The result was keep. Sandstein 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The purpose of this article appears to be to push a certain point of view -- that Russia engaged in a propaganda campaign against Georgia. While the first line has been changed to a more neutral claim, the entire body of the article solely portrays Russian propaganda. Perhaps this should be returned to 2008 South Ossetia war, where it would have more context. Editor437 ( talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
¨Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and to the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article.
Creation of the new article should be agreed to by consensus of editors. A template (splitSection) can be used to direct their attention to the issue. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created.¨
¨A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.
Any improvements should be done on the main article page for now.Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.¨
¨A Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time. Non-administrative users who find such pages should add the tag to them, and should warn the user who created them by putting the tag on their talk page.
If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists solely or primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place.¨
the only appropriate deletion of this article would be to merge back to the main article in conformance with
WP:POVFORK
Therefore either AfD is removed, or POV fork is corrected which implies merging with main article.
Therefore the speedy notice must be restored, and if a different reason (apart from the already rejected db:attack) exists for AfD it must be stated. --
Tananka (
talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
"Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.¨" - WP:POVFORK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tananka ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Close as nom` (non-admin closure) Michael Q's comments. Thanks again. Leonard (Bloom) 02:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Fails WP:N, along with WP:PEOPLE. Google hints at notability, but I'm unsure. Leonard (Bloom) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable podcast. Fails WP:N, and WP:WEB. Google returns nothing useful. Leonard (Bloom) 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Policies and guidelines do not clearly favour either side. It's more about whether this is an appropriate statistic to include in an encyclopedia. The consensus here (albeit not an overwhelming one) is that is it not. Sandstein 19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Original research. Also violates WP:NPOV for pushing a minority POV and WP:RS for using a blog entry (albeit one from the LA Times) for its only page reference.
Please see past AFDs about similar Olympic medal sorting schemes:
Madchester ( talk) 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4667484a6009.html http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=47d1c547-967b-4ba3-ba0c-0735367c27a7 http://www.theolympian.com/olympics/story/557404.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/olympics/wires/08/21/2090.ap.oly.inside.the.rings/ http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00100&num=3995 http://www.montsame.mn/index.php?option=com_news&task=news_detail&tab=200808&ne=1277 Sad mouse ( talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The first citation, used to show where the table comes from, is the only source actually implemented in this article. The other eight are only used to say something along the lines of "don't delete this article as it is notable". It is simply ridiculous using EIGHT SOURCES to say "Other media sources reported on per-capita medals as well."
Nonetheless, most (all actually) of the remaining eight citations are flawed:
Many of the sources in the article are trivial.
Two sources have nothing with "medals per captia", as they discuss "medals per GDP", something completely different:
One source is
out of date.
The last source is basically a summary of the table from the Los Angeles Times blog.
Finally, not pertinent to this AfD, but the article's title incorrect as well. If you name it "2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita", the table should show show the ratio of medals per population, not the opposite. If this was ever to be kept, it should be renamed to something like "Ratio of population per medal of the 2008 Summer Olympics".
Do U(knome)?
yes...
or no 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was No consensus, defaults to keep. Note that the page has been redirected to bootstrapping. Stifle ( talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Was placed on prod by another user, but three users had edited it previously and I am unsure. I feel it belongs on AFD; the reason for prod was that the article is a dictionary definition. Esteffect ( talk) 23:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Agree with Physis I think Physis is correct in that this is a fairly unique situation, and I think his solution is ideal. I also find it funny that the length of text in his comment is probably about double the length of the article proposed. The above is stated so eloquently that I think Physis would be the ideal candidate to write the article, and I'd say be bold, make the changes, and then we can go from there. ce1984 ( talk) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep - it's only a redirect anyway. Besides, the actual page, Bootstrapping, is fine as a disambiguation page. Green caterpillar ( talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
First try for justifying the motivation. Thank You for the reassuring words, and I am sorry for the long absence. During that, I was trying to write a first sketch with primary topic about bootstrapping. Because of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the main question was: is there at last one notable source, which definitely states that the several manifestations of bootstrapping are indeed deeply related (and not only superficially)? If this were not verified by notable authors, then new article would raise huge edit wars. But, for luck, I have found a deciding reference: Richard Dawkins definitely claims in his book River out of Eden, that embryogenesis is a bootstrapping process, with the same underlying pattern as the booting process of punched tape fed computers of the 1950s. Thus, the relatedness of at least two different manifestations have been justified by a notable author. According to this, I have prepared a first try, how the motivation for primary topic artcle can be justified: User:Physis/Bootstrapping. It is still in embryonic stage (at least its stage fits well with its own topic), but I hope it can help to prevent at least an edit war about the overall verifiability of the very idea. Physis ( talk) 15:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This topic lacks notarity.
Adiposopathy is based on the work of one research scientist who it seems is trying to replace metabolic syndrome and obesity with his own term.
--
Doc James (
talk) 19:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
I have added one line to the article on obesity which sums this page. Adiposopathy refers to dysfunction of fat tissue. Doc James ( talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete. If a merge is desired, it can be discussed further at Talk:Arnold Kim. Stifle ( talk) 12:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No notability outside of his website MacRumors. - Icewedge ( talk) 22:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Merge to MacRumors. 70.110.29.236 ( talk) 23:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirected to All That#DVD Release by creator ( User:Wikialexdx). the wub "?!" 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Per the article: "All That is released on DVD by Paramount Home Video. As of now, there are no announcements of All That's DVD releases yet". This is unverified speculation and WP:CRYSTAL. Ros0709 ( talk) 22:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete. Article creator just blocked by myself as a hoax-only account, therefore this 'band' can safely be deemed non-notable. Esteffect ( talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band Editor437 ( talk) 22:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (but rewrite). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran ( talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article which is, nonetheless, a massive linkfarm. "Transformational Christianity is a very young movement; since it has few structures, creeds, or spokespeople, its future direction is still unclear." [...] "While there is as yet no consensus definition of Transformational Christianity, the following links appear to reflect usage roughly in line with at least some aspect of this article"
So: WP:OR, WP:V and WP:N issues openly and self-referentially admitted. Guy ( Help!) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There is a rough consensus to delete the article, however there doesn't appear to be a consensus about whether there should be a redirect. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Nicky Blair has no claim to be included in an encyclopedia; he has done nothing of significance in his own right (yet), and only achieves newspaper coverage as a result of the tabloid desire to flog papers by including tittle tattle about anyone connected with anyone famous. One could justify a passing reference to this young man in the articles concerning both his mother and father, but not an article in his own right; indeed, the current article contains nothing of substance. A search on his name should therefore result in a redirect to a parent. The Sage of Stamford ( talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ase nine 18:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Original research of a non-notable fictional character. Tavix ( talk) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Both of these articles are contested prods and fail WP:N and WP:BLP#1E. The death of these children is tragic, yes, but they themselves have done nothing of note worthy of being included here. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and these articles currently only serve as propaganda due to their heavily biased nature. I'd speedy them both for A7, but unfortunately the age of the articles and the previous prods require that we go through process. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted per CSD G11 by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. Gr1st ( talk) 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Web checkout company that seems to fail WP:ORG due to no coverage in independent reliable sources. Parts of it are written like an advertisement, and the bits that aren't are unsourced weasel-worded criticism. Doesn't seem to be any sourceable encyclopedic content. ~ mazca t | c 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No sources. Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 10:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is a pure hoax - it is about inexistent song, and chart positions references are totally fictious Cathody ( talk) 21:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran ( talk) 19:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
An article on a Bible translation sourced almost exclusively from its own website and publishers. Google returns exactly five hits for "God's Word" +beck +glessler (the originators). God's Word is a generic phrase in discussing Bibles so Google is hard to interpret, but I'm not seeing evidence of non-trivial independent sources for this. Guy ( Help!) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Maxim ( ☎) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable 501 group. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article seems to be an original research with no solid verifications of claims. Reference given is unreliable. (In fact reference itself needs references for verification.) Hitro 10:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. Article created by one editor and one anonmymos IP stating "film will be released in 2009". Google search of film name finds nothing to indicate principle filming has even begun.. Google searches of the "aka' find "rumored" , "trying to recreate", and a number blog posts. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can show that filming has already begun. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable teacher. Article was created by its subject. All sources I can find are either to his own websites, myspace, or youtube, or similar sites. Corvus cornix talk 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Education in Taoyuan County. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete- for non-notability. There are so many Junior Highs in any given country. Are we going to list them all? Also, page was created as a massive page creation effort by a suspected sockpuppet. Arbiteroftruth ( talk) 21:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
A seemingly non-notable book. Schuym1 ( talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Not redirecting as I think it is an unlikely search term, although any editor can feel free to create such a redirect. Stifle ( talk) 12:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:OR-filled essay on Australian government. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 19:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, bearing in mind the renomination. Stifle ( talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article lacks verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability. There were two serious issues from the previous AfD nomination. First, I believe the arguments to keep was not backed by any sources and seemed more as WP:ITSNOTABLE claims. Second, the previous AfD was non-admin closed as a keep despite the fact that there was no clear consensus on keeping the article, nor was it a snowball keep. I decided to pass on sending it to WP:DRV and instead re-nominating it for AfD as it was not worth it for admin to look at it, it may have been construed as WP:POINT, and other users will be able to pass appropriate judgment per the argument and sources given. MuZemike ( talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. It's snowing, no point in prolonging this one. Black Kite 08:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
It's true that this article has a lot of sources. However none of them discuss Dr. Carter in depth. What is really happening is that the article is the result of two forces: One, Dr. Carter himself trying to promote himself. Two, environmental activists trying to discredit him as a global warming skeptic. There is also a news story about Dr. Carter's work with geological core samples -- but that is still not about him. Northwestgnome ( talk) 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Anyone who wants the content to merge somewhere can drop me a line. Stifle ( talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable "concept". Only one reference, to an unreliable source. Standard Google search shows less than 3k hits, most of which pertain to biological and ecological topics. Google Scholar confirms the lack of widespread usage past this single source. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Stifle ( talk) 12:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was everything has been speedy deleted CSD A3 (and/or A5). Gwen Gale ( talk) 06:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:IINFO. Some request applies as the the third series: all included links within the page receive the same outcome as this page. I don't have the time to nominate all 999. Leonard (Bloom) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was everything has been speedy deleted CSD A3 (and/or A5). Gwen Gale ( talk) 06:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Entire series fails WP:IINFO. Every blue link fails. Leonard (Bloom) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. I am also nominating Professional Crossword Software ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reason. Both were nominated for speedy deletion but did not fit the criteria. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Was prodded, but removed by the author. The subject of this article (as well as the author) is not notable. His only assertion of notability is a 275/300 rank on the ReverbNation "chart". That's not notability. Also, When I Grow Up (I Wanna Be) and Lose Control (DJ IR Mixtape), as non-notable as well. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources are cited; lack of verifiable information and as a result does not meet the criteria in the notability guidelines. The only information I can find is this which contradicts the information given in the article. -- Snigbrook (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley ( talk) 00:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability of the most of the people in this list is questionable. No reference at all. Why these people are notable to be the part of encyclopedia is unknown? Having "Gurung" surname doesn't make anyone Encyclopedic. Verification is necessary. I support deletion or trimming the article till verified entries. Hitro 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER - unnotable musician. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Waggers ( talk) 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced WP:OR essay on what appears to be a fringe topic in philosophy, and/or a WP:DICDEF. It does not help that the article is incomprehensible to the layman, and that the author isn't sure whether it's "Gestell" or "Gestall". Sandstein 16:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary dab. The singer's page was moved to Tracy Byrd, which already contains a link to his self-titled debut album and a hatnote pointing to the boxer. I can't find any proof of other notable Tracy Byrds, and there's really no point in disambiguating between a singer and his own album, so this is effectively a redundant dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable hidden track, doesn't appear to meet WP:Music guidelines. Ged UK ( talk) 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — Wknight94 ( talk) 14:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources whatsoever. GarageBand doesn't seem reliable, and the page reads like a fansite as a whole. Note that David Wechsler actually links to a psychologist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Although the users who wish to keep the article numerically outnumber the ones who wish to delete, they have failed to present any strong arguments, mostly arguing that the list is useful, while the users wishing to delete have presenter stronger, guideline-based arguments.
Maxim (
☎) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to re-close this as no-consensus. I was alerted at
my talkpage. I took a second look, and I felt that my previous close as delete was too hasty. What pushed me to reclose this was DGG's comment; while the users arguing to delete comments are certainly valid and strong, DGG's is equally convincing, thus no consensus exists to delete the article.
Maxim (
☎) 23:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Ginormous list of every act that's ever performed on Austin City Limits. Overly broad list, non-trivial intersection, violates WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Another similar list, List of past Jamboree in the Hills performers, was deleted for the same reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Game that is going to be released in 2009. The article fails to state why the game is notable, and although it has some length it almost reads as an advertisement and is 'crufty'. Google gave 450 or so results for Almagest MMORPG although many of those seemed unrelated - I don't see how this game is, at this stage, notable. Esteffect ( talk) 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge, already performed (non-admin closure). -- Amalthea Talk 23:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable junior high school. Possibly merge into Education in Taoyuan County. Ged UK ( talk) 15:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTE and a Google search yields absolutely nothing on the subject Bvlax2005 ( talk) 15:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Withdrawal was stated on IRC; also, this looks like a snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Whilst this article is technically feasible, it is over 90% speculation. Humanzees do not and may possibly never exist, and therefore this is effectively an unworkable article. It violates WP:NOT under Crystal Ball, since it also explains something which does not exist at this time. Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 15:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. Pointless list which repeats the titles of some of the other articles in its own category; presumably it was created before the category but it serves no useful purpose now. BlackJack | talk page 14:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Done by Stifle. — Wknight94 ( talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Biographies of two newsreaders on a British local TV station. Claim to notability is that one of them was once sick while presenting, but not on air, and the other had to stand in for him. I don't think that's enough. Delete both. JohnCD ( talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Stifle ( talk) 12:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability criteria outlined at WP:ORG. The article contains no sources that are independant of the subject. A search on Google, and at Google books indicates that there are likely to be no additional sources. While the subject's name indicates a claim to being an organization that is "national in scope", a look at the Grand Lodge's web page indicates that it actually consists of only 4 suborbordinate lodges, all of which could be in the same city (and given the average size of a Masonic Lodge, this would also mean that the organization has perhaps 200 members at most). When compared to other, significantly larger Masonic bodies this one is simply not notable. Blueboar ( talk) 14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete. I've taken the normal editorial action of redirecting the page to the article on the murder. Stifle ( talk) 13:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
A case of someone notable only for one event- namely, a murder. Said murder is already covered at Murder of Jessica Lall. The subject is the son of a politician, but being related to someone notable does not make you notable. J Milburn ( talk) 14:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This was created for an unsuccessful candidate at the
Australian federal election, 2007
New South Wales state election, 2007. He does not appear to be notable in any way and there is no reason to keep this article.
Grahame (
talk) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
There's a lot of what looks like hoax information in this, it also doesn't meet verifiability standards and Google didn't reveal much about it to confirm what this article says, and is of questionable notability. Masked Hoody ( talk) 13:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Fan-game, nothing near notable enough. YowuzaZXWolfie ( talk) 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article about an unnotable writer of unnotable comic books. I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be self-promotional spam from Arcana Studio:
-- Evb-wiki ( talk) 13:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. Writing 4 comic books does not denote notability. Bvlax2005 ( talk) 14:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Waggers ( talk) 21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organisation. Does not meet requirements for inclusion. — Borgarde talk 12:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (without prejudice to recreation when verified properly). Stifle ( talk) 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Album news is in the very early stages. There is simply not enough information available to justify creating an article at this point. The page seems rushed and very fan driven. Article should be deleted and recreated with adequate information (i.e. release dates, tracklisting, cover, etc.) and sufficient 3rd party reliable sources. Alkclark ( talk) 12:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to SBS TV. Waggers ( talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no such thing. All the data in the article has been made up. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
EDIT: Note that the logo is nonexistant and in fact that SBS broadcasts a simulcast in HD (really ED) as noted in the SBS TV article. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 08:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Syn ergy 13:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability, and third party sources for facts presented here fail to establish notability βcommand 12:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Syn ergy 12:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability, and third party sources for facts presented here fail to establish notability βcommand 12:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Keeper ǀ 76 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Article does not assert notability and lacks factual third party sources. βcommand 12:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 nancy (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, editor removed speedy delete tag. This article fails our inclusion policy. — Borgarde talk 12:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination: found nominated for PROD deletion with reason stated as "Just another online video sharing site, no assertion of notability, no mention of reliable third party overage." Has previously been to AfD with outcome = Keep. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 11:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Football club which fails the generally accepted notability criteria of having played at Step 6 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase (established in the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 most recent AfDs on similar subjects). Was kept at a previous AfD in August 2006 despite failing the WP:CORP of the time, and even though more editors voted to delete/merge it (the argument for keeping was that the league the clubs play in was one of the strongest step 7 leagues in the country; since then it has been significantly weakened by the creation of a new step 6 league above it, taking several clubs).
Also nominating Bolsover Town F.C., Pinxton F.C., Newark Flowserve F.C., Welbeck Colliery Welfare F.C. and Thoresby Colliery Welfare F.C. for the same reason пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure). MrKIA11 ( talk) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Although she might be important in her field, the article's one cited source did not say anything about her. I also checked Google and there was nothing about her, just links to books or papers she has written or to universities where she has worked.
Northwestgnome (
talk) 11:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax/non-notable article. Initially created claiming that he was an Australian footballer who played over 100 times for Brazil. Then recreated claiming he was a football coach who had coached many of the world's best known players. Now had a section added claiming that he was an orienteerer with a link to the Australian 1982 championships, in which there was a person called Brad Ahern, though I don't believe he is notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Waggers ( talk) 13:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. Also questionable notability — being in the Judicial Appointments Commission does not convince me. Stifle ( talk) 13:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Also nominated: Francis Plowden ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The result was Delete.
Stifle (
talk) 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Keep as amended.
Stifle (
talk) 18:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
NOTE: Article moved to: Libertarian perspectives on revolution ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
original research, questionable notability at best, looks like an ideological fork at best and at worst it could be one person's perspective, cited though it is. either way, it isn't encyclopedic. creator banned from wikipedia. Buridan ( talk) 10:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
NOTE: Article moved to: Libertarians perspectives on revolution ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
No notability shown. I did a search and didn't find any reliable sources either. Seems to be just Warhammer cruft/clutter. RobJ1981 ( talk) 10:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
delete. neologism, not notable, stub at best. does not establish notability. Buridan ( talk) 10:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The article on hadaka, which is the Japanese word for "nude," is a dictionary definition article. Neither is it functioning as a disambiguation article. Tokek ( talk) 09:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Stifle ( talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory, requires frequent updates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, default to keep. Stifle ( talk) 15:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
"Well-known life insurance underwriter" from small town in Canada. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I undid a non-admin closure but we need further discussion of the notability of the award to settle this one. Spartaz Humbug! 09:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable new art with relatively few schools and no third-party sources. JJL ( talk) 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle ( talk) 12:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable new art; minimal ghits, poorly sourced. JJL ( talk) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Does not meet WP:ORG. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Mynameisstanley ( talk) 05:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley reply
The result was Speedy deleted per CSD A7 by JzG. (non-admin closure) - Icewedge ( talk) 05:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 08:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be orphaned and has no significant articles linking to it. It was the creation of User:RoddyYoung about 1.5 years ago, and it has remained in poor condition ever since. I don't see a potential for expansion so I'm nominating for deletion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Time's up. — Wknight94 ( talk) 14:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced WP:BLP, artist is working on his debut album after a few non-chart appearances with others. Guy ( Help!) 08:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable suburban church Grahame ( talk) 08:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable story written by two non-notable authors. Shockingly enough, there are a few ghits, but nothing outside of some "fan fiction" sites. Doesn't look like I can SD this, so here you go... Delete Mr. Vernon ( talk) 06:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
What the hell is a ghit? Get a life Wikpedia has a page on Vagina's, a page on a book seems reasonable enough for me, get your head outta your ass and grow a pair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuryanMalice ( talk • contribs) 19:55 August 24 2008
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy ( talk) 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable independently developed fan game. Content is unverifiable by reliable, second party sources. -- Jtalledo (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of plot elements from the various Star Trek episode articles plot sections in an in-universe way. It is therefore pure duplication and trivia, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 05:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced neologism, fails WP:NEO. Although the tag says the article has been unreferenced since April 2007, the article was just created. Movingboxes ( talk) 05:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No opinion on the legal matter, etc. Consensus is that this does not meet notability standards - the end. — Wknight94 ( talk) 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No apparent notability of the trademark or the dispute. All references appear to be primary sources - no indication this was covered by any media. Shell babelfish 21:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Dominican Summer Blue Jays2, which already contains all the information in this page. Stifle ( talk) 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
unnotable collection of information. Tavix ( talk) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy by another editor was previously declined with suggestion it goes to Afd, so here goes: whilst I'm sure this is a very nice night out there is nothing to suggest its notable. References given seem to relate to the people involved not the 'event' - Hunting dog ( talk) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Hunting dog ( talk) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I believe that Turkel is merely a brand name for dried apricots. I could not find any sources which identify it as a generic term. If this is merely a brand name, the article should be acceptable if all references to turkel are replaced by dried apricot, the article is moved accordingly, and Turkel is deleted. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 03:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not asserted - No major media sources or other indications of notability. Editor437 ( talk) 04:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced list of spells in a TV show. Original reasearch or WP:SYNTH at best, not to mention an indiscriminate collection of information. This sort of thing is not what Wikipedia is for. Reyk YO! 03:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable magazine. Has notability concern on the article (template). Google returns nothing of any use. Leonard (Bloom) 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin close) Beeblbrox ( talk) 05:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
It's a rock quarry. Generally that is not any more notable than, say, an individual farm, and I don't see any indication anything particularly special ever happened at this quarry. Beeblbrox ( talk) 02:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Given that I was given about two minutes up and have been elaborating upon the local context I think such a reaction is quite lacking in Agf considering that if I have been through the sufficient contexts there are so many related articles that have never been touched. I ask the nominator to withdraw the afd and at least give the article creator some time to at least give the adeqate context Satu Suro 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
and thats just the start. Satu Suro 03:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was ''Nom closure (non-admin closure) This article is just a tiny portion of the series. See the above AfDs. Leonard (Bloom) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOT ( WP:IINFO). I don't see why this page was needed in the first place. Leonard (Bloom) 02:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:IINFO. Leonard (Bloom) 02:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Stifle ( talk) 15:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Unelected politician for a state-level office; fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 02:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an indie game with no coverage. It absolutely fails the notability requirements laid out at WP:NOTE. No reliable secondary sources means no article. It is impossible to write an article which conforms to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Crossmr ( talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Boldly redirected to tee Ball. Stifle ( talk) 12:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
His only claim to fame is organizing Tee Ball. Google returns nothing. He appears to fail WP:PEOPLE. Leonard (Bloom) 23:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Waggers ( talk) 13:12, 1 September 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}} . |
Porn actress who does not appear to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Speedily deleted seven times over the past few years, and it doesn't seem that notability has improved. A previous deletion review can be seen here. The article does not assert notability in my view, but the speedy tag was removed and given the history I think it's time for an AfD discussion. Accurizer ( talk) 02:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
— 89.138.247.170 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is an actual band. The soundtrack of the movie Madagascar (2005 film) includes a performance of the song " I Like to Move It" in character by Sacha Baron Cohen, one of the voice performers in the movie. [40] However, this article treats "I Like to Move It" as though it were performed on the soundtrack by a band named Madagascar, which I don't think is accurate. I considered redirecting the article to Madagascar (2005 film) or Sacha Baron Cohen, but neither seems to be appropriate given that the claimed existence of this band appears to be a misunderstanding. I recommend a delete instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Local Roman Catholic church in Texas, no assertion of notability. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 01:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Obvious bad faith nom from SPA for a notable and inspiring mayor of Vancouver. Non-admin closure. Nate • ( chatter) 06:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Unknown Canadian figure. Article is not backed with sources. Letmehearyousinglala ( talk) 04:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply