The result was speedy deletion (G7). -- Ed ( Edgar181) 11:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely made up neologism. asenine t/ c\ r 10:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is redundant to the articles Micro- and International unit. — Remember the dot ( talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Fictional character from what appears to be a non-notable piece of fiction hosted on a website. I can find nothing to indicate its notability with a Google search. "Dragon Demon Trilogy" only shows up as Wikipedia hits. Corvus cornix talk 23:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by Rlandmann ( talk · contribs), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
per WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO; article appears to be mainly nonsense without sources. Beach drifter ( talk) 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. — Scien tizzle 00:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP Beach drifter ( talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment or redirect to meme language? Beach drifter ( talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
More blowgun non-notability. No sources, there are tons of blowgun articles created by User:Blowgun whose notabiltiy are susptect. This is one of them. Corvus cornix talk 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. None of the keep comments address the fundamental issue of notability, one of the basic requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- jonny- m t 04:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
A brand of sat-nav. No independent references or demonstration of notability. Violates WP:NOTADVERTISING (promotional in tone - multiple external links to shops; unit prices of item mentioned). Also many parts of it violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Chryslerforever1988 ( talk) 23:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was summary deletion per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs.
Expanded justification: the arbitration committee decided that Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. The specific aspect of WP:BLP violated is simply the directive that they must strictly adhere to the neutral point of view policy. This is not an issue about sourcing; I could see no prima facie problem with the sources.
Short justification: It's a hatchet job.
CIreland ( talk) 01:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Fails WP:BLP1E, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Corvus cornix talk 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 23:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Insufficient claims to notability Aparhizi ( talk) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article on a game some guys made up one day. Prod was removed by author without explanation or improvement. -- Finngall talk 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure). Per Wikipedia:CSD#A7, group/band/club/company/ not asserting importance/significance. WilliamH ( talk) 01:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Also their release:
NN band, fails WP:MUSIC per self admission that their only release is "very rare, only one copy." A quick google search, only comes up with this article, their Myspace page and a few videos on youtube. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus discusses that the subject has had non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, asserting notability. WilliamH ( talk) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per near-unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BK. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable film; crystal ball article - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
insufficient claims to notability: highly acclaimed TV show is cable access and ref. for it is one sentence long. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
wow frist off Prashanthns the kindred moon productions page was created last October and the kindred moon paranormal page was created today. look at the dates and get your facts strait you hater —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorddeathbane ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
how are you saying there is no notoriety here Gromlakh when there are references and articles supporting that it is? have you been in multiple news articles and have produced your own movies or tv shows and have fans world wide? i bet not. i think you may be nothing more than someone trying to put people down saying they are nothing or that they arnt big enough to be listed here when you are nothing yourself and cant or wont do anything as big as kindred moon has done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorddeathbane ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation. It contained no original prose, just a "publisher's summary". - Bobet 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This page contains nothing but prod and has no references and is only four lines long, therefore it should be Deleted. Gman124 talk 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into Margaret Thatcher untill WP:NFF is satisfied. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 12:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
A forthcoming drama on British TV (see [5]) that may or may not become notable in time. If it does, we can have an article then. Nom under WP:N, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:NFF AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable amateur football club in Dublin. No references to reliable sources, let alone any substantial coverage therein, so fails WP:N.
(Note: I had PRODded this article on April on 20 April, but the tag was removed today with the comment "is notable"). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Not much participation at this AfD, but this probably qualifies for speedy deletion.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
A good faith effort to find references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. The search for references has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals Oo7565 ( talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus is that the list needs work, particularly in terms of better defining its scope, but not to delete it.-- Kubigula ( talk) 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic sampling of the thousand or so air carriers in Alaska. Discussion on talk page to determine what criteria are for list went nowhere. The bigger carriers have their own articles, the smaller ones are not notable. Beeblbrox ( talk) 19:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
article may fail WP:Music : also no indy sources Oo7565 ( talk) 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Sandstein ( talk) 09:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax article about a series of novels, plus articles about the first novel and the author. Although the first of the series was allegedly a best-seller, published in 2002 and translated into twenty languages, it is quite unknown to Amazon and Google Books, as are the three others said to have been published since. Note that no ISBN numbers are provided. The author may be a real person, and indeed may have had something to do with SSADM, but even that looks spurious ("not revealed until 2008") and is unsourced; and since his article is mostly about the novels he has no sourced notability and it should go, too. Delete all. JohnCD ( talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete All as hoaxes, although I must admit the fake book covers made me laugh. Beeblbrox ( talk) 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwiki somewhere--but I'm moving this to my user space. This is too good to let go--there has to be a home for this somewhere. TallNapoleon ( talk) 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Horologium (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod. I allowed a few days for this article to come up with some references or sources and then went looking for them myself. I found some Google hits for the phrase "the green crisis" but nothing that defines the phrase as precisely as it's defined here; I have to think this is original research. I bring this to the community for further comment; maybe someone knows something about this phrase I don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accounting4Taste ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Clear consensus on the notability. Moved to Ang Rita. WilliamH ( talk) 18:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has no references despite a request for such dating from Sep. 2007. While only two sentences long, the biographical article manages to make the questionable (unref.) claim that "[h]e has climbed all the major mountains and is accepted as one of the best mountain climbers of the world".
The result was redirect.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no need for another article on screaming in music, one already exists under Screaming (music). TheLetterM ( talk) 19:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
it may Fails notability for WP:corp also article reads like a ad Oo7565 ( talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Some ghits, many false positives, no evidence of RS coverage. He may exist, but no evidence he's notable. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect and merge. DGG makes a good case for keeping, but the consensus here is to merge to Simsbury, Connecticut which can be done without losing much of the relevant content.-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
RS coverage is limited to events at the library and construction mentions. The ranking is sourced, but I don't know if that's enough to meet WP:ORG for local organizations. Creator was the librarian TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
it may Fail notability for WP:N and non notability japan tv show Oo7565 ( talk) 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn local DJ. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as non-notable and promotional. Sandstein ( talk) 08:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article seems to be a page about a sword that was created by the sword maker. The only notability is that it claims to be in the book of records however I cannot find anything to reference it. It should be noted that the user has removed unreferenced and notability tags added to the page since it was created, which is why I didn't prod it. Google only turn up references to the sword by the author on his own website and over all it seems be NN. -- ImmortalGoddezz ( t/ c) 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete no sources to indicate that this award is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These are loosely related magazines. What constitutes an "anomalous phenomenon" anyway? Should we include the National Enquirer or Weekly World News or Mad Magazine since those quirky, off-beat publications often discuss ostensibly "anomalous phenomena"? I guess my point is that there is no way to select this list without applying original research value judgments about what the magazines are "about". ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources. No reliable sources provided, none found. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Advertisement article that I can't believe can be saved, due to lack of available 3rd part commentary about this company. Damiens.rf 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete This is blatant advertising, didn't even need to come to AfD, but for the record,there are no sources to even verify anything in this article. Beeblbrox ( talk) 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Although the list has been expanded since its previous deletion request, it still fails to serve the purposes outlined under WP:LIST#Purposes of lists. Information provided by the list is severely limited, as the list is and will probably forever remain grossly incomplete. The list contains 126 schools out of more than 36,000 in Thailand, and does not have any inclusion criteria regarding notability or importance, which makes the inclusion of each school in the list next to meaningless to the reader. A majority of the entries may have been advertisement/publicity attempts, as they were added by anonymous users with no other contributions. Since WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory any expansion of the list in its current form will probably be in vain. Also, the only navigational benefit this list currently provides is to sort Thai school articles by type and region, but this is also limited due to the fact that the list is not a proper topic list and is predominated by entries without corresponding articles. This function can be replaced by categorization without any significant disadvantage, since the list is not otherwise sorted. Paul_012 ( talk) 14:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Afd is not cleanup, remember WP:BEFORE! Skomorokh 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete barely enough context to identify who may have agreed, but none to say what they agreed to: that Ho would pick up the bar tab? Does every international meeting resuling in some joint communique or agreeemnt sufficiently notable to merit an article? anyway...this one liner does not advance the state of human knowledge or the knowledge of the reader either. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 08:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:FICT, and is nothing but in-universe WP:PLOT summary. Already covered adequately in Geography of Xena: Warrior Princess, which is also tagged for notability, and the real world aspects are covered far better in the real Amphipolis article. AnmaFinotera ( talk) 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Notable subject matter. StephenBuxton ( talk) 12:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)" reply
non-notable dance productions also article needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Oo7565 ( talk) 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 18:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a relatively minor music event of limited notablity. Ecoleetage ( talk) 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I find the two sources currently in this article to be fairly weak, a surprising result after an AfD has run its course. It concerns me a bit but consensus seems clearly divided. Pigman ☿ 00:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete so this guy, on this occasion, was a spokesman for a presumably notable organization. That doesn't make him notable. At least this article has a source, but this guy is so nn, we don't know where or when he was born or anything else that one would expect to read in an encyclopedic biography. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Very strong keep the article is a stub as is, of course, but the subject is inherently notable as being the spokesman of a country's police organization. This does not meet any of wikipedia's criteria for deletion Stanley011 ( talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC). reply
The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable brief existence on reality show. Notability does not come from fleeting TV appearances. Paste ( talk) 17:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
SAVE THE ARTICLE. If 'fleeting TV appearances' do not cover notability then a large number of articles should then be nominated of which i could list MANY. Jeremy Speight had a very brief appearance of Airport and yet was given an article for that alone! Maz was notorious in the press and this was the start of the "nastys" popularity started at that time by "Nasty Nick" "Nasty Nigel" "Nasty Maz" and later Simon Cowell. The article includes an external link to an interview in which Maz states she has TV presenting roles planned in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KirstySutton ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 April 2008 — KirstySutton ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was keep. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn video game. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per lack of notability for this specific list. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Highly subjective list whose notability appears to be severely limited Ecoleetage ( talk) 17:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
broadcast on February 17 2007
The result was Keep. Tiptoety talk 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nothing to indicate that this 12-floor building, of which there are many in Seattle, is notable Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Neutral "largest building in Seattle? Not even close! The Columbia/Bank of America Tower DWARFS the Starbucks center. The Starbucks center is large and internally has quite the impressive campus, but it is not the biggest by any means. I don't know where you got that info but it is waaay off. I have no problem keeping the article however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.68.67 ( talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete is every licensed radio station inherently notable? If so, this should stay; if not, this seems to fall below the WP:N level. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Uh? The article appears to be talking about Royal Free and University College Medical School (which is notable and already has its own comprehensive article). There's no mention whatsoever of RUMS Rugby, which I'm guessing to be a uni team and ghits are limited to wiki mirrors and forums, the website doesn't work. There is nothing here to merge, and the school's article only mentions rugby as an EL, which is the same dead link. Creator is an SPA with a COI TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus discusses that the subject is notable. WilliamH ( talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nothing to indicate that this library is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 22:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I do not believe the article passes the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. The minimal notability is strictly connected to the unusual aspects of the subject’s death. Ecoleetage ( talk) 16:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged for sourcing for nearly 2 years... per WP:V we need to find reliable sources about this topic to continue including it in Wikipedia, 2 years with no verification this isn't a hoax is long enough. Rividian ( talk) 16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable album per AMG - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged for sourcing for nearly 2 years... per WP:V we need to find reliable sources about this topic to continue including it in Wikipedia. Depending on the content of those sources, if found, the topic may or may not meet WP:N. But first someone needs to find some sources. -- Rividian ( talk) 16:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 20:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established for this quarterly magazine by undergraduate students. Damiens.rf 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established for this six-times-a-year magazine. Damiens.rf 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If the references, found not to support the article, need to be reused, contact me, or another administrator for retrieval. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article consists of original research about the importance of "Magazines" in the hip-hop culture. At beast, I believe this article can be transformed in List of hip-hop magazines, if someone can take the time of finding some sources and removing the original research. Damiens.rf 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 09:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
References include only three links, which all contain almost the exact same text. There's not wide enough coverage on this person either. A Google Search comes up with only those articles and some other links linking back to Wikipedia mirrors. I've tried to get more sources for verification, but have been unable to find any. vi5in [talk] 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep we don't delete articles to improve their tone.. Spartaz Humbug! 21:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Reads far too much like an advertisement for my liking, but i'd nominated for AfD instead of PROD to see other opinions on the matter. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was - delete and salt ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
missing or insufficient individual or music-connected notability; searches are self-referencing back to other articles here that are likewise suspect - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
A contested speedy. non-notable biography JulesN Talk 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as failing WP:MUSIC nancy (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a nonnotable band — I couldn't see any criteria in WP:MUSIC that it passed. Nyttend ( talk) 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure). -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Skateboarder that doesn't assert anything compliant with WP:BIO. asenine t/ c\ r (fc: f2abr04) 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Boldly redirected to Draco (genus), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 17:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Already has an existing article, Draco (genus). E Wing ( talk) 14:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Entirely non-notable actress whose only claim to fame is being the daughter of someone more notable. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, content was copy and pasted from website.-- Otterathome ( talk) 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
My first instinct was to nominate for speedy deletion per CSD:A7. Judging from the quotes offered and the awards stated on their page, though, makes me wonder. I'm listing for AfD to get some more eyes on it. If kept, it needs a lot of NPOV rephrasing. Plvekamp ( talk) 14:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Non-admin closure: speedily deleted as A7 no assertions of notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be nothing more than another glorified blogger. The editor that wrote the article appears to be working his way through anyone with a remote connection to Columbia and while WP:ATHLETE allows for anyone that has participated in a sport at a pro or Olympic level, I don't think this means that blog journalists that write about that level are automatically notable enough. LegoTech·( t)·( c) 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a hoax. I have indefinitely blocked Melissagoethe ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Linlikai ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and LoneWolfSHYBOY ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruptive meat- or sockpuppetry. Sandstein ( talk) 09:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Near as I can tell, this is a hoax. I can find no mention of this person on Google, despite her impressive accomplishments. The only reachable source is in Japanese, and a translation doesn't show her name in the article anywhere. TheMile ( talk) 14:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Right, it looks like
Linlikai,
Melissagoethe, and
LoneWolfSHYBOY are sockpuppets or meat puppets. An
arbitration comitee ruling states that
For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.
So the three above users are to be treated as one user with sockpuppets. Linlikai has removed others comments saying this article should be deleted and Melissagoethe has added {{ spa}} tags to the comments of a user who clearly isn't a single purpose account, but who happens to disagree with him.-- Phoenix - wiki 13:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Remark: Disturbingly similat to a hoax article on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ishahwright: claims of incredibly high IQ at low ages, membership at various IQ societies, and remarkable achievements that should be splashed everywhere including Guiness Book of Records, but they don't give a single hit on google -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - Since the argument is notability the sources provided at the end of the discussion are the deciding factor. Spartaz Humbug! 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Please Delete Non notable. Aside from his whopping six episode stint on cable tv he has done nothing worthwhile. Aside from that the article itself is EXTREMELY poorly written, seeming as if it were composed by the subject's little brother. JeanLatore ( talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No one really has made a case for support at all after 5 days on the AFD list. I think the presumption to Delete has not been rebutted at all. Closing admin, plz. take note, thank you sir. Delete JeanLatore ( talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
E Wing ( talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Article already more than sufficiently referenced. Take any objections about specific sources to the Talk page. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Poorly sourced, and makes no verifiable claim of notability -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
User ¦ Talk 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure), deleted by Secret. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable club. I could not find secondary sources about this club apart from directory listings. Cambrasa confab 14:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 20:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for a recently created "internet radio". Damiens.rf 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has been tagged for notability since Sept 07. Couldn't find any reliable third party sources to solve notability issues. Additionally, article seems to be an exact copy of promotional material on the Power Render website here. I haven't speedied it (G11 or G12) as the article has been around for some time. Gazimoff Write Read 13:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 19:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for a financial company. I don't think the notability is established in the article. Damiens.rf 13:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.
I have discounted the following opinions in closing this discussion:
This leaves us with 12 "delete" opinions, most of which note that this article needlessly duplicates material covered in the articles about the individual candidates or campaigns. The 7 remaining "keep" opinions, on the other hand, argue that the subject is notable in and of itself, and that a dedicated article can cover it more neutrally and in a form that is more useful to the reader.
On the basis of applicable policy and precedent, I find the "delete" opinion to be more persuasive. The principal problem with this page is that it does not rely on a reliable, common standard of "controversy" or "attack", which makes WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT problems almost unavoidable. Also, the scope and importance of the 2008 US election is a major challenge for our limited resources of volunteer editors. I agree with some of the people commenting here that consideration should be given to this: the smaller the number of individual articles we use to cover the election, the less time we spend on maintenance, discussion and general drama; and the more eyes we have on the articles that matter. Under these circumstances, election-related content should not be forked unless e.g. size considerations render it absolutely necessary.
On both a numerical basis and on the basis of the strength of argument, therefore, consensus is to delete this article. Sandstein ( talk) 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is completely unnecessary and inappropriate. Separate "controversies" and "criticisms" and "attacks" articles are violations of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. If these controversies and attacks have played a notable role in the campaign, they should be included in the campaign articles for those candidates. (And some of these entries are decades old and have had no role or impact on the current campaign.) All such separate "controversies" articles and sections were previously eliminated for all the 2008 presidential candidates — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Status of "controversies" pages for that effort. This doesn't belong either. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Resume for non-notable IT professional. Damiens.rf 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 15:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Yet another "blowgun master" resume. Damiens.rf 13:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 08:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This is primary source material which ought to be on wikisource. It does not belong in an encyclopedia - especially as the speaker says it is partly fictional. dramatic ( talk) 13:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 21:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't believe this "American sportsman" is notable enough to have an article about him on Wikipedia. The article is just a mini-c.v. with no sources. Damiens.rf 13:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as unverifiable. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This rapper is not notable. He's yet to release his first album. He's greatest achievements include appearing in music videos for other non-notable rappers. Damiens.rf 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the {{WP:BIO|relevant notability guideline]]. Davewild ( talk) 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
He's the only contestent of the show that has his own page and he didn't even win it. All the data on page comes from show bio. Nothing really a big deal here. Jjaazz ( talk) 13:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article is original research. Davewild ( talk) 19:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems like original research. A Google search turns up practically nothing. Had I seen it earlier I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. LittleOldMe ( talk) 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable software - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (per stronger, policy based arguments} Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable software - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 19:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable software - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that any notability comes from one event and is insufficient for a biography. Davewild ( talk) 19:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:ONEEVENT. Sex offender who worked for US Department of Homeland Security. Minor kerfuffle at time, no lasting impact. Note that section with "political impact" was recently removed as insignificant. Without this, we probably have no reason for the article. Other than the coincidence of his job (sex offenders come from all walks of life), this isn't a notable crime (and it was victimless as well). Dhartung | Talk 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, all four articles. As delete voters note, all four of these individuals seem to fail our notability standards at WP:ATHLETE.-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Footballer fails
WP:Bio#Athletes as he has never played in a fully-professional league before
Jimbo
[online] 11:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail notability at
WP:Bio#Athletes:
-All four players have played at a national level, the Conference National -All four players have played at a fully professional club, York City F.C.. -All four have played in at least one match against ANOTHER fully professional club at this national level: Boyes ( Oxford United F.C.), Beadle ( Oxford United F.C. & Torquay United F.C., along with almost thirty other clubs of similar stature while at Scarborough F.C.), McWilliams (( Oxford United F.C. & Torquay United F.C.), Liam Shepherd (( Oxford United F.C.).
How does that not satisfy the criteria? More to the point, why are we obsessing over deleting pages rather than expanding and improving WP? Me677 ( talk) 01:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article concerns the first five settlers in a minor Victorian location. Nothing happened in any of their lives of any interest and I can't see anyhing that makes them genuinely notable. Grahame ( talk) 11:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article is a crystal ball violation and fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased album ( crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references from reliable sources (Google searching turns up more of the same: gossip sites, blogs, and fan forums). Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 10:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a vanity/self-promotional article written by a vanity-press author who paid AuthorHouse to "publish" his two red-linked books, both of which abysmally fail WP:BK, and neither of which is even remotely notable. The spam link to his website contains the howler "RM Secor, author of spy thrillers, has done it again"--done what again, paid a vanity press for publication?! If all of this weren't bad enough, the guy has proceeded to delete every single tag that every helpful editor has ever placed on "his" article. Extremely aggressive ownership issues here. We'll have to watch this AfD, as well as the article, very closely for further vandalism and/or outrageous acts of WP:COI. Qworty ( talk) 10:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable immigrant-construction worker Celtus ( talk) 09:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
comment found this reference to him but, not sure how significant it is [36]. Unfortunately, as the article stands now it doesn't seem to meet notability criteria and I've got to say delete unless substantial improvements are made. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 12:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, per the improvements to the article during the AFD which have established his notability. Davewild ( talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The subject is a non-notable professor who does not meet
Wikipedia:Notability (academics). All we know about him is that he wrote four books and used to teach at a university. His works are cited by others,
[37] but he's not "widely cited"
[38] and is not known for any innovative scholarship. Without a source like a biography, a profile, an interview, or even a faculty page it's difficult to see how this could develop into more than a short bibliography. We have an article on one of this books,
Sacred Journeys (book), so the title can be redirected there if desired. Delete.
·:·
Will Beback
·:· 09:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge and redirect discography to main artist article. Delete individual song articles since there is nothing worth merging. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 05:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary list. What little information there is—the artist has 1 album and 3 singles—is included in the artist's own article. Prod was removed by an editor with ownership issues. The artist's 2 non-charting, non-notable singles are included, redirects were reverted by the same editor. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 09:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete This article reads like an advertisement. The notability of the subject is not independently verifiable. Ecoleetage ( talk) 09:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete nancy (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for something made up one day, and this is not notable. There should be a speedy category for this kind of unencyclopedic nonsense. PROD removed without comment by IP. JohnCD ( talk) 08:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Obvious hoax, it's only source is a slashdot reference, probably with the same authorship. Grahame ( talk) 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced neologism of no particular notability; basically an excuse to post a rant about Rangers F.C. Maybe copyright issues as well, as the article asserts that much of the text is from an un-named web forum (though I couldn't find it on Google). Prod removed without comment by IP, so let's go through the motions here for a bit... unless anyone thinks it's blatant enough to qualify as an attack page? Iain99 Balderdash and piffle 07:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. This Afd has been open for over 3 weeks as far as I can tell, with no real direction as to whether to keep or delete the article. That defaults to keep. Article needs improvement of course (as do about 99% of our articles...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software, article tastes spammy. ukexpat ( talk) 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per unanimity of respondents. (non-admin closure) Skomorokh 00:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
no useful content in this article Oo7565 ( talk) 06:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, per DGG and Phil Bridger. Not notable (yet). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
could fail WP:corp; in addition, please note notability is not inherited. Oo7565 ( talk) 05:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete nancy (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article seems to fail WP:ORG as ghits are to the group's founding press release and online articles written by the organization's founder. No independent coverage of the group. -- Gwguffey ( talk) 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I found the discussion here to be most interesting, and the comments from Dhartung and Myke Cuthbert were very helpful though they were "neutral". I have read the quoted WP:BIO criterion "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them", but I think that "notable award" here means an award which makes a person famous, not an award which meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. (Otherwise we could for example have articles on anyone wounded in combat for the US Military since they received Purple Hearts.) The question here regarding encyclopedic notability for this subject was whether the awards and participation in debates confer notability. The consensus appears to be that it does not, since such awards are fairly common. Nsk92 has also pointed out that there is a lack of available sources to make a decent biography. I recognize that two people have objected to deletion, but the consensus appears to be against them, and the case for deletion seems solid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I see various unreferenced statements - I don't see how this individual is notable.
EDIT: The NPR article states he was the President of the Texas Association of Biology Teachers - but I'm not sure if that's notable. I would AFD it unless there is a consensus that this is notable. WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect, encyclopedic content can be merged into the main Gungrave page or rewritten.. Daniel J. Leivick ( talk) 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Confusing, unreferenced, WP:OR and excessive in-universe plot details. Not even sure where half this came from, since it doesn't appear in the Gungrave anime at all. Maybe a bad blend of video game and anime, but Wikipedia is not a game guide and it doesn't belong here. Collectonian ( talk) 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete (even the nom withdrew support) but there's a split between those favoring a merge/redirect and an outright keep. Since there is not a consensus we default to keep, but the merge option can certainly be explored on the article talk page.-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The article does not seem to satisfy the notability factor. While the race is for a good cause, and despite its foundation suport, there are numerous 5k races around the United States and the world that don't receive their own Wikipedia entry. I cannot find a precedent for 'articles for deletion' based on 5k (or any other distance) races, however, allowing the article would open the door for any other race to have its own article. This race doesn't seem to raise any more attention than any other community race, though WP:Othercrapexists. A race size of seven thousand doesn't seem to be "worthy" of an encyclopedic entry. Barkeep Chat | $ 04:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected into Arabistan If I would have remembered this article to begin with, I would never have nominated the article, but redirected it back to the source from which it was ( POV)-forked. Avi ( talk) 05:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Posted by an editor involved in a POV issue on Arabian Gulf. Also, article is not appropriately sourced. This appears to be a WP:SOAP and WP:NOR violation. Avi ( talk) 04:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep per NAC/SNOW. Good job. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 00:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Needs incredibly fundamental re-write. Completely unreferenced, original research, POV, written in first person, etc. Tan | 39 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
weak keep Notability should be addressed in the body of the text somewhere and the career section definitely needs expanding. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 12:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Center for Bulacan Studies is not notable on its own to be its own article. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Following undivided consensus that the subject is notable, nominator withdrew nomination. WilliamH ( talk) 21:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Probably fails WP:PROF. Also unreferenced, POV, and created by a user whose only contribution this is. Biruitorul ( talk) 04:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy G7, the author blanked the page. -- lucasbfr talk 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, no assertion that this compilation album passes WP:MUSIC, zero references. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article is original research. Davewild ( talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
A curious bit of original research. Starts as a proposal for radio speed limit messages to be sent to cars. Then rapidly goes into minute detail of devices. I think it may be the outline of a student project. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 03:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
NN graffiti crew. Nakon 02:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Snowball Keep (non-admin closure per WP:SNOW), overwhelming consensus, nom did not proffer deletion criteria. Ravenswing 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Is this notable? Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Yes, it could do with some work. Ty 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject does not appear to meet notability standards, and the article's lack of links and references doesn't help. Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete nancy (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Xoxo comes to us with a lack of notability. Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Jonny-mt ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC) per WP:CSD#G11 - blatant advertising. cab ( talk) 08:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Reads like an advertisement, not an article Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was S-keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable subject matter and bad article, the user that created this appears to exist only for the creation and promotion of this article Fallenfromthesky ( talk) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Nroseuk ( talk) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)I am compiling the history of this club and only set up a user profile to add information to Wikipedia about the club. Last night was my first attempt at using Wikipedia so I cut and paste information from the web site. As requeste by you I have changed this and added a bit of history. The club is notable at producing World Class champions and organising the annual weekly regatta - the facal point of Bournemouth's social scene for over a century and has equal (if not more) relevence to Bournemouth as the Rugby and Football clubs listed on the sporting sections.-- Nroseuk ( talk) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The notability of this article appears to be somewhat off-key. Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 08:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The notability of this highly subjective and British-slanted list doesn't appear to be obvious. Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As CaliforniaAliBaba notes, there's nothing sourced to merge. Sandstein ( talk) 08:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Why does this need its own article, this type of immigration is really Non Notable. ~ S R S~ 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I fear that this might be an non-notable piece of software. Marlith (Talk) 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Carioca ( talk) 00:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Dubious. Does not verify claims. (EhJJ) TALK 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
These pages were both created by one user, clearly affiliated with Texas real estate. The real estate school page should most likely be deleted, as WP is not a textbook or how-to manual. The list is less clear; while I think it's a decent enough topic, I highly doubt it will be completed. If someone can make WP:HEY improvements to the list, I would withdraw the nomination for it. Glass Cobra 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
no citations to secondary sources or assertion of notability? Oo7565 ( talk) 01:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy-k per SNOW. Great job improving the article everyone.
Delete this unsourced one-liner about a clash does not demonstrate notability of such. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Big delete I think it just fails the CSD for little or no context. It is unclear and you don't really learn anything from it.
Me
what do u want?
Your Hancock Please 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Speedy keep After the article went through the renevation, it is a great stub that you can learn from.
Me
what do u want?
Your Hancock Please 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Strong Keep the event is notable. It probably will be hard to find english language web sources for something that happened in turkey 30 years ago. I've included it in the disambiguation page for bloody sunday, added some project tags and I'm going to tack a few sources on there. Please don't delete.
Protonk (
talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was No consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. The second half of the nomination, namely the article titled Janet Wolfe, could perhaps be merged/redirected to form one more comprehensive article, as Ms. Wolfe is perhaps only notable for this particular venture. A merge proposal may be in order, keeping both for now... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No notability asserted, likely author conflict of interest.
Paulbrock ( talk) 01:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notification added to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Pharmacology Paulbrock ( talk) 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
— powerten10 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was speedily deleted per author request. Fabrictramp ( talk) 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Just another elementary school. Prod removed by author. JuJube ( talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete:unsourced. Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax, as this film title is not mentioned on imdb.com or anywhere else other than sites derived from the Wikipedia article DAJF ( talk) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep; obviously meets WP:ATHLETE, no delete preferences voiced (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply
hoax article about non existant rugby union player, only went through AfD due to creator removing prod CullenNZ ( talk) 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close Moved to WP:IFD where images for deletion should go. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
wrong pic uploaded seahamlass 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete `' Míkka >t 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Nonencyclopedic original research. "Standard work" is a vague term, one of many of the kind: seminal work, influential work, standard textbook, standard reference, major work, classic work etc. ad infinitum. Mukadderat ( talk) 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable early version of a song whose article has already been deleted. No case made for notability. This article was deprodded with no edit summary or discussion. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 00:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G7 Author blanked article. Nakon 03:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod which has slowly been transformed in an advert for a non-notable martial art and instructor of same. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). As a German speaker, I found this, so yes it did indeed win the award, which reasonably clear consensus discusses that this demonstrates notability. WilliamH ( talk) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It fails WP:corp, Most relevant information must be found article also reads like an ad Oo7565 ( talk) 00:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike (R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link or misnomer: db-rediruser). Non-admin closure. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is about a book that has yet to be released and has yet to even have a scheduled release date. The only thing that exists for this article is, basically, a plot summary. There is no proof of when this will be released and that it will be a notable work of fiction. Metros ( talk) 00:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. There is no consensus here to delete anything, and a marginal at best consensus here to merge some of the minor articles into a parent article (but that's for the talkpages of the respective articles). Perhaps a new article called "Minor characters of The Bill" is in order? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination for contested prod. No evidence of notability. Written primarily in-universe with no real world relevance. No third party sources. Fails WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Quick Robin to the Bat Cave ( talk) 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep and expand or merge' -I see the argument of notability but they are characters from a notable British TV series and are no different to many of the character articles we have on countless American sitcoms etc. Needs some out of universe information though, a merge into a list would be best but something tells me there are so many characters that this would become too bloated ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply