide, but perhaps I am wrong. Maybe it can be fixed. Coccyx Bloccyx ( talk) 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete nancy (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was successfully prodded, but recreated by the original creator. Here was my prod reason: "Article reads as a promotion. The notability seems spurious and not within our guidelines. No sources are cited, no independent coverage found on google. I don't believe an article within wikipedia guidelines could be written about this topic." Andrew c [talk] 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 14:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This music "genre" appears to lack any reliable sources. All of the citations are either to unreliable sources (blogs/non-peer reviewed content) or to websites that do not explicitly mention "thugstep". Editors are welcome to google for themselves, but the limited results are not encouraging. Wickethewok ( talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - There is a clear consensus here for "not" keeping, the question becomes whether a redirect is warranted. I find consensus on that matter to be slightly in favour of not redirecting at this time. --++ Lar: t/ c 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article isn't noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia. StaticGull Talk 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Stifle ( talk) 13:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Insufficient assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep The references cited here by Bardin have swayed this to a keep consensus. However, references in an AFD discussion do not a better article make. They need to be integrated appropriately into the body of the article, as well as listed as references at the bottom. Marking the page as needing this cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This group does not seem notable. Article contains four links to external sites: 1) their official website, 2) their myspace page, 3) a link to answers.com, 4) an empty profile on SPIN.com that does not contain any information about the band itself. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all, consensus is that the articles fail the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable rapper. Had an early association with Three 6 Mafia (they produced his first album) but that's as close as he gets. No releases on major or "one of the more important indie labels". Fails WP:MUSIC. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Pigman ☿ 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems not to satisfy inclusion standards, presumably there should be a list of Transformer characters? As such, if there is, there should be a merge. asenine t/ c 12:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is pleanty of presidence for Transformers character to have their own pages, and this page covers three character who share a name through 3 different series, the last of which is a character from a currently airing TV show. It's a stub, but more information is being added now. Mathewignash ( talk) 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep: Let Oil Slick's page stay. He's been in the different toylines. For all we know, he may debut in the Transformers: Animated show. Rtkat3 ( talk) 2:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. No real evidence of notability given. Article has lots of external links but they are mostly open content websites such as myspace and facebook.
Roleplayer (
talk) 11:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep, the evidence brought forward by those supporting keeping the article shows it does meet the relevant notability guideline and addresses the concerns of the delete opinions which all mention notability and were before that evidence was brought forward. Davewild ( talk) 17:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Is this musician sufficiently notable? I don't see enough evidence. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, per WP:BIO #1. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Is this musician sufficiently notable? While she's on the National Geographic and Allmusic Web sites, I don't see sufficient notability. Delete -- Nlu ( talk) 15:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability highly suspect, poorly written, and appears to be self-promotion. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Was this musician notable? I think it's a tough call, but I'd say no. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 14:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and the speedy deletion criteria. Nick Dowling ( talk) 10:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable amateur rugby team. 20 non-wiki ghits (0 google news hits), none of which show notability. No sources in article to back up notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp ( talk) 14:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn per rewriting of the article that replaced an irrelevant rant with relevant basic information. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 19:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced coatrack article about water pollution. No indication of where this river is located. Delete. Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 14:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom: multiple problems.
♥Shapiros10
Wuz
Here♥ 14:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep Can I change my vote? The rewrite would be good as a stub.
♥Shapiros10
Wuz
Here♥ 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song. The only references are links to the websites of the non-notable artists who performed it: an American pub band called Shilelagh Law BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten ( talk) 08:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It's nothing more than an advert for a restaurant in Downey, California, written by an editor with the same name as the restaurant, thus WP:COI. Notability is neither demonstrated nor asserted. Wikipedia is not a directory. Qworty ( talk) 13:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable "recently coined" term with no evidence of use found. References provided are about HD video, not the subject. Made up, original research at best. Contested Prod. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Angelo ( talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD on a minor local football (soccer) team. Article's original creator contends that the team has received extensive news coverage, but all the linked articles relate to a single incident involving the referee of a match in which this team happened to be involved i.e. the team is not actually the subject of the coverage ChrisTheDude ( talk) 13:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 07:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not quite certain exactly what this is, but its creator gets 34 unique Google hits, and the title itself gets 71 unique Google hits. Unless I'm reading too quickly (which is entirely possible; that's why I'm here) most of these pages are of the hobbyist variety, and I don't think that any of it passes for notable. - CobaltBlueTony talk 13:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. I sympathize with McCombs's desire to have the article deleted, but the sources provided in the AFD clearly indicate notability. Past vandalism, while worrisome, is not a good reason for deletion in and of itself, and can be handled in other ways. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article in it's current form is speediable, but in the interest of fairness, it probably was not before I removed alot lot of text to the talk page. I do not think this one is particularly notable. The subject has also requested deletion. NonvocalScream ( talk) 13:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Redirected--text in article was copyvio. DGG ( talk) 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A pure joke page. Preservative 220: spunktonium? "Appearance: White crystalline solid", "Molar mass: 69.69". I mean, really. All the references are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. One only needs to look at the column in the article to confirm that this is a complete and utter (bad) joke article. SMC ( talk) 13:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as an essay. Davewild ( talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsalvageable essay. Those sources that aren't blogs or opinion articles state either that it is not a monopoly, that competitors 'may' accuse it of monopolistic practices- or have nothing at all to say on the matter. John Nevard ( talk) 13:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
List of United States political families which doesn't define WP:N or WP:V, List_of_United_States_political_families#The Applebys, List_of_United_States_political_families#The_Earlls, List_of_United_States_political_families#The_Zimmermans are a few examples of familys which don't pass WP:N in this context Gnevin ( talk) 08:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
STRONG DELETE. Horribly written article about a VERY minor character. Kogsquinge ( talk) 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. - Not independently notable. The article as it stands now gives undue weight to the extramarital affair aspect of her existance. Although there are only a few comments, no one makes a case for independent notability, so this is a clear cut case where a BLP should be deleted. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Notability concerns. Yahoo search turns up over 1,000 hits, but not a reliable source among them (two of the hits were for a British tabloid). Blueboy 96 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The earlier opinions could not take into account the many sources provided by Lawrence, and must therefore be evaluated cautiously. Sandstein ( talk) 07:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article fails WP:RS on multiple grounds. Appears to contain original research, and most of the information on this page is unverifiable. If the facts relayed in the article are indeed verifiable, then citations need to be provided; if reliable sources cannot be provided, then the band is not relevant enough to be on Wikipedia. I feel like a tourist ( talk) 03:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. The last AfD closed only two days ago with a result of keep, I don't think consensus will change that fast. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete He isn't famous at all outside of youtube except for a few magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantview ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 12 April 2008
But what difference does it make? I've never heard of him up until now, but he still known among a large number of people, which makes him famous. Does it matter on what platform this happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.6.123.3 ( talk) 11:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:BLP, as on the German Wikipedia. I have also deleted the associated images. Sandstein ( talk) 07:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Sources of insufficiently reliable type to establish verifiability and notability. Biography of a living person with potentially reputation-damaging information. The corresponding article at the German Wikipedia was deleted after a deletion discussion which mentioned "Original Research" and "Quellen" (sources). ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Please dont delete, and if you have any other objections give me the opportunity to improve the article. Heinrich8 ( talk) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy-deleted by User:Cobaltbluetony (non-admin closure) Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The notability of the subject is not adequately asserted. The article seems to be autobiographical. The article is written in a self-aggrandizing style that is not in keeping with an encyclopedia. LittleOldMe ( talk) 11:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 09:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is not notable, there is no need to go into such details about matches in football league season. Eddie6705 ( talk) 10:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet WP:NMG requirements, nor are there any reliable sources cited. Stifle ( talk) 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 14:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This person is not notable, there are 60 councillors on Wolverhampton Council, there is no reason for any of them to have a bio on wikipedia. Was PROD-ed on 10/2/08, removed after four days [33]. Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Bduke ( talk) 03:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Needless introduction to M-theory, was a copyvio for four years, could become a fork.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 08:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
not notable not a famous actor not even on imdb unlike Bel Powley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeneral28 ( talk • contribs)
Why isn't it deleted yet? Jeneral28 ( talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Youth player with no first team experience and only capped at youth (U-17) level, therefore failing WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Whether this is merged or not should be worked out at Talk:Empire of Iuz. Stifle ( talk) 08:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a fictional empire ruled by a fictional character that fails WP:NOT##PLOT. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. Constructive attempts to cleanup or merge this article with another topic have failed or been reverted. Gavin Collins ( talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Listing contested Proposed deletion. Non notable neologism. A listing in urban dictionary does not constitute notability. X Marx The Spot ( talk) 07:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article for Barbara Blackburn, the world typing record-holder according to the Guinness Book of World Records, was nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. I think the subject of this article is even less notable.
I am also nominating the following related page:
Larry V ( talk | e-mail) 06:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I came to this page specifically because I needed to know about Cortez Peters. Why would we delete it? It is certainly relevant enough because his textbooks are basically all that are used in high school classrooms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.93.12 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Philippe 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable local radio host. Badger Drink ( talk) 06:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by NawlinWiki (G12: Blatant copyright infringement). Non-admin closure. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable MBA program, unreferenced, fails WP:RS. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 21:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC and other general WP:N criteria Grsz 11 05:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Suggest nominating Illustration Magazine to allow it to be considered seperatly. Davewild ( talk) 14:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Uncited, zero google hits. Fails notability policy. Tan | 39 05:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaults to keep, as both sides make reasonable arguments. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 14:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This person does not really fall into the notable category. Other than being one of many many many guests on reality tv shows and posing nude there are no other outside sources to show notability. References to myspace used to indicate fame. Unconfirmed claims contained in page. Redrok84 ( talk) 04:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
If you want to do something worthwhile, go find pages where some racist revisionist idiot changes factual data to reflect their bizarre beliefs. I find this and other narrow minded garbage again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalhotrod ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#R3 by DMacks ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears like entirely original research, uncited, dubious encyclopedic value Tan | 39 04:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No, it's a real legal thing, the article is just a misnomer and should be speedy deleted as such. The article already exsists under its proper title, Installment sale, not Installment sale article. This AfD is not needed. -- Blechnic ( talk) 04:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Future album with an unknown release date. Amazon.com is the only source given. Fails WP:N, and WP:V. Delete Undeath ( talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I really do not feel that notability has been established for Doreen McKay, nor could it be. She was in 5 films (2 of which were uncredited) and then she disappeared. There is little, if any, substantial, individual coverage from reliable, third-party sources that I could find (I searched Google, the University of Texas library catalog and Jstor). When I tagged it with notability, the author added a broken link and I couldn't figure out where it was supposed to lead, unless it was this, which does not really add anything from IMDB. I attempted to contact the author about notability and was ignored. Therefore, I feel an AfD is an appropriate venue. The relevant WP:BIO entertainer guidelines are:
There is no evidence that she meets any of these requirements nor the more general WP:BIO ones. Cheers, CP 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The writing on the wall is clear, but this is the first time in an AfD of mine where I have not been remotely convinced that my nomination was in error. If sources are not added within the next few months, I will renominate for deletion, hopefully with a stronger argument since the onus of providing sources is on the person who adds the material. I have yet to see any argument that is not based in something subjective or speculative. Cheers, CP 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Queen's University. Fabrictramp ( talk) 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Extremely non-notable local organization. Does not appear to have any coverage required for the notability of a local org per WP:ORG -- Despite claim of it being a 'prominent society' on the uni's article, it's not even as notable as some student unions as it's a society for some students of one particular university. Also COI from article's creator, although it has been edited since then. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC) TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - While a nose count does not reveal a clear consensus to delete, the arguments in favour of deletion are strong. The arguments in favour of keeping made by Fogster and Bugg42 really apply to the notability of the organization, not the person. Notability is not inherited full strength. Further, (to Travellingcari) if no one can be found to work on an article to make it balanced, then it should be deleted to avoid undue weight. Absent a positive consensus to keep, deletion of this borderline notable BLP is the right outcome. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability. After lancing out BLP issues, there's nothing left of this article, except him calling immigrants bad names, which violates undue weight. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge content in to innosense and redirect nancy (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
As a singer she fails WP:MUSIC, and as a model her career is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. JeanLatore ( talk) 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Spam for non-notable website. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 03:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, as an unverifiable probable hoax. Davewild ( talk) 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It appears this article was published some time ago and has never been substantiated. It is well known that Al Copeland was the founder of Popeyes, but there is never mention of Mr. Pentsky in any non-wikipedia or non-wikipedia-derived sources. Until recently, there had been no mention of Mr. Pentsky on the pages for either "Popeyes" or "Al Copeland" (who recently died). Mdlawmba ( talk) 02:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 13:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable subject matter. No Ghits for this cocktail. Additionally contains a statement which may constitute a personal attack. X Marx The Spot ( talk) 03:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be notable enough, but doesn't quite seem to qualify as a speedy. nneonneo talk 02:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested Prod, removed with the comment "This game is notable. It can be viewed at Quadball.org, has a history spanning decades, and has been played by hundreds of players. Also, if curling gets a page then Quadball deserves at least 10...". I am really not seeing the notability needed to keep this page and, in particular, there is a lack of good secondary sources. Delete. BlueValour ( talk) 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
this is not made up, all students and faculty of Phillips Exeter Academy will attest to its existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.75.66 ( talk) 03:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by User:Dlohcierekim. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:MADEUP. nneonneo talk 02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete A1 by User:Jmlk17, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the lack of sources indicates that the neologism described by the article may not be notable Guest9999 ( talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Snowball Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW, near to unanimous. RGTraynor 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Extremely non-notable, and being a folk centre is not significant. Fails to assert notability. Kironide ( talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, or at least certainly no consensus to delete. Can be merged, or not, as editors decide; that discussion should go to its talk page. Stifle ( talk) 08:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Uh, this article is about a middle school; it's non-notable and has nothing to assert its notability. Also, the general consensus about middle school articles is that they should be deleted. Kironide ( talk) 02:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable albums per WP:MUSIC; artist has no page, and associated act ( Sinful (El Pecador)) is up for AfD too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete nancy (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Clearly a vanity article.
This sort of style justifies deletion. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 01:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Mike Watt (writer). Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was delete. This is a perfect example of the difference between a news story and notability. This was a news story - but it's really not terribly notable. Single event notability is not sufficient for inclusion. - Philippe 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:BIO and especially WP:NOT#NEWS, I can only find a few news articles relating to his death. There doesn't seem to be any WP:RS relating to his life or contributions to his field. Adamfinmo ( talk) 01:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The crux of this request is based on the attempt by Adamfinmo to control the contents of the article on List of unusual deaths. You may wish to check the History of that article to see his actions on that article, including his attempts to exclude a listing of Richard Sumner from that article. Ecoleetage ( talk) 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Stifle ( talk) 12:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. He only received press coverage for suicide. Adamfinmo ( talk) 00:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Outside) and in Danger Stalks the Land: Alaskan Tales of Death and Survival, as well as apparent reference in Modern Mummies. Seems to be a well-known cautionary tale, in other words. -- Dhartung | Talk 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, article does not have the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Was speedied twice under Projectfanboy. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 ( talk) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
- Please see the discussion page for Project Fanboy found here for examples of noteworthiness. Millennium Cowboy ( talk) 01:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
— Millennium Cowboy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Thank you TenPoundHammer, according to that citing "Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god." Since many Indy titles are specialized to a certain audience one may not find thousands of hits about specific titles. Furthermore, it reads... "It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest" but doesn't say what a minimum number of google hits is required to be notable, only that 345,400 is clearly notable. A google search of "Project Fanboy" reveals 4020 hits. I've cited several searches relating to comic books where Project Fanboy is in the top ten rankings. I'm afraid I don't understand why it is being considered not notable. Can you please explain? Thanks. Millennium Cowboy ( talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
— Millennium Cowboy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The following is from the Broken Soul Press Website...
posted: 2008-02-24
Project fanboy has just posted a brand new interview with Kincaid Scribe and BSP owner, Curtis Lawson. Head over and check it out! www.projectfanboy.com
This is from the Septagon Studios Website...
In conjunction with the Project Fanboy, Kevin Moyers, writer of the independent title, Scorn and Nick Defina, President of Septagon Studios, publisher of the aforementioned title...
This is from the Cinemacomics Website
Project Fanboy Interview
Our interview with Project Fanboy has now been posted on their site. Click HERE to read it.
This is from the Pulp Factory Website
Bobby Nash interviewed by Project Fanboy
The great folks over at Project Fanboy interviewed me for their site where we talked about some of my past, present, and future projects.
I hope you will check it out at http://www.projectfanboy.com/?pf=interviews.
Bobby
Posted by Bobby Nash at 7:29 PM
This is a reference to the Project Fanboy Award on the Greenie Gobbie Spiderman Blog
Project Fanboy Fansite Award
Monday, February 11, 2008
Yesterday I nominated my site on the Project Fanboy Fansite Award. To see my site on the nomination list, click on the link below that says "Project Fanboy Fansite Award". If you want to submit your own fansite, click on the same link below for instructions. Good luck to anyone who is nominating their fansite, and also wish me luck too.
Thanks,
GreenieGobbie
Project Fanboy Fansite Award
All of which are third party coverage of Project Fanboy events and happenings, and all of which were used as External Links in the article. I'm afraid I still don't understand. How does it not meet the criteria? Millennium Cowboy ( talk) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
— Millennium Cowboy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Also listed here Book Character Comic Name - search results Millennium Cowboy ( talk) 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A) It follows very similar trends to sites that are on here such as
Comic Book Resources and
Newsarama (both are listed on wikipedia). I also noticed
newsarama uses a lot of google related references.
B) They did make the news for Septagon studios @
http://news.septagonstudios.com/?p=102.
Kevin Moyers does have an article on wikipedia. He is the creator of septagon studios. Even if other sources on here do not count as notable, Kevin Moyers and septagon studios are. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.108.78.175 (
talk) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —
24.108.78.175 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
Keep Keep it. Chumble_Spuzz has a reference to project fanboy in their article. If they are being referenced on here, definitely notable. Also, it looks like Ape Entertainment has been having Project Fanboy review their products. They recognize this at http://www.ape-entertainment.com/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC) I also noticed that someone from the Werewolf Cafe posted links to Project Fanboy's reviews. In the same post the poster references other sites too. Since this post is not just a project fanboy spam post, it proves that Project Fanboy is notable enough to be referenced on other sites. http://forum.werewolfcafe.com/viewtopic.php?pid=185880#p185880 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Another note. I know Septagon studios have been mention already, but I think its important to note they felt the project fanboy interview was enough of a reliable source that they placed it on their blog too. http://septagonstudios.asoboo.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Another note. I know Septagon studios have been mention already, but I think its important to note they felt the project fanboy interview was enough of a reliable source that they placed it on their blog too. http://septagonstudios.asoboo.com/. Under "comics" on "A twisted outlook" ( http://www.twistedoutlook.com/links.php), they are within the 3 listed. This is important because one of the other three is Comic Book Resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC) — Thunderstrike123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Pit Bros Productions also lists Project Fanboy as reviewers for their products. http://www.pitbrosproductions.com/press/review.html. Fandom Comics also has them on their links page. According to the dates on the bottom, Fandom Comics has been around since 2005. http://www.fandomcomics.com/links.php
SuperHeroNews ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SuperHeroNews/msearch?query=project+fanboy&submit=Search&charset=ISO-8859-1) also has a list of references to Project Fanboy. Is this not a new source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike123 ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
DELETE - Not notable. After reviewing all ELs, refs, and Google searches, failed to find anything that met requirements for a reliability requirements. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
KEEP I don't know how you can honestly say that...
The site is notable in the fact that it is:
Delete per my nom. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Despite multiple creatiations, and multiple votes [47] [48], by the articles creator, this does not contain Reliable and Verifiable third party sources. "Verifiable Reliable Sources"-- Hu12 ( talk) 19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete A7 non-admin closure by Lenticel ( talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article completely fails WP:BIO per [49]. I can find anything that could even verify the claims in the article, let alone establish notability. [50] and [51] is some news coverage, which is frightfully empty. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 00:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that the article meets the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 12:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy A7. Biography of a non-notable person written up by an editor with an apparent conflict of interest. KurtRaschke ( talk) 00:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Response Sorry, but that is still a chalk-and-cheese comparison. Klein improved upon existing procedures relating to liposuction, where as Salk & Co. pioneered new horizons in life-and-death medical care (which liposuction is not). There's a big difference between being the first in a field and polishing up existing work. Ecoleetage ( talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List of weather records as a duplicate article. Davewild ( talk) 12:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Poorly written, and makes an incorrect claim of Death Valley being the global record holder. Every meteorologist knows Al 'Aziziyah, Libya is the official record holder, and source used to discredit the claim doesn't seem reputable. The List of weather records article seems good enough and is more accurate. ANDROS1337 00:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley ( talk) 10:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
3 reasons to delete this article: (1) This article duplicates information in other articles; (2) presents information in a way helpful only to law students (if anyone); (3) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a glossary, and all this is, or will ever be, is a long list - this article cannot be saved or cleaned up- it's just a bad idea. Non Curat Lex ( talk) 06:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Owen ( talk) 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 12:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable independant movie. Was prodded but prod removed by original author. Dipics ( talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be notable, but some assertion of notability. Looks like a small-town politician. It's also written in a non-neutral tone. PeterSymonds | talk 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply