The result was no consensus to delete; whether or not to merge can be discussed at article talk page. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable magazine, few to no reliable sources. Halo ( talk) 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. Anybody who wants to merge it can do so. If disputed, the merge can be discussed on the talk page of the article. — CharlotteWebb 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail WP:CORP Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 23:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Also included in this nomination:
Another series of articles on a film company by one creator whose sole claim to fame is awards won at possible insignificant film festivals whose articles were created by the same user (see here for my last nomination of a similar series by this user). No news coverage. Only Ghits are to user driven sites (Myspace, IMDB, YouTube, etc.) and their official web site. No secondary sources. No reason to believe this company, their employees, and their films are at all notable. Articles fail WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:MOVIE. Redfarmer ( talk) 22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination Withdrawn, non-admin close. Redfarmer ( talk) 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising Dreamspy ( talk) 22:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Very unclear, article does not associate with the title, and it is on Greenpeace anyway. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 22:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to Select (SQL). There was a clear consensus that the subject is encyclopaedic. However, no convincing evidence was presented that this could ever be more than a stub. A merge looks a generally acceptable action. TerriersFan ( talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It doesn't give any information on the topic, very difficult to understand, needs more attention if it should stay on Wikipedia. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
These are not arguments under the WP deletion policy. Do you claim that the subject is not substantive enough that it can become a non-stub article? -- Macrakis ( talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete faithless (speak) 10:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Page fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL Cloudz679 ( talk) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. A redirect to satyr, planescape or anything else that seems appropriate I'll leave to those who have a view on which/what it should redirect to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Minimal Moderate in-game coverage, no evidence of third party coverage.
J Milburn (
talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Keep as notable to a real-world audience and consistent with a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Appeared in one supplement. No evidence of any real notability. J Milburn ( talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No evidence of third party coverage or in-game significance. J Milburn ( talk) 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep as notable to a real-world audience and consistent with a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Has appeared in a few supplements, but no evidence of third party coverage or in-game significance. J Milburn ( talk) 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No real in-game significance, no evidence of third party sources. Article seems reasonably substantial, so feel free to shoot me down on this one, if it is notable. J Milburn ( talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The only valid arguments to keep this article are based on WP:CRYSTAL, i.e., what he will do in the next future. As we cannot predict the future, notability guidelines for athletes and footballers easily overcome this. In case he will actually play a game in a fully professional league, please knock on my talk page and I will easily restore it. -- Angelo ( talk) 22:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (friendly games do not count towards the criteria). Article has been deleted twice already following uncontested prods for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete faithless (speak) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Notability faliure: Player has not played at professional level, therefore fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE (friendly matches and youth internationals do not count under either set of criteria and having a squad number does not confer notability) English peasant 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. faithless (speak) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable until it's built. ukexpat ( talk) 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
THIS IS REAL - SLATED FOR COMPLETION IN FALL 2010
It will be the tallest building in Seattle to be constructed since 1990, and the first ever to be designed to LEED Gold Standards.
^^It is already notable. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 04:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. My searches for sources were as fruitful as the ones discussed below, unfortunately. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Academic that doesn't quite meet WP:PROF. [2] I see no coverage of the professor in multiple independent reliable sources. Article is completely unreferenced. Need the community to take a gander at this. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted at 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC) by Geogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per CSD G3 (vandalism). cab ( talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Another Sonic game with no reference, not even believed to be real! Doktor Wilhelm 20:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Although Life on Mars is definately notable, individual episodes should show notability on their own. WP:NOTABILITY says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I can't see this episode as getting that. I suppose this is a test case for Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes episodes. JASpencer ( talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete faithless (speak) 02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. No tours or notable label. No third party sources. Delete Undeath ( talk) 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Notability is asserted. Non-admin close. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not convinced this person is notable enough for inclusion. Many references are given but most are not reliable and some do not mention the subject. MSGJ ( talk) 19:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close Article has an A7 tag on it; and given that the content is "scott cameron gives out free tickets to children hu can not afford them.", I doubt the A7 will be declined. Speedy delete A7. Non-admin closure.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 19:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
CSD A7. Non-notable spam. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Seems like there are multiple sources to be cited out there, which gets rid of the WP:N concern. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Point of view in article (could not find CSD template to fit) George D. Watson (Dendodge). Talk Help 18:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted per G12 (copyvio) by Seresin. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy deletion under CSD G11 - insufficiently noted by reliable sources — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 18:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete faithless (speak) 02:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish notability through use of reliable sources. Wizardman 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination Withdrawn.(non admin close) Undeath ( talk) 06:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails
WP:PROF and
WP:N, with notability not beign addressed since tag put up in April.
Wizardman 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Notability has certainly been satisfied. Note that it had been tagged with problems for nearly a year, I figured someone would've at least looked in that timespan. I withdraw my nom. Thanks to Jfire, who went and improved the article in rather short order.
Wizardman 15:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A mere grouping of three places in northern Venice? Which it.... isn't... I confess I don't understand the idea of this page. No response as of yet from the creator, and he or she was messaged only 1 minute after the article was created. SGGH speak! 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tikiwont ( talk) 09:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Could be notable, but article as it stands fails to establish notability. Wizardman 17:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. This was close to no consensus, but the arguments for keeping were, on the whole, more compelling, and many of the delete arguments were effectively rebutted. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No establishment of referenced notability, appears to fail WP:N at this time. Wizardman 17:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Nandesuka ( talk) 11:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No improvement to the article since questionable notability tag put up back in April. Procedural nom, I have no opinion on the matter. Wizardman 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, as owners of major league sports teams are inherently notable. Blueboy 96 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The article does not assert the company's notability WP:ORG ColinFine ( talk) 17:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all three. Fram ( talk) 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Okay, I admit, I probably shouldn't have made this page. This is just a live album that Trace Adkins cut at some point; although Trace is very notable, this album doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable sources at all. Yes, I realize that 99% of albums released by notable artists are notable as well; however, the lack of coverage here has me believing that this album falls into that other 1%. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The subject " fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" as the article shows no evidence that the topic is notable per WP:MUSIC which states "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines.", WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no evidence of such coverage within the article. Guest9999 ( talk) 13:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Brother of famous people does not make him famous. Only has a couple of walk on parts in his IMDB entry. JASpencer ( talk) 16:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Maybe if this guy did something worth making an article about...-- Carerra" Chatter" 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Either original research or copy/pasted from somewhere. No references, and not in an encyclopedic format. Alvestrand ( talk) 16:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Whether or not to move the individual names to a separate List of archetypal names can be decided elsewhere. — CharlotteWebb 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
We have a page that as of yet cannot even provide a source for the title of the page! A long list without a few sources. Some of this list pertaining to supposed ethnic slurs. The page looks to me like a list of slurs, stereotypes, and names of famous people that someone decided are "archetypal names," and listed them together. OR to the max. Sethie ( talk) 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
*Keep article is in poor condition (I especially don't understand a word of the section about Abraham, which doesn't seem to be about archetypal names at all) but that's a reason to improve, not delete. NB We have many pages which have no sources at all - we delete those for which a source cannot be found, not those for which one has not yet been provided. --
Dweller (
talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
*:You've already nominated the article for deletion. I think the closing admin will know you think it should be deleted. --
Dweller (
talk) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
*:::...and, importantly, it's not a vote. You can find out more about how the process works at
WP:AFD and links from there. --
Dweller (
talk) 15:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
On reflection, I think I've gone over the edge from helpful to patronising and I apologise to Sethie, because I think my tone was inappropriate. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet notability guidelines for football (soccer) players. Franky843 ( talk) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears non-notable and failing WP:MUSIC. Only myspace and one mp3 website cited is a big give away. Supporting LA Guns I don't think makes them particularly notable, zero ghits, no albums or songs listed. "Downloads in the thousands" is uncited. SGGH speak! 16:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete This is simple. No sources. -- Carerra" Chatter" 16:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Yes, simple. Professor marginalia ( talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete this league hasn't even begun play, so are its players notable (yet)? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet notability guidelines for football (soccer) players. Article was previously deleted for this reason.
Delete Professor marginalia ( talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Vanity page for non-notable radio presenter/DJ. All references are affiliated with the subject. Jfire ( talk) 16:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was an incomprehensible mess. Evaluating this discussion was extremely difficult due to the large number of IPs and new accounts contributing to this. As such, I'm closing this discussion and relisting it so we can hash this out. Blueboy 96 14:56, 9 March 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}} . |
Advertisement, not-notable Imacreditcard ( talk) 16:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Alex Forster ( talk) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
KeepSkyOS is a popular hobbyist operating system, and is notable and identifiable enough for a Wikipedia entry. The article should be tagged as reading like an advertisement and corrected, and deletion is totally unnecessary. tapo ( talk) 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep It should not be deleted, information about this Operating System should be available for anyone. The atricle about SkyOS needt to be updated, It needs to be extended. This is not an advertention, it's information. And it should be able to be on wikipedia, like there is information about a lot of other operating systems. -- A-v-S ( talk) 14:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC) — A-v-S ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep It seems that this argument is raised more against the philosophy behind SkyOS, rather than the SkyOS article itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.43.167 ( talk) 19:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep It's a long-standing article (active since at least 2004) about a popular, actively-developed piece of software, and it gives relevant and non-biased information. It is by no means an advertisement. Take a look at the content, and even the page history: nothing here is an advertisement any more than the OS X page is an advertisement. And as to irrelevancy, try searching for articles containing "skyos". At least fifteen computer-related articles mention it ON WIKIPEDIA. I think a user with otherwise no history on Wikipedia has learned the procedures for deletion and is now wasting our time. Alex Forster, 68.32.200.186 ( talk) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC) — 68.32.200.186 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep per above reasons. ArcAngel ( talk) 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Shall we mark the Windows and Osx pages for deletion as well? It is not because a product is a commercial product that it cannot have a wikipedia page. If people are not happy with the (contents of the) article they should discuss this first. The page is not intended as advertising but to provide information to people that want to know more. The comments above already indicate well enough the weak reasons for deletion... Peter Speybrouck — 157.193.5.103 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC). reply
Keep Shall we mark the Windows and Osx pages for deletion as well? It is not because a product is a commercial product that it cannot have a wikipedia page. If people are not happy with the (contents of the) article they should discuss this first. The page is not intended as advertising but to provide information to people that want to know more. The comments above already indicate well enough the weak reasons for deletion... Peter Speybrouck — 157.193.5.103 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC). reply
Keep I agree with Peter above me, this is not a form of advertising, if you think so then you need to deleted half the articles on wikipedia.... Liam Dawe — 82.46.55.243 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC). reply
Re: Mentions-
Alex Forster, 68.32.200.186 ( talk) 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep SkyOS deserves an entry. The article does need a rewrite and proper formatting but I think it's improving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A305w ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 March 2008
Keep Keep per aforementioned reasons. -- Stormwatch ( talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep I agree the article is not as it should be, but why waste time discussing its deletion when it can be used to correct it?
The result was delete faithless (speak) 02:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable author. My research indicates that his book received only blurb reviews of the type found in Library Journal. Web searches reveal that he may be the husband of Bobbie Ann Mason and may have worked as an editor at Rodale Press, but I cannot locate any significant coverage of him (or his book). Jfire ( talk) 15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete, article was self-created created article signed talk Professor marginalia ( talk) 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per CSD G5. – Steel 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Reporting of missing girl assumes future notability (fails WP:N#TEMP). Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The materials linked by the Pumpkin King are very much on point. Redirecting Otenba to Tomboy would be an editorial matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
While I wouldn't be opposed to a well-written, well-sourced article called Tomboys in fiction or Tomboys in popular culture, this sprawling list consists entirely of original research and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 15:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Also nominating:
I am bundling the article Otenba into this deletion discussion because it consists of nothing more than a short dictionary definition and a sprawling, unsourced list of fictional tomboys similar to the List of tomboys in fiction.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article dose NOT deserve to be deleted, nothing here has to be from an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiacatcrimson ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Notable topic, discriminate list, covered in academic journals and books. I am not opposed to a rename of the article as Tomboys in fiction that expands on the information covered in these sources, but still includes the relevant examples from the list. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Tomboys in popular culture, which is in better shape than this article and more appropriately titled. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, referring to Spider-Man (film series)#Future until there is consensus to branch it out. Tikiwont ( talk) 09:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:CRYSTAL all the way. The film has been confirmed but that's about it. There's not even confirmation whether Tobey Maguire will be back or not. On top of that, the entire page is ripped from the page for Spider-Man 3. Fails WP:NFF. Redfarmer ( talk) 14:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CRYSTAL, makes this game un-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete faithless (speak) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article was already deleted per this discussion, but recreated at some point. It might qualify for CSD G4, but just in case it does not, delete it because it consists entirely of original research. I would also ask you to think twice before suggesting we merge this list into the main article Spoiled brat. This unsourced garbage doesn't belong there either. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 14:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
You leave it alone, It is going to stay like it or not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiacatcrimson ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. CWii( Talk| Contribs) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Borderline notability. He's a minor counties and second 11 cricket player and I'm not sure that this will get him in through WP:BIO. JASpencer ( talk) 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute that it's the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike, including the very high profile Justice League film, Pinkville, Johnny Depp's Shantaram among many others. It's not just those affected by the strike; Jurassic Park IV, which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, was actually supposed to be released in 2005, and we don't even have a separate article for the (now delayed by another year) Hobbit film yet. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice when production is finally confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Argument on article deletion Do as you wish, but just for your information, the sole reason I created this article is because the main ThunderCats article, which is in severe need of cleanup, had a notification suggesting that a new article be created for the upcoming film. Was that a poor call on behalf of a Wikipedia administrator?
In addition, Wikipedia has a Category for 2010 films, which means that it includes articles on films currently in production and projected for a 2010 release just like ThunderCats. There may not be a great deal of information on this film yet, but the information we do have is well founded. If this is going to be deleted to do Writers Guild strike postponements, I'm sure there are plenty of other film articles read to be deleted as well. Cale ( talk) 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, since there is agreement that the lack of reliable sources has not been overcome, which does not only affect an important guideline, but also a core policy. Tikiwont ( talk) 10:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, of a non-notable rare roguelike game [12]. Deprod reason is given as "removed prod template. I believe the deletion of this article may be controversial given the References section". Other then some blogish references in discussion about an open source version there are no reliable reference to the 1980's version of the game. The open source version is described in the article as "At present, development continues sporadically as a SourceForge project directed by William Tanksley". With no reliable sources for the original version and no notability for the incomplete open source version this article Fails WP:N and WP:V Jeepday ( talk) 14:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable, un-verified. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Omega is a real game. I spent many hundreds of hours playing it years ago, as well as porting it to new platforms, fixing the innumerable bugs (anyone else remember "grot"?) and otherwise being completely obsessed with it. Despite that, it's one of the most obscure games in the genre, and has received almost no attention from reliable sources appropriate for citation in Wikipedia. Someday, perhaps someone will write a book that has a chapter about Omega. At that point, we can re-write the article. But until such sources exist, we'll have to be consistent in our treatment of it. Nandesuka ( talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete For the reasons noted above. Eusebeus ( talk) 16:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Because it's one of the "obscure" games, it fails WP:N in my book. ArcAngel ( talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep - As Pixelface points out, there are numerous references to it within the rougelike genre. Obscure doesn't mean non-notable. -- clpo13( talk) 05:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn magazine Mayalld ( talk) 16:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. CWii( Talk| Contribs) 01:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
In and among the press releases and earnings statements there's one article about the community's response to the company's planned expansion but I find no evidence that the company is notable or passes WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 15:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect to Walt Disney World. Blueboy 96 13:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This is not an article. It's a mirror of Template:WDW Resorts. — Whoville ( talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The only criterion under which they're argued as notable is the base criterion of non-trivial coverage in third party reliable sources; User:Hello Control effectively refutes this. In any event, there seems to be only one editor supporting keeping the article. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 17:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group. One album, no hits, minimal media attention. Claim of a tour is not supported by references. Fails WP:MUSIC. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, with no prejudice against possible merger. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 17:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
With permission, and upon the archiving of this AfD discussion, I will perform the redirect. -- Wolfer68 ( talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect to Cauldwell#Education. The school is already mentioned there, so I will leave it to other editors to be bold if they want to merge any more content. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This middle school is not notable. The three sentence article is just a basic listing. AnteaterZot ( talk) 09:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I really dont see why Abbey middle school should be deleted, all other middle schools in Bedford are listed on wikipedia. For the purposes of classification Bedfordshire LEA classes its Middle Schools as secondary schools and some of the middle schools originally started life as secondary-Modern Schools. Why should Abbey Middle School not have its own wikipedia article when other middle schools in Bedford do? Bleaney ( talk) 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I have now researched and greatly expanded the article on Abbey Middle School. I really now think the wikipedia article should stand. Bleaney ( talk) 14:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as obvious spam. Author blocked as a spam-only account. Blueboy 96 13:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources to indicate notability or more than local interest. Clear case of COI: only contributions of author Marquee Mag ( talk · contribs) are this article and insertion in other articles of references to it and links to its website. PROD removed by author. JohnCD ( talk) 11:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete faithless (speak) 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:V. These sources [32], [33] are two news releases and do not describe the subject in detail. Google search shows 18 ghits [34], but significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable source is lacking. No hint in google news search [35]. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 07:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. May possibly be notable in the future, but this is just advertising. Black Kite 10:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete advertising for a nn product unveiled at last month's CES, just shy of blatant spam, but spam it is nonetheless. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn per article improvements, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails
WP:RS and
WP:BIO.
Otolemur crassicaudatus (
talk) 08:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawing nom, sources have been given now and notability established. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, A7 as notability was not even asserted. Blueboy 96 08:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 08:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, G7--blanked by author. Blueboy 96 08:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 08:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 08:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 08:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tikiwont ( talk) 09:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable former local politician with criminal conviction. News coverage appears to be strictly local based on Google search and check of some major newsgathering sites. Risker ( talk) 07:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Canley ( talk) 12:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply
individual book not notable; notable author is not "so historically significant" per WP:BOOK. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete both as demonstratable hoaxes. Author has been warned as well. Blueboy 96 14:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I suspect these two articles (the only contributions from their creator) are a hoax. Google searches on various variants of the titles return nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. Jfire ( talk) 06:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable university student. Her only news coverage is in connection with protests of a university lecturer. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT. Jfire ( talk) 06:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep faithless (speak) 11:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Empty, no context, no explanation. An album article which contains nothing but a track list is not an encyclopedia article. My speedy tag was removed with no explanation and no notification. Corvus cornix talk 05:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC) NOTE - Moved to The Romance of Helen Trent (album), since the capitalization of "of" was wrong, and there's an article already for the correct cap. —Torc. ( Talk.) 07:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep meets notability. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Despite appearances, this actually isn't even particularly close, given the various "keep" votes with no defense and the assorted SPAs on the keep side. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The current entry is an example of original research and an opinion piece on current affairs in Ukraine. It violates at least the following two wikipedia policies - WP:No original research and WP:SOAP, and consequently should be deleted.-- Riurik (discuss) 05:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Oh and there is this quote from Raisa Bogatyreva, secretary of the Council for National Security and Defense. (If this is not a political crisis what is. Wiki will have egg on its face).
Ukrainian President to Dissolve Parliament
“ | Due to the growing threat to the national security, the crisis of political forces in the parliament… Ukrainian president retains the right granted by the Constitution and Supreme Rada’s regulations to decide on consulting with political forces about the prospects for continuation of Supreme Rada’s authority. This decision could be taken by the president if the parliament's work remains blocked in the nearest days and if it doesn’t set to performing the constitutional duties . [1]. | ” |
The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 17:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Although this show might eventually air in the Philippines, it's too soon to create an article for it, per WP:NOT (Wikipidia is not a crystalball).
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
- Danngarcia ( talk) 05:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete faithless (speak) 11:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Google searches yield nothing notable about the American band, other than the wiki page. No national tours or notable label. Delete Undeath ( talk) 05:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Evidently too much uncertainty and crystal-bally for the time being. The injunction has been lifted now. I would observe that the 4-fold relisting here was ridiculous. If there is no consensus, the article survives, and it should not be repeatedly relisted until the decision becomes trivial for the closing admin - this AfD has festered for more than a month. In this case, I'm obviously considering all the presented arguments up to this, eventual closure time. - Splash - tk 00:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This episode has been speculated to be in the running order for season 7 for weeks, first being speculated to be airing in November, then December 27. It cites no reliable sources for an episode article. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Will ( talk) 14:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
(template moved to top)
Relisted' Jerry' talk ¤ count/logs 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete nancy (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Complete WP:OR with "references" to home pages of companies purporting to strip HDCP (but still is OR). If it was properly sourced, it might be valid on the HDCP page, but user refuses to do so. The exact same text was added to four different pages and was reverted off all of them. The article isn't even titled correctly (should be HDCP). New User who only edits on this topic is attempting to end run around Wikipedia sourcing rules. KelleyCook ( talk) 05:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD G12, since in my understanding the mentioned injunction does not apply to successive copy-right violations nor do we merge in such a case. Tikiwont ( talk) 12:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable fictional character and is a copy of the article at the more appropriate Memory Alpha. ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 00:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 05:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A college hockey player--search of Yahoo or Google turns up no awards won at the college level, and no instances of being named an All-America. Therefore, fails WP:BIO. Blueboy 96 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by User:Seicer, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 04:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No google hits for supposed actor; likely fictional. Also non-notable. PROD was contested by original submitter. bd_ ( talk) 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Fails WP:N. Original research with no sources that reads like a promotional brochure/ user guide. Fails WP:NOR, WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:V and WP:RS. Shamelessly directs the reader to the download page for the software, so also touches upon WP:SPAM. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by User:Seicer ,non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability and no ghits except for this article Grahame ( talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, taking into account the rather clear consensus of those who assessed the revised version and its sources. Tikiwont ( talk) 09:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod was contested on the grounds that the creator intends to improve the article. Problem is, when the concern is notability (as it was), the article could be a masterpiece and still be up for deletion. This article is about a primary school whose main claim to notability is that it was built on the site of a house owned by a famous explorer. Still, Delete. Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 03:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, as there is no verifiable content to merge. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased album ( crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and only MySpace for a reference. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Merge - into The Real SeanJon until more references appear. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. This article was speedily deleted on Feb. 26, and was subsequently contested by Gordon Laird on DRV. The discussion closed with a result of overturn and list on AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:N ukexpat ( talk) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination Withdrawn.(non admin close) Undeath ( talk) 06:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply
PROD was removed and I am listing this article as a result. I see no sources backing up claims of notability. As such, it fails
WP:BAND and is a very
WP:NN subject.
Scarian
Call me Pat 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Nom withdrawn.
Scarian
Call me Pat 09:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Comment: Article complies to the following of
Wikipedia:MUSIC /
WP:BAND:
Noban (
talk) 02:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Struck and blocked. Confirmed sock. Scarian Call me Pat 03:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
85.164.157.152 ( talk) 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete: author has requested deletion; I've speedied it; nothing further to do. Non-admin closure — TreasuryTag talk contribs 07:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
May not meet WP:BIO. Could not find any reliable sources indicating notability when searching on Google for "nancy marie" actress or "nancy marie" actor. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep nancy (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable comic book artist, speedy deleted twice for lack of an assertion of notability, bringing to AfD at the request of the author. Mr Senseless ( talk) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Typical high middle school with no assertion of
notability. Appears to have mostly been a backdrop for a large number of speedied articles relating to a choir from that school. —
Coren
(talk) 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Video game with no independent verification and no assertion of notability. — Coren (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable, etc, as others have commented above. From the article history, I suspect that BiGfrend ( talk · contribs) is here to spam us. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY KEEP as a bad faith nomination. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
little know politician who is not very relavent to Canadian politics Mountainhighmoon ( talk) 06:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Complete original research and perpetual spam magnet Will ( talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply