The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 16:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Going beyond WP:CRYSTAL and wandering near or across the boundaries of fraud. No reliable sources for anything beyond the title. One reliable looking source at lalate.com, but the tracklist appears to have come from the Wikipedia article, not the other way around. The cover image is another fun story. The lalate.com story leaks the cover photograph, so what do we have on Wikipedia? Not one cover image with a conveniently photoshopped-looking appearance, but two! Uploader of the photograph has refused to answer enquiries about the source, and the pictures are conveniently sourced to the vague "Warner Brothers Mexico", without a specific URL. I've dug around Warner Brothers, and can't find any trace of this album of image. Kww ( talk) 23:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't now, i think that the album is real. OK, it will be a second album but i say don't delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.13.158 ( talk) 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Please note that poor formatting is a reason to to fix it, not delete it. Maxim ( ☎) 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
None of these tours seem to be notable, not to mention the fact that a lot of the wiki markup is b0rked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted ( CSD G11) by Frank. NAC by Cliff smith talk 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Originally tagged for lack of notability (books), but subsequent edits make the article qualify as spam as well. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 22:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 00:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BK. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 15:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Deleted once as WP:CSD#A7 at CantMixWontMixShouldntMixDontMix and immediately re-created by the same WP:SPA, no evidence of more than trival local coverage, 13 unique Google hits, reads as personal opinion not an encyclopaedia article. Guy ( Help!) 22:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
it was speedied last time because i made a mistake by submitting it too soon. will you please read the above text where it was already mentioned. i am very disappointed with wikipedia for deleting this article and would like a copy of it emailed to my email account.
[email protected]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loxville ( talk • contribs) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy ( talk) 02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not seems to meet WP:BK notability guidelines and entry contains no information apart of ISBN (despite it having been created some years ago). Tazmaniacs ( talk) 22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable "law" LAA Fan 22:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student film Editor437 ( talk) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 18:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable scholar - no evidence of major advances in field or major media coverage Editor437 ( talk) 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was - Delete - She does not pass the bar for automatic assumption of notability and has not been shown to be noted - Peripitus (Talk) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Catherine Delahunty is a candidate for office; Throughout the entire span of her political career, she has never, not once been elected to the New Zealand House of Representatives. The most notable thing she has done is stand for parliament, which is not notable enough. plan 8 ( talk) 21:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. This is certainly and obviously a valid disambiguation page. No consensus to delete what-so-ever. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy ( talk) 02:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Merge with Charles Daniels- No need to have two disambig pages on what is essentially the same name Arbiteroftruth ( talk) 21:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 00:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
perennial candidate never got elected and never lead his party; mildly interesting, not notable unless every third party candidate who came second at some point is plan 8 ( talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Not-notable; no reliable sources.
D.M.N. (
talk) 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC) - Withdrawing now that references have been added.
D.M.N. (
talk) 07:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete Muirhead and Nolan, keep Power. Mango juice talk 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Not-notable; no reliable sources. D.M.N. ( talk) 21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:
D.M.N. ( talk) 21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was - Delete - Peripitus (Talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet guidelines wrt WP:BIO. Article is about a non-notable member of minor aristocracy. Eddie.willers ( talk) 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 16:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm 99% sure that this is a hoax given the article creators status, this prior AFD and lack of sources for either name but as I have no knowledge of the American Rock scene I thought I'd nominate here to gain some more eyes, rather than tag as WP:CSD#G3. ascidian | talk-to-me 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
One sentence article about a footballer who plays in the North Caledonian Football League. A lower order Scottish league.
N.B. This a different person to the more notable Scott Morrison (footballer). Bush shep ( talk) 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Schuym1 ( talk) 23:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I can't find any reliable sources that show the movie's notability. Schuym1 ( talk) 20:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Looks like a hoax, unsourced for a year, and lacks any google news hits. We66er ( talk) 20:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a conflict of interest; the user who wrote the article has the same name as the alleged creator of the cartoon. Notability and verifiability seem to be lacking; the "sources" consist mostly of hosting sites. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 18:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Is this even an official award? Seems like an indiscriminate collection of various sporting achievements put together by the author. Ban Ray 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable erotic model. See WP:PORNBIO. Playboy Special Editions and Men's World are not mainstream (non-pornographic) media. Notability in question since June 2007. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable company, no references or sources. No updates in over 6 months. All external links point to their own websites. ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 18:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Maxim ( ☎) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY; There is currently such category - Category:Software companies of Poland. Visor ( talk) 18:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, after discounting comments that are unsigned or from unregistered or very new users, as is customary. Stifle ( talk) 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The green building article in wikipedia does not mention any of the international initiatives led by the UNITED NATIONS or the international works ISO and CEN. The only fully developed assessment tool is the north American LEED. LEED is a comercial product that refers to american standards. I think that wikipedia should allow some space for other initiatives specially. I would say do not delete. Is the fact of being in the first page of Google synonymous of notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margauxmeunier ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
When reviewing the Reasons for deletion on Wikipedia Deletion policy page I do not find notability as a criterion. In any case notability should not be solely based on Google findings, if they are supported by the UNITED NATIONS aren?t they enough notable? do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.164.7 ( talk) 11:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC) The absence of references in Google should not be used as proof of non-notability, specially when dealing with scientific/academic issues. In the English Wikipedia notability guideline (which is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow) this is clearly stated. Scientific and academic content is obviously less quoted in Google than commercial content, do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.55.217 ( talk) 13:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
If you look at the green building article in Wikipedia, while the american comercial product LEED is very well described, UNEP and [iiSBE]( http://www.iisbe.org)(both non profit and international) are not even mentionned, probably because they are not enough "notable". iiSBE is a network of more than 300 individuals from universities in more than 30 different countries, and it is a very notable non-profit organization in the scientific community that exist for more than 15 years. UNEP is the voice for the environment in the United Nations system. Both are part of the SB Alliance. Is it fair to remove an article with such credentials on the sole criterion of "notability" ? Other alternatives such as editing should be explored first. Do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.106.64 ( talk) 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I am copying the arguments posted by the other above and copying them below:
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 15:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged {{ db-repost}} but as far as I can tell the deletion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert O Connor, the content was different and it was a while back. That said, the subject has been liberally spammed (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/robertoconnorofficial.com) and notability is thin at best. The article reads as if the subject or his PR wrote it, but it appears to have been created (form whole cloth) by an established user. An article this big coming out of nowhere is unusual, I don't know what that's about - maybe it was from WP:AFC but I can't see it there. Guy ( Help!) 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Notability information and several references have been added to the article since it's nomination. Non-admin closure. Jamie ☆ S93 14:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy deletion on creative but incorrect grounds; DGG removed the speedy tag before I could but the nominator has a point - a book by a redlinked author with no indication of importance and zero independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
ThaddeusB ( talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Waggers ( talk) 21:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local organization. Gsearch turns up one brief mention [3]. SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 17:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
rather definitively non-notable, no reliable sources - apparently his academic career never took off because of a dispute with his PhD supervisor Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. The deletion debate has evolved into personal attacks and long winded discussions that have long went beyond the scope of this AFD. seicer | talk | contribs 14:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Proposed for deletion because of edit history and unverifiable content. (1) More time, effort and care were invested in wiki-tagging for improvement than originator invested in text draft, and (2) there have been no other editors willing or able to address substantive problems which remain in this stagnant article. Tenmei ( talk) 16:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
I felt encouraged when I saw references had been added to Joseon tongsinsa, but this newest cause for dismay is bitter. The following in-line citations refer to an inaccessible article in a Korean on-line encyclopedia 통신사 (通信使).
The following is a Babelfish translation of that on-line Korean text. In the narrow context established by these four citations, I don't see how it is possible to construe the following as verification or validation -- setting aside for the moment what is explained at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. There isn't a match between the source cited and the sentences which are the object of the citation exercise.
I muddled through the onerous task of creating the machine-translated text below; and I carefully read the prose as best I could, highlighting the Gregorian calendar dates in bold font. What I found was troubling when re-evaluated in the following relevant contexts:
Despite WP:AGF, I can't see how this can be explained away. I can't figure out how to address this consistent with WP:Civ and WP:PA. In the world outside Wikipedia's consensus reality, this would be a blunt demonstration of "bad faith." To describe this travesty as "disingenuous" is too mild, but I'd begin there.
The prescient sense of alarm which impelled me to post an AfD listing now seems justified, even if it is the case, as Taemyr argues here, that some other strategy would have been better than listing an AfD while hoping that the Article Rescue Squadron step in.
At WP:BEFORE, one sentence stands out for me: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." As I understand it, Taemyr construes this sentence to mean that I should withdraw my AfD nomination. If that recommendation still stands, then I need to re-evaluate my understanding of what "normal editing" means.
In light of this "References" sub-section, if withdrawal still remains a better way to proceed, I have the capacity to listen and to act on good advice. Before I began trying to decipher the Korean encyclopedia text, I felt almost persuaded that there might be a way forward in WP:ATD. Specifically my tentative thinking was grounded something Taemyr cited:
When I began to work with the Korean text, I thought that finally we'd arrived at the threshold of a something sufficiently specific that "normal editing" could commence. Now what?
Now I'm convinced anew that AfD was always the right thing to do, and that it was foolish to try to figure out how to salvage a situation which was hopeless to begin with. I'm puzzled by this newest gambit. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Korea communication buy altitude does generally. 1403 Korea ([thay] bell 3) from the life country received the book seal, that next year Japan they knew and the car was formed (as many as) General justice should have received the book seal, to China * Korea * Japan between serves the powerful * diplomatic relation of relation of neighboring countries. And then Korea and the Japanese two countries became the relation of neighboring countries country of the situation which is equal, with the Korea king the department head army as the highest power person of the both nations the trade name dispatched the embassador just. This time the embassador whom the Korea king sends with the Japanese king (naming) the department head army just the news agency and just the department head army send to the Korea king embassador the Japanese king company (day) as. As a result of general the communication saran terminology enemy [lyey] (in the equal (equal) one nation between of the position which is) enemies providence (justice), () bears the meaning which is an embassador whom does.
To Korea electricity the embassador traffic of Japan and Japanese dispatch of the Korea embassador accomplishes to 18 times many, the Japanese king resignation Korea dispatch accomplishes to 71 times. The embassador whom the Korea king dispatches but does not have the title of all news agency not to be, the thing is only 8 times in General [i cwung]. For example also the name bought the round of visits company (round of visits) * the round of visits tube (round of visits officialdom) * step round () * the variation tube (officialdoms) * the news agency * the communication tube (officialdoms) the politics which will be etc. not to be, also the goal and organization were various.
The news agency which Korea dispatches from like this point with afterwords same must equip a condition and goal.
Japan just sweeping the title of the news agency initially in the delegation whom dispatches to the department head army 1375 nothing Rome is a consideration time (why the fact that dispatches the embassador who requests nine prohibitions the beginning in General) just bringing up for discussion. But only name the news agency only will be, does not equip the condition and a goal could not.
Came in into a Korea time and the name of the news agency appearing initially 1413 ([thay] bell 13) was, but this meandering political affairs Pak minute (in order from) these moderations for the bottle to be born was discontinued. Has the name of the news agency after that and meandering which is dispatched to Japan 1428 (Sejong 10) the political affairs Pak student (lifestyles) as the delegation below, these dispatch goal general [sup] position sacrifice () was about congratulation and the battlefield army. The dispatch of the after that news agency became regulations and in trillion * one both nations between with symbol of amicable relation of neighboring countries extended in Korea periodic electricity between and total 20 times (Korea electricity 8 time, Korea postscript 12 time) became accomplished. The news agency which is dispatched to Korea periodic Japan (ticket 1) with is same.
Dispatch reason of the news agency the goal Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 and around there is some difference. There was to case Japanese relationship of Korea electricity and the high stake why was old story system as well, in order to solve this problem dispatched the news agency to the department head army just from Korea. Consequently the surface area reason of news agency dispatch why general for the request and a amicable relationship maintenance of nine gold pressures [sup] position congratulation etc. mainly politics * was from the goal which is diplomatic. This piece the Japanese king company which is dispatched to Korea brings east () from Japan and the rice which is a substitution essential goods * the bean * the cotton buys and is a goal which is economic, or the adenoma () on a large scale with the point which is cultural takes Buddhist Sutras of popularity flaw Korea and the pan bell contrasts with from Japan. Meantime the case of Korea postscript immediately after the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592, the [sway] annularity which is a peace negotiations and a fatigue for a state of war conclusion (people) (: Got accompanied by the compatriot who is drifting from the foreign nation and returning), [sup] position congratulation etc. of state search and just the department head army as well politics * dispatched the news agency from the goal which is diplomatic. The Japanese king resignation Korea dispatch was forbidden from the other side Korea postscript Japan. Being the course at Korea electric Japanese king resignation, the etc. damage which is used with aggression of at that time Japanese army which is core flaw, from Korea does not allow Japanese king resignation coming up to the capital, was because not being. The Japanese king resignation dispatch after that is discontinued, substitution about the department head army rises just and difference why () to make substitute becomes. By the way the delegation who is dispatched at 1607 is immediately after the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 * 1617 * 1624 the designation which is did not do the news agency not to be, `reply and also [sway] annular companies (reply) 'wrote. The reason from Korea only this time does but the [khwu] does not recognize and (virtue) just department with the communication country () which is the possibility of leading a providence, because not being is. The title of the news agency being used again, starting from 1636 rises, to like this background is operating with the cause to which the fluctuation of East Asia international situation is principal. Namely, influence shift of life * blue and the collapse of the neutralization order () which follows in him with the new regiment feeling did to make the relation of neighboring countries relationship of the neutralization construct () which burns in trillion * one both nations. The news agency of Korea postscript blue excludes one book seal setup consequently in the center, there is meaning which is a diplomatic privacy which is an establishment of the equal diplomacy which is an indigenous of trillion * one both nations. From like this international environmental inside goal of the news agency and stand orgin * example only * were to the itinerary etc. contents and the format and the news agency became regulations. And the hemp helped to one side and as a result of with line () above the substantial was and for [kyo] a system door sells lawsuit () and why () established. After that the news agency dispatch becomes regulations, dispatch goal ostensibly the most general [sup] position was congratulation. Put out but with every that time different had a reason and object. For example, 1636 regiment feeling establishment of Japan which follows in influence shift of life * blue and, support and state search of credential rehash event after that Tsu Island week, 1643 institutional after that of restraint and also unit () even with Korean fiddle policy () of abridgment negotiation and Japan of the trade volume which extends about the primeval arm (abiogenesis) were state search about pressure of the blue country. 1655 after that the news agency did Japan `highway Korea ' () confirms information respecting, to be, 1682 helped the hemp and they were 7 mourning morning fair promises (morning fair promise) for a trade control. 1711 the news agency Oh the relationship of the friendship which with honor maintenance and Japan of the nation is continuous was goal about diplomatic formal opening a court of [khwu] three meal (white) under this. 1719 difference why (people) 'treaty contracting etc. they are `tickets from diplomatic policy delivery and hemp degree of Korea had the pending issue of the both nations which is concrete about diplomatic formal return. Came in into a 18th century but the situation of the continent should have been stabilized became more formal the pending question where also the news agency dispatch is diplomatic. Consequently 1748 and 1764 the news agency general [sup] position the congratulation and relation of neighboring countries relationship confirmation became main purpose. Like this tendency will come in into a 19th century and meaning which news agency dispatch is diplomatic will be lost, 1811 news agency will change an itinerary and with `reverse communications () which are formal exchanges a credential from Tsu Island 'will close there was not a news agency which after that regulations to get off, had become. Even after that of course general [sup] every when controlling directly `agency reverse communications () 'or `hemp reverse communication () 'this was decided, was not enforced. When already became this time and the both nations did not have the will which is active about news agency dispatch. 19th century middles, the East Asia world was made to receive the threat of Western influence in addition and from trillion * one both nations the amicable relation of neighboring countries which leads the news agency to dispose in compliance with the foreign recognition which is contrary each other in Western influence, became, the destruction of the relation of neighboring countries setup which is unilateral in compliance with Japan with the lung paragraph of the news agency brought the end of relation of neighboring countries relationship together.
The dispatch process of the news agency with afterwords is same. When the monk of the department head army [sup] this is decided just is new first from Japan, the Tsu Island week just hundred win `tubes [sup] distressed circumstance why in bringing up for discussion order (white: ) 'dispatches to Korea from Japan and informs comes the fact. Immediately afterward again `news agency blue [lay] which request a news agency dispatch why () () 'dispatches. Consequently when the example elegy proposes a pending question, after discussing from regulation, this fact to Waegwan () news agency dispatch is decided from Korea, informs. That rear Tsu Island week the difference which again in order to discuss the various branch problem which in Japanese visit (Japanese visit) of the news agency company follows Korea side and `gentleman brilliant people sells why () 'dispatches to Pusan Waegwan. When consequently the contents which news agency dispatch is concrete is discussed, informs to this regulation from example trillion. After when consulting from regulation, the decision is born and the news agency company is composed. These people departs one sheep and when arrives to east [lay] department, `gentlemen zero who again are dispatched from Tsu Island receives a justice difference why () 'humanity round and after arriving to Tsu Island the guidance of Tsu Island week and even to until Japanese domestic (), receives reciprocates. These people finishes a task and returns until Pusan `gentleman [song] justice differences which again the Tsu Island week nominates why () 'this good line * guides toward Tsu Island and from that place. About news agency composition, the turning point per 1802 employment won from upper tube of force Kim case (Friday) * the director worker () * in compliance with general affairs () etc. being ≪ presentation relation of neighboring countries ≫ volume 5 compiles in detail, is being recorded. The organization contents comes (ticket 2). (Ticket 2) at 1682 ([swuk] bell 8) opened a court and was maintained and the news agency total personnel accomplished to 577 people in the form which is completed. About personnel organization before the tool (systems), about the horse () of meandering inclusion the E door (systems) and clothing with the fact that is provided in that outside and until early there is an awe Roh possibility () of recording a meandering preparation, to here in the travel money () below political affairs, the Imperial gift being instructed is, to end part example grade in the Japanese each cow is provided. Namely, the Japanese king * is shrewd () * to the place of Tsu Island obeying orders () etc. below governing () will live and buys example () ginseng 49 muscle and the good blood () 16 chapters (), the grass-cloth bleached white gun (white) 62 will bloom only, the black hemp (black) 109 will bloom, the Hwang writing brush (writing brushes) 202 bottles (), the position jelly () 360 hall () and lotus direction () 310 (), the cow important mission () 5 bottles () and three phosphorus () 14 muscles, blue profundity () they are 109 annular () etc. Meantime, the news agency company burnt and the boat prepared from naval forces control private operation and minor injury left investigation zero. The steam ship where the person whom conceives burns () 3 ships, the burden the double track which loads () organized with 3 etc. all 6 ships. And the news agency company who is composed of 3 divisions () of political affairs * adverb * the work tube organized at 3 tips (). To first tip including the political affairs which lifts a credential (books) and from that accomplishment causal officer * the communication company * my alcoholic beverage tube until the standing army burnt, the adverb which lifts a political affairs to second tip including and the attendant burnt, to 3rd tip that attendant including the work tube. Like this the delegation who is composed stand orgin is an official diplomatic document and brought a special width (). Just the credential (books) which becomes with name of the Korea king was drawn up in the department head army. And in that outside hemp escape the example trillion truth sold just in bringing up for discussion managements and or the example trillion truth * according to left and position of etc. facing each other stands taking count of crosses was drawn up in the title which corresponds in him. Specially, credential size the rule was coming to decide in case, certainly did to defend the format. Is a special width from here and says the item of the futures which will decrease. Records the goal and a business matter of the embassador in the document of the stand orgin, that this as special width, the type and a water content of futures which sends with the gift in document end or the appendix writes and is in order to draw up with the document which is complete. Special width according to position of the counterpart the sheep of the item and that item came to decide differently. If and special width futures contents or water content from had the character of donation trade (trades).
As a result of the gentleman company departed one sheep and the 2 month degree which arrives to Pusan became disturbance. To these people the yearly direction comes to hold on moderation, but to initially comes to hold from 4 cows of Ch'ungju * Andong * race * Pusan but to hold from only Pusan one place came to postscript and because of public harm came. These people arrived to Pusan and the spiritual unit () from the Neptune system (Neptune) lived. This Neptune system did (day) [thayk] propitious day and that day was carried out rightly the news agency company leaves toward Japan from Pusan. The Neptune system the news agency ≪ soups dozes ≫ antidotes of the [lyey] () gave with the ceremony which immediately before the direction which will dance is essential and to do was carried out. Namely, the spiritual unit prepares the altar to the high place and sacrifice and the lung hundred () prepares and puts and the deacon () social lower part seriously, was advanced. My intention to fight contents new grudge () in ≪ year type rock ≫ in detail, is recorded. The spiritual unit with this place at the scenic spot of Pusan where the news agency company and karma are deep, they left toward Japan from this place and they returned. 1614 after the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 (storehouse navy 6) patrolling company volume half () in this place the nail makes the wave crest lake and battleship but mooring (mooring) at the place where does, it the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592 harrowing experience is mirror making character one measure. And about 10 became shot in that side and made emission of semen of the style of architecture which is typical () built the high hill. Spiritual () as does this emission of semen, but this `Andong which is a main building of volume half ' in old days spiritual adopting the name in order to do does. The trace of the spiritual large lake which moors the battleship did and until only 1906 [wan] year remains, but filling up the Japanese after that (: The seashore filled up the riverside and one which makes with the land) with disappeared. Meantime, from the spiritual unit the Neptune system the news agency which lives lifted a credential and 3 and in steam ships divided burnt and that departed day by day and escorts and in the hemp tip which was guided the hemp and [ni] right () after entering port, vice-in () with entered and double track 3 ship. After receiving the yearly direction of escape from hemp vice-middle, the mileage cancer () elders (the senior) receives 2 humanity and justice guidances and also this height passes by () from the Hukuoka present (luck), Oh car E three height (: Under) took on route and three toe age did and went against and ascended. After that each changing mind entertainment and received a good line and the citron which is waiting () * the follower (people) with the sea route and the wall chorus which will bloom (choruses) did and followed agency () after reaching, the tear glands () with transferred and landed and east * stands the long-cherished desire company (long-cherished desires) entered. After that 6 ships Oh as various unit people to leave only the soup line and some name expense staff () this times which provides burns and urethra right () lands. Rose next and E (person) to receive a help [kyo] toes () with headed on the land route. Nothing Rome (at the time) just department, here was terminus, but just department to time, excepted 1617 and all went until a degree. The [khwu] the company () departed and 1620's `Korean highway which constructs especially (people) 'passed and also the chi passed by (). To the moderation the pontoon bridge () was, but 1682 news agency company this route from the mask “places the bridge the doubling which is used as many as became 300 ships.” “The heat rays () expense and season chromatic fortune sold and () the expense about thousands reached to the gold.”As is descriptive. Meantime, five car person height () arrives and the lion which department sends from just (: ) received greeting and on the land route entered into a degree in the destination person. The quarters from 1682 time does with the long-cherished desire company but the eastern long-cherished desire company (long-cherished desires) with changed after. Interchange from the visitor company which the news agency company passes as the wall chorus which one poetry and prose * science will bloom the cultural coat interchange which does did characteristic. And was gorgeous follows hereupon and buys, one entertainment did finally one cause which gets stringent the finance of Japan becoming. Specially, Japanese scholar Oh [khwu] three meal under this (white) criticizes this situation and system attempts the visibility of provision about news agency reception, did. The inside of the visibility which he presents 5 places (* * *, to the return route only) with limits an entertainment place with to the king, to provide only the food from the place which is different. Like this reform bill ended finally at once and went back continued again in form heretofore and a good brazier fortune entertainment. 1636 * 1643 * the news agency companies silver which is dispatched at 1655 the [khwu] and the graveyard of general (day) enforcement receiving a worship, did while stays in degree. Also, 1636 vice-in compliance with a bringing up for discussion request just the circus troupe () there was public performance, but 1680 vice-this for horseback re-(at) the dispatch became common usage. Department [thayk] came to do from just, propitious day there was permission and credential and passed over a special width and reply of General after several days * the commodity and the gold and silver came to give with a return below special width and political affairs, again to the return route the route which comes with a Tsu Island week together they turned away and they rose. When the entertainment and reception of the feudal loads come initially and came to do with the same, the hemp gentleman [song] justice difference why went with back and after entering port into Pusan, toward one sheep returned. To traffic schedule of the news agencies there being some difference, one most part 8 months became disturbance from 5 months. To the distance duration which but sultry the summer or severe winter puts meandering which extends at about 2 years was. 1428 (Sejong 10) general [sup] position from congratulation 1811 news agencies which are started deteriorated, (favorable condition 11) the reverse communication which exchanges a credential from Tsu Island this last from history () with they disappeared. The news agency Kim paganism company 334 person arrived to Tsu Island last first and department general sent just and came and lived held, that waits, the both nations which follows in the rules and which comes to decide buys the new publication monotonous event, Japan just with bringing up for discussion prohibition the fact that forbids the contact of the news agency company and with before was different features in the Japanese people. About the news agency the reaction of the Japanese not only the political charge people until being early in the follower including a general safety, * the jelly visitor * the populace in order to call forth a huge interest is. The news agency every the place which they visit the painting and writing * poetry and prose * leaves letter etc. plentifully, it comes to make the folding screen * sliced raw fish volume * in form of line engraving etc., becomes popular widely, like this things come and until currently electrolysis they are descending. Meantime, the news agencies returned with domestic and leaving the knowledge rock which undergoes from Japan, they did. These records record the facts which the people which participate to at that time news agency experience from Japan in diary format and they leave and with the fact that puts, observes a at that time civilization interchange becomes the good data. The news agency not only meaning which is diplomatic is a relationship maintenance with Japan is science * ideology * technique * artistic coat cultural exchange from like this side and will say that also has the meaning which one is cultural.
Taemyr counsels me to withdraw the AfD listing. If advised again to do so, I will comply with good adice ... but then what?
In re-visiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, I was inspired to examine Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content. If someone else is able to stretch WP:AGF farther than I'm able to do -- if we assume that everything above is really nothing more than a big mistake, then would it be reasonable to consider "userfication" of the text posted at Joseon tongsinsa? The citations look like bad faith to me, but the reference source is real. Caspian blue counsels me to keep focused on the potential of this article.
Frankly, I don't quite understand what this would achieve ... but it could be construed as a recognition of the importance of Korean contributions, especially in the process of developing further articles which flow from Foreign relations of Imperial China.
Both Joseon Tongsinsa and Korean missions to Edo at present account for only a relatively short 300-year period in the history of the Joseon Dynasty, and Korean scholarship will continue to be important as this subject evolves over time.
This could provide an excellent opportunity for collaboration -- the complementary historical records which were developed using primarily Korean sources or using primarily Japanese sources could be explored jointly. Just because this seems to have started off badly doesn't mean that more constructive alternatives can't be imagined. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
# REDIRECT Korean missions to Edo # {:{R from alternative language}}
In response to Taemyr's well-reasoned and patient counsel, I have been persuaded that it is no longer essential that Joseon tongsinsa be deleted, but that does not mean I disagree with Stifle. With Taemyr's help, I've begun to think I may see another way to handle what seemed like an intractable problem, but I truly don't know what's best.
Fundamentally, the impeccable posture of Taemyr's wiki- weltanshauung still troubles me because it necesssarily implies a deliberative cognitive dissonance, a stance which is undeniably best in this setting .... This is in no way a criticism or a complaint. I have nothing but thanks to offer Taemyr as I acknowledge his thoughtful assistance in helping me begin to re-evaluate a small problem from a broader perspective.
There is no reason for
Taemyr to have expanded the ambit of this AfD evaluation to include a consideration of
Liancourt rocks, also known as Dokdo (or Tokto) (독도/獨島, literally "solitary island") in
Korean and as Takeshima (竹島, , literally "bamboo island") in
Japanese,
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] which is currently move and semi-protected. There is no cause for complaint if
Stifle was entirely unaware of the following not-"normal editing" notice which has been posted by administrators on this not-unique page:
Although Brianyoumans may have known about controversial Dokdo class amphibious assault ship [9] [10] and about ROK naval manoevers last month [11] [12] , there was no obvious reason to acknowledge that current events might impact an AfD concerning a 17th-19th century subject. Indeed, Brianyoumans constructively noted that "the Tongsinsas seem to have been seized upon as an example of good Korea-Japan relations."
I did know about something about these subjects -- enough to be scrupulously concerned in crafting Korean missions to Edo so as to avoid, as best I could, any plausible cause for controversy. That I was unsuccessful in real world terms does not undercut the extent to which I did manage to comply explicitly with WP:V -- and my efforts were for naught. Two specific sentences informed this AfD nomination; and to both my response was a clear, unequivocal, disgusted NO -- NOT POSSIBLE:
The sum of Caspian blue's contributions affirm my dour pessimism. If Caspian blue is joined by other like-minded tag team editors who similarly feign wounded indignation, angered offense, and stumbling-block misunderstandings as a disruptive tactic, the success of that strategy is virtually assured. Any hopes for collaborative work on this article are dashed. In the face of what seems like adolescent nationalistic ardour, any scholarly collaboration becomes quickly pointless -- especially in light of the entirely ineffective dispute resolution processes now in place.
Wikipedia has been proven to be quite ill-equipped to deal with a concerted, agenda-driven attack of the sort which has been directed at Liancourt rocks. Without a strategy to avert the kind of failure which characterizes that article about an outcrop in the what the Koreans call the Eastern Sea and others call the Sea of Japan, this quickly becomes worse than a waste of time. The dignified and sober Taemyr asks "What is best?" Stifle thinks deletion is a better course of action. I myself don't know, but I would invite consideration of the following:
It is entirely likely that Caspian blue and others similarly disposed will not realize that the Joseon era Silhak school of scholarship which underpins the historic salutatory significance of a Korea-centric dialectic has its roots in the same Neo-Confucianism (성리학) which profoundly affected Japan's Yushima Seidō (湯島聖堂) and the Hayashi clan (林氏, Hayashi-shi).
Given the tenor and tone of the run-on paragraph Caspian blue has spewed out, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that an indignant, offended and angry critic won't otherwise know or allow me to explain that the 19th century version of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran which has been so profoundly disparaged is, in fact, the first non-European history text compiled by a Japanese author and published in the West.
An aroused anti-Japanese bias would likely inhibit a willingness to learn that, while this may not be the first printed description of Korean sovereignty expressing itself through diplomatic initiatives, it is amongst the earliest to be widely disseminated in the West.
In the diatribe above, the mere fact that a Japanese source did mention a relevant Japanese era name was construed as evidence of an anti-Korean insult which deserved a resounding rebuff ... and WP:V becomes utterly irrelevant in such circumstances.
Caspian blue points out that the Korean ambassadors are neither Japanese nor Chinese. Yes, but that complaint overlooks the fact that Hangul was disfavoured even in the 17th century Joseon court; and what else was Hayashi Gahō, the 17th century author to do but to record the transliterations of Korean names in 17th century Japanese and Chinese? Julius Klaproth, the 18th century editor of Isaac Titsingh's work, and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, the first Professor of Chinese at the University of Paris, collaborated on pre- Hepburn transliterations to which Caspian blue objects vociferously. In the absence of anything better, this proffered text doesn't deserve derision; and that very derisive contempt diminishes my willingness to engage in a discussion which likely has no chance of enhancing the quality of the article.
My plausibly constructive action and my potentially collaborative initiative in incorporating un-sourced modern McCune-Reischauer romanizations or Revised Romanizations of Hangul names from Joseon Tongsinsa in the body of Korean missions to Edo could have been construed as a cooperative gesture rather than as a further cause for offense -- but no. NO -- that's not how it played out.
No, no -- perhaps only an impractical optimism underpins my hopes for anything better.
No, no -- this doesn't bode well. Perhaps Stifle is correct. Maybe deleting the article is best after all.
Perhaps the only practical way forward is to address close scrutiny to sentence-by-sentence edits to Korean missions to Edo as they develop over the coming months and years. -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
You're so out of line with such disdainful personal attacks. I warned you two times, but enough is enough. Look at your own writing. How disgraceful for yourself, please do not taint the page with such behaviors. You stated that you nominated this for deletion (not merging just deleting the valuable content) is because of me with your absurd bias. Your continued incivility and personal attack make thing that your reasoning sounds implausible even more, and I doubt that you have even intention to collaborate with other people. If you can't stop yourself, formal procedure would be suitable. Do not drag irrelevant matters to here for seeking your own excuse for the poor AfD nomination. -- Caspian blue ( talk) 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC) -- Be specific, precise, exact. NO, we aren't going down this path. -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is about a company that fails WP:CORP. It lacks notability, the company itself was only created months ago and by its own admission hasn't even really done anything notable yet. No sources are given to back up any claims made in this article, and the article looks to have been created by Palafox himself as promotion. -- Atama chat 16:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirected. Most of the people seem to agree with merging due to large overlap with Complex of Goguryeo Tombs. Our policy states that we merge articles that have the same subject. As in this case it is not easy to determine which content actually can be merged, I redirected the article and left a notice on Talk:Complex of Goguryeo Tombs that an editor with more knowledge of the subject might be able to retrieve some usefull information from the history of the redirect. -- Reinoutr ( talk) 14:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Proposed for deletion because of edit history and unverifiable content. (1) More time, effort and care were invested in wiki-tagging for improvement than originator invested in text draft, and (2) there have been no other editors willing or able to address substantive problems which remain in this stagnant article. Tenmei ( talk) 16:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non- notable software package. Zero hits in Google books and Google scholar, and not that many distinct, relevant hits in Google web either (it's been mentioned in its own website, some mailing lists, and a few other websites). There are no substantial third-party sources about it (note that the four references currently in the article are on basic science and completely irrelevant to the question of the notability of this product) -- Itub ( talk) 16:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Maxim ( ☎) 21:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Dante Raul Teodoro may well be a highly successful businessman, but as far as I can see he hasn't actually done anything notable Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Canley ( talk) 08:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable village LAA Fan 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Pending Delete-No remarkable g-hits, horrible style and grammar. However, if a notable source is found, these issues could be fixed. Also, it needs to mention what country that it is in. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line Review Me! 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to education in Taoyuan County. Stifle ( talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable school. LAA Fan 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Kevin ( talk) 02:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. He's merely an elected local official who does not meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Evb-wiki ( talk) 14:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus/keep, due to the article being improved while on AFD. Stifle ( talk) 15:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
While it is called a "residential college" it does not appear to be a degree-granting school in the sense of the term, but rather a dorm/boarding place for several local unis. There's no evidence it's a notable dorm and since it isn't connected to one uni, no real merge target. There's no evidence of notability (a building is old, but does not appear to be listed as a registered building) and the activities and facilities it offers appear to be the same as any dorm type building. Thoughts? TravellingCari 14:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Reconsidered, see below reply
Comment Afded version. There was no evidence it was heritage listed and for whatever reason this never turned up in a google search. It was a valid AfD at the time because there was no reason to believe it wasn't yet another article on a non-notable dorm. Not withdrawing becuse there are valid delete concerns but mine is now a keep based on the general consensus that heritage listed buildings are notable simply by their inclusion on Country X's list. TravellingCari 20:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, leaning towards keep. Stifle ( talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Seemingly stagnant project, no established notability through reliable third-party sources, reads like a vanity article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased album that clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums. Incorrect title, so no point redirecting either. Wait until reliable sources confirm details before starting an article Nouse4aname ( talk) 10:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Clearly a self promotional article edited by the individual. This biography is obvious self promotion disguised as a third person biography.
Autobiographical materials are Clearly discouraged in the user guidelines, and this entry should be removed.
biography Radio Flyer Reloader ( talk) 09:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - WP:V. It can come back if/when there's actually something like verifiability or reliable sources. Black Kite 23:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Zero information. Google is inconclusive and suggests this may actually be an upcoming video game and not a movie. Either way, it's crystalballery. JuJube ( talk) 06:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has no support for notability. Linked website gives no real support either. Non-notable. peterl ( talk) 10:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Stifle ( talk) 16:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Pauljohn564 ( talk) 12:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for musicians; has toured, but those tours seem to be more in the nature of busking rather than proper touring. Hasn't had a hit or been properly playlisted Brammarb ( talk) 21:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Meh. I don't like to delete borderline notable bands, but I don't see anything that passes WP:MUSIC here. Black Kite 23:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails to establish any significance or notability for the band according to WP:MUSIC. Non notable band signed to a non notable record label. No chart success. No extensive media coverage. Nouse4aname ( talk) 08:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. This is, at the heart of it, unsalvageable original research. Stifle ( talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Original essay Rwiggum ( Talk/ Contrib) 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Girls At The Cairo National Stadium - SELF PROMOTION. Non-notable and unpopular 9 minutes long Internet video (never shown on TV/cinema/etc). Created by Nimrod Kamer, a user that was banned both from English and Hebrew Wikipedia because of spamming (He wrote many article about himself/his friends and his films - such as this film). This user has some sock poppets
[16]. The article about this 'film' creator was deleted
[17].
To prove my point:
-- Plantended ( talk) 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 16:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
nonnotable, local school,no remarkable achievement, not worth an article Uzhuthiran ( talk) 04:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected. Most of the Google news hits merely mention her appearing on AI. Black Kite 23:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Not exactly notable right now, unsourced, and written in a promotional style. If she does release the stuff, then it should be re-created in a less promotional tone, but for now, redirect to American Idol (season 5) in order to keep the blue links. CrazyC83 ( talk) 17:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply
NOTE: Heather Cox already exists for someone else so the dab must be kept in any redirects. CrazyC83 ( talk) 17:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep: Appeared on various TV shows, hosted AI segments, and tours US as celebrity speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.110.92 ( talk) 15:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC) — 65.32.110.92 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
192.93.8.247 ( talk) 11:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply1) 0 references
2) was not original idea, many came before, many after
3) last line of entry really useless and is irrelevant, proves goal was attention and money for both projects
4) most of the information in the entry is irrelevant, history of the people involved? they met Robin Williams? wow, is this what Wikipedia has degraded to?
The result was Redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. Kevin ( talk) 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No meaningful content. Octane ( talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Waggers ( talk) 13:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
fails Wikipedia:Notability (music), there one album isn't out yet and is on Silber Records, they have one secondary cite on adequacy.net giving a harsh review. Drunken Pirate ( talk) 08:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to Yammie Lam. Black Kite 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This page should be deleted, mainly because I already created another page that is neater and uses prose, instead of the list format the author used. Paul 1953 ( talk) 10:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Maxim ( ☎) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No meaningful content. Octane ( talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to 2008 Sichuan earthquake. The content is still in the history in case anyone wants to merge. Stifle ( talk) 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD/declined speedy. More assertions of notability have been added, but no reliable sources. Seems like a case of a person notable for basically one thing. Beeblbrox ( talk) 05:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Cenarium Talk 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
No context, no references in sight for this unverifiable list. It is also too specific of a topic according to WP:SALAT. Tavix ( talk) 19:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Niue. This article would have been speedily deletable in any case under CSD:A7, and no one came to AfD to support it, but a redirect could be useful to readers. -- MCB ( talk) 00:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG Michellecrisp ( talk) 06:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 21:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This page is for an historicl (from 1913) name of South Albania and conteins information, only for the Greek minority in that part. There should be a Greek minority in Albania page, as for every ethnic or national minority in every state, as wiki policy describes. There should not be a confusion between Northern Epirus and Southern Albania, for three main reasons. Southern Albania is the official name for this region, and the one used more for this part. This is an unofficial region. Albanians compromise the main ethnicity of Southern Albania/ Northern Epirus. We may creat a new page for the short-vived Northern Epirus Autonom Region, a new page for the Greek minority in Albania and also maybe a new page for Southern Albania unofficial region.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 00:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability? Nergaal ( talk) 03:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was - Delete - recreating as a redirect per Richfife. Clear biography notable for a single event - Peripitus (Talk) 07:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Not Notable CapnZapp ( talk) 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Vanderlei de Lima. - Richfife ( talk) 06:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Stifle ( talk) 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This is nothing but a list of gear used by the band Rush; a big list composed entirely of primary sources. I think that this is just trivia and can't possibly be externally sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
No references; no notability established - just another shopping mall.
Brammarb (
talk) 21:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. John254 00:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about the non notable singer of a notable band – Fails WP:MUSIC “Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases...”. As yet, this is not the case. Suggest a redirect to From First to Last - this continues to be reverted, hence the AfD. See also Sonny Moore, which has been deleted numerous times. Nouse4aname ( talk) 19:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Sonny Moore is no longer affiliated with From First To Last. There is no need to redirect to the From First To Last page, it makes no sense. He has left the band and has in fact begun a solo career, which is why the page exists. “Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases...”. This is exactly the case, this is exactly what he has done; he has gone solo. Stop constantly deleting his page and redirecting it to From First To Last. Skrillpac ( talk) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - Loathed to say it, as it would appear that done properly, and in due time, this would be a valid article. Normally I'd suggest moving it to
Sonny Moore, but currently there is nothing to suggest that the protection on
Sonny Moore should be removed for this article. As it stands it clearly fails
WP:MUSIC. It should be removed and a proper article written at
Sonny Moore, but only once there's something to establish his notability sourced. Currently there is no mention of record label, hasn't release first album yet, apparently has no notable references outside of myspace, bebo, youtube etc. Cites are all either sourced from a fan site, or don't even mention Sonny Moore. I've tried to get a number of persistent IP editors who have contributed to the article to improve it, but all they appear concerned about is ensuring the link to the fan site remains on the page and are otherwise completely uncommunicative. --
Escape Orbit
(Talk) 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
Keep. Changed vote to Keep. Article still has problems, but much improved. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Maxim ( ☎) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No meaningful content. Octane ( talk) 17:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Maxim ( ☎) 21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No meaningful content. Octane ( talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable book about a notable band. There is no reason to have an article on every book about every band. There is nothing about this book that is significant. No assertion of notability. Nouse4aname ( talk) 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Maxim ( ☎) 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No meaningful content. Octane ( talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Maxim ( ☎) 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No meaningful content. Octane ( talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Appears to fail WP:CORP, as most of the "references" given have nothing to do with the organization directly. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
( t - c) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
From Richard Bramhall, LLRC
I cannot sign in on my "named account" as Verbal Chat suggests. Its details are lost in the mists of last year. If you doubt my identity it can presumably be traced from my recent posts using the numerical code that Wikipedia frequently claims is the way it can trace various species of muppet.
The alleged "clear conflict of interest" is clear only according to definitions imposed by Wikipedia itself; I have explained my status openly and often, beginning with my very first post in March 2007. The voting process Verbal Chat refers to is opaque and I know nothing about it; similarly the recommendation to "strike or refactor comments" requires me to understand a language other than English; no thanks. The commentator's comment on the hypothetical relationship between LLRC and alleged "founder organisations" displays a misunderstanding based on errors of fact in the original article. Similarly the alleged silence of what s/he calls "mainstream science" on the scientific issues is a topic that could be debated at far greater length than is worth while; the message here is that the commentator is unwise to make assumptions based on the inadequate Wikipedia article; as I have already said, the references address the detail of scientific issues, not the status of this organisation. Similarly, again, what does the contributor know of the conspiracy of silence and attempted marginalisation in the field of radiation protection; entire books have been written, for example "The Woman Who Knew Too Much" by Gayle Greene (
ISBN
0-472-08783-5) and Multiple Exposures" by Catherine Caufield (
ISBN
0-06-015900-6).
On "notability", how anyone manages to find only 264 hits on a Google search is beyond me. I used either ""Low Level Radiation Campaign" -www.llrc.com" or ""Low Level Radiation Campaign"" alone as search terms, finding thousands of hits – around 4900 or around 5500 respectively. The article itself at one point, or the discussion page – I forget now, noted that LLRC is the only NGO to have succeeded in persuading a national government to set up a scientific advisory committee specifically to investigate its concerns. That is pretty notable, as is that fact that a campaign organised by LLRC between 1998 and 2000 derailed the transposition of a European Commission Directive in the UK. My point about notability was not predicated on the importance of the notability concept to Wikipedians but on its unimportance to LLRC.
Delete away; the many problems of this article, which I have done as much to cure as could reasonably be expected of anyone, evidence the structural faults of Wikipedia itself, not least, as I pointed out in March 2007, that ab initio you allow an unqualified person licence to write whatever garbage he pleases without reference to the organisation he purports to describe and then you demand that the organisation treat the author, bias or no bias, with deference. This is the other face of "conflict of interest". I think I used the term "denial of natural justice" at one time. It still seems relevant.
One point of agreement is the comment "At the least, this [article] should be stripped down into relevant facts about the organization, not information on the actual research, which belongs elsewhere." Too right. I hope that if someone does attempt such a strip down (or, better still, a fresh start) they will have the courtesy to tell us about it so that we may comment.
Richard Bramhall, LLRC — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.153.142.82 (
talk •
contribs)
Delete Non-notable fringe group advocating a position rejected by the majority of the scientific community and disregarded by the public at large. Note: I found this on
WP:FT/N -
Eldereft (
cont.) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
Delete, for pity's sake and have done! That said, Eldereft's comments are irrelevant, sofar as LLRC's public profile is concerned; they are scientifically ill-informed, so far as fringe theories go. And as for "notability", one wonders what test is being applied here. I have added comments on [
[23]]. Richard Bramhall, LLRC —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.153.142.82 (
talk) 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
It was Eldereft's comments I called "ill-informed". They are ill-informed in that they ignore what I have already written on this topic, pointing towards evidence that our concerns have considerable support and scientific substance. I have repeatedly said that the Conflict of Interest allegation is a denial of natural justice in a situation where LLRC was made the subject of a biased, hostile and unbalanced article, and I have repeatedly said that I did exercise great caution in addressing it. No-one has raised any concerns of substance about what I wrote, they only complain about me writing at all - a denial of natural justice.
I have only participated in the deletion debate to the extent of asking to see what, exactly, had been deleted (i.e. before it was restored) and then to answer the questions and the unfounded allegations levelled at LLRC during the debate itself. Refusing me leave to do so is another denial of natural justice. Please answer that specific point. If I do not defend us, who will? Remember we at LLRC didn't start this, and we're content to see the article deleted.
Please note, I have begun using a new user name, since people are now concerned about the name I used when I first registered Richard Bramhall
Catervula fimbriarum (
talk) 13:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
Wikipedia does not subscribe to " natural justice"?! I think I rest my case. I've said everything necessary at least once. Richard Bramhall Catervula fimbriarum ( talk) 11:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was - Delete - Snowball close and a Speedy G4 - article asserts far less notability than the one deleted via AfD in October 2007 - Peripitus (Talk) 03:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable event Editor437 ( talk) 03:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
No less remarkable than a US based University's (see: University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt) Scavenger Hunt. This is very remarkable, being the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere.
-- Jedi-Jesus ( talk) 07:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Maxim ( ☎) 21:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to weeping statue. The article does not demonstrate stand alone notability. Much of the material in this article is already redundant to that article and so was not necessary for a merge, but some small amount of material has been moved into the article along with documentation for one notable case. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Assessment comments[show]
The article Weeping painting has no references and a simple web search shows no clear references for the term either. It does not even mention a single example of a weeping painting (verified or not). It is a hopeless article. I suggest the article should be deleted. It is enough to make a Wikepedian weep. History2007 ( talk) 01:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. Maxim ( ☎) 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No meaningful content. Octane ( talk) 17:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability, other than 2 published works with an ISBN, but which may still be self-published. Previously created and deleted a number of times, with no visible improvement of content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Davy King is a nationally (Britain) published writer, performer & artist. As well as 2 publications with ISBNS, deposited in the Legal Deposit Libraries, there is work by him in the National Sound Archive & the Scottish Screen Archive. His work has been Broadcast on BBC Radio 4 & BBC One & BBC 2 TV. Dates for this could be provided.
WHO decides whom is notable? It seems to be rather a subjective judgement. There are people mentioned in Wiki who have achieved less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousexplorer ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
It can be VERIFIED that there is work by Davy King in the National Sound Archive (an Edinburgh Festival performance on Calton Hill circa 1983) & a performance video also featuring Norman MacCaig dated 1983 in the Scottish Screen Archive. These are nationally important institutions in Britain. They archive work that has some interest or cultural, historical importance.
The contents of the article are true & can be verified. For instance, he records of UCL & Stirling University could be checked.
Why is such time & effort being put into proposed vandalism ie deleting information about a cultural figure (however minor)? The article adds to the sum of human knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousexplorer ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable future tram stop. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete Undead Warrior ( talk) 13:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable future tram stop. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete Undead Warrior ( talk) 13:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable tram stop that has not been built yet. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete Undead Warrior ( talk) 13:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable future tram stop. Fails WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RS. Delete Undead Warrior ( talk) 13:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, this article covers a proposed definition created by a single man. The only Web source for this article is the author's Wordpress blog, and the original creator was the author himself. I think this subject clearly fails WP:OR (it is a piece of original research) and WP:COI as well, so I am nominating it for deletion. Angelo ( talk) 13:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Waggers ( talk) 21:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable tram stop that has not been built yet. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete Undead Warrior ( talk) 13:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
DELETE This is a non-notable song beyond its inclusion in the film Peter Pan (1953 film). It is not worthy of its own stub of an article and fails WP:Music#Songs. It is doubtful the article could ever grow beyond a stub, but attempted redirects to the film article have been reverted. It had been deleted following a previous PROD but recreated. Wolfer68 ( talk) 12:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I can't find any information about it anywhere, there are no sources and i can't find any. It may be true but theres no proof of it's existance... Jakisbak ( talk) 11:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability whatsoever. What semblance of notability there is seems related to other subjects, therefore content would better be placed in their respective articles. Raoulduke47 ( talk) 11:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:N , WP:NOT .This article is a joke and not encyclopaedic. It is about a teen music scene that is not special to South Wales in particular. It is a worldwide music scene and there are already pages written about it. Using this as a model you could quite easily have a page for any genre of music for every city/region in the world. Wikipedia would be full of entries like this.. Manhatten folk music scene, North London Reggae music scene, Washington R & B scene. ect. Harris578 ( talk) 10:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Article presents no substantial coverage that the game may have had from independent, reliable sources ( WP:N), or references of any kind ( WP:V). With only 400 ghits for "team mitei" (the usual directory entries, download sites, etc) I find it unlikely that it passes notability guidelines at this time. Marasmusine ( talk) 10:11, 25 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 I would normally relist this, but after two previous relistings the only possible closure is no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable or reliable sources cited Who let the goats out ( talk) 22:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and redirect, with Peter's solution implemented. Maxim ( ☎) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable golf course. The article (as of this nomination) is absent of references, and the content fails to explain why this course is different from any 18-hole haven. Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep -- I have followed up my suggestion and converted the article inot a stub on the village, with the text if the old article as a section of it. Having done that, I consider that the article is now a stub on a notable subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability guidelines for politicians. Previous AfD was 'Keep' based on his active status in an ongoing election that has since ended. Mmckee ( talk) 08:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 00:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Advertising. The article claims the team has 25 years experience in F1. In fact, the team founders have worked for Team Lotus in the 1980s and Litespeed F3 was founded only in 2007, running occasionally in the secondary class of the British F3 Championship's current season. No significant body of results yet. Speedy delete was refused.
Pc13 (
talk) 08:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was nominator withdrawal. [24] (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy ( talk) 01:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This looks like spam to me, just a link to to a web page, but it has been turned down for speedy deletion. I admittedly don't come from Perth, Western Australia, but I have never heard of it and I doubt that it is notable. Grahame ( talk) 07:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete: A mention in the local paper doesn't prove notability. If there are so many sources, please put them in the article, where there are currently none. A minor local activity with unproven notability does not deserve a Wiki article.--
Lester 09:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 18:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Prod reason was: "Unsigned band with one record: no reviews, haven't hit the charts, no other claims to notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod was removed with comment: "e-prodded - there is independent coverage (which is tantamount to a review) - will add this coverage momentarily". However, the two sources added are one press statement [25] (teh exact same text can be found on some 20 such sites [26], and one wiki-page [27] (user added comments, not professional journalistic content). No reliable independent sources available. Fram ( talk) 07:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable footballer DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 05:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Another contested WP:PROD. Fangame which does not show any verifiable, third-party sources as to why this may be notable to a real-world audience. MuZemike ( talk) 17:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete Dreadstar † 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bridge - being peripherally in the news once isn't the same as being newsworthy. -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 04:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Only source is not reliable and completely unverifiable. Google search on partial name turns up no hits besides this page. Wronkiew ( talk) 04:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 05:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
contested prod. games company that has released one port of someone elses game. this port may also still only be a demo version, see 4th ref. lacks secondary references that support any claim of notability. first ref is a press releases, second and third are trivial. none of them back up any claim of notability. external links include one secondary source (reliable? blog?) but that is more about the game Last Hope than about redspotgames Duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
band with only one independent release. lacks sources. many are listed but only one, an album review, (repeated, 2,6) mentions the band. no real claim to notability. fails WP:MUSIC Duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Do we generally delete articles about music rather than improving them? I followed the sources listed for reviews. I suspect that at the time the sources were added, the reviews were recent posts and so they appeared on the front pages of the sites, which is what the source refers to. I repaired these so that they point to the actual post. Also, if you know how to combine references, it would be cleaner for the source that is repeated to be listed once and referred to twice. Dscotese ( talk) 00:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable comic. The previous AfD discussion focused on the wrong point. This isa comic strip which also appears on the web, not the other way around. But the comic only appears in a college newspaper and has not received any independent attention from reliablke sources. Searching for the tile plus Esteves (the name of the author, which you would expect to appear in any serious discussion of the comic) gives only 53 distinct Google hits [28], which is rather poor for a comic which runs for ten years. The two books with comic strips appear to be self published. Fram ( talk) 13:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable hall of residence -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 04:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Article reads a lot like a manual. The article doesn't seem like it can ever be less than a manual. Cavenba ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as copyvio. Stifle ( talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notability of subject, as per apparent non-existence of independent corroboration of notability such as news articles or scholarly coverage; also apparent autobiography for primary purpose of self-promotion. Article created by now-defunct user Bond2234 (apparently the subject himself), with stylistic and internal evidence suggesting all subsequent substantive edits have been made, anonymously and without citation, by subject himself to promote commercial activities. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 04:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Maxim ( ☎) 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The subject of this article appears to lack sufficient notability for inclusion: the subject does not seem to have received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. This should perhaps not be surprising, given that the company is only five years old. An online search for sources, including a standard web search (searches performed: Trainorama, Ozmodoco, Tom's Hobbies) and Google News and Books searches, yields sources that are unreliable or provide only directory-level coverage of the company. In fact, most mentions of "Trainorama" are in reference to an unrelated model train convention and most hits for "Tom's hobbies" are to personal blogs or memorials for people named Tom. Proposed deletion of the article was contested, so I am bringing it to AfD for community review. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Repeatedly prodded Memphis-based underground rapper, producer, and public-access TV host. Only one passing WP:RS mention found. No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. The 2nd prod was dubiously reasoned, but this person is not notable. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Mynameisstanley ( talk) 05:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley reply
The result was merge to Discovery Toys. At this point, the article does not demonstrate notability for products with reliable sources. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Full disclosure, yes I just gutted the article but that was for copyvio, PR, OR, etc. issues. Nothing that affected notability. I don't find any evidence that this toy is notable. RS coverage is limited to the company talking about it, as well as company contractors saying how wonderful it is. Yes the company is a blue link but it's a sub-stub and I'm not entirely sure there's anything here worth merging. Thoughts? TravellingCari 15:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Syn ergy 06:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Editor created James Humphreys soon after this one, rather than moving this article Editor437 ( talk) 03:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Now redirects to James Humphreys (lawyer) - I think that should be ok familytree101 ( talk) 04:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect, to Schools of Ninjutsu, as redirects are cheap. Maxim ( ☎) 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable style of Ninjutsu, no assertion of notability and 45 g-hits. Nate 14 81 15:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Maxim ( ☎) 21:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
OK I know information about Burma isn't always easy to come by and ghits aren't the be all and end all, but I can't imagine that a notable book would return exactly 6ghits. Doesn't appear to be any record of this book, even the 2003 reprint. The article itself appears to be a list of the people mentioned in the book, some of whom appear to be notable but this doesn't add anything to it. Without information on which to expand this article, there's no evidence it passes WP:BK. Thoughts? Am happy to reconsider if someone can find information. TravellingCari 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable card game. Not much on Google. DimaG ( talk) 03:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. G11, promotional requiring rewrite. Ty 04:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
While I first tagged it as a Speedy. I'm not so sure now. There are no refs in reliable sources, which in itself is not a reason to delete. Google search shows works being hosted in various galleries.
Still not sure, if that counts as Notability. So here it is. ChiragPatnaik ( talk) 03:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please do something, we had nothing more as a desire to make informative page, now, this deletes just making name look unserious and damaging public image, i have nothing against your opinion, and actually rewrited material for page, so please do something to prevent this speedy delete be assosiated with name. it's damage for public image, once again
also why dont you use email instead blogging all over the web while your opinion is not expert, but for some reason it's popping up on top of google search, just some sort of black PR. no just look what are you doing. also you could write to e-mail in other sourses for artist work and ask, is your blogging really helps.
please remove this page from Wiki and google, we did not expected our desire to make informative and interesting page will command just loads of negative and empty talks on top of Google index. just think what are you doing here.
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable band, no reliable sources on the topic. They only have published one album (on an entirely unnotable record label). - Icewedge ( talk) 02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Stifle ( talk) 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Not having played in a fully professional regular season game, this player fails WP:ATHLETE. Possible recreation at end of first participation in a regular season game. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability or importance, WP is WP:NOT#MYSPACE, appears to fail WP:MUSIC Madcoverboy ( talk) 20:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no possibility of this article being verifiable because there are no references to the product in reliable sources ( WP:RS). Wronkiew ( talk) 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. PROD/dePROD in Jan 2007, then PROD again in Aug 2008; current PROD nominee's reasoning: no sources to indicate this person meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This is one of the lead analysts for ESPN, the biggest company in the sports business. Isn't that enough to keep this entry? It's hard to find 3rd-party sources because not a lot of major media is devoted to this growing industry (30+ million users). So we have to use sources like the FSWA (which was incorrectly deleted in my opinion). FantasyHistory ( talk)
The result was Speedy Delete. Lenticel ( talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This may be a hoax article or an article based upon fiction. Editor437 ( talk) 01:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 00:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopedic material unlikely to become encyclopedic. BCST2001 ( talk) 00:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Original research lacking content. In my opinion lacks hope of inclusion. Please note the article in question is "Knowledge Based/Knowledge Acquisition," not Knowledge Acquisition. BCST2001 ( talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, and possible hoax. There is no well-defined use of the phrase 'K-factor' in the field of statistics. (Google shows a multitude of unrelated uses of the term 'k-factor'). What are 'weighted, varying data points?' The phrase 'Lack of accounting for a multivariate distribution' makes no sense when he is clearly describing a univariate problem. This is surely a misunderstanding or a hoax. The article's creator has not been back to Wikipedia since June, so we can't ask him to clarify. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 ( talk) 00:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply