The result was Speedy Keep per nom. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete This article has been created by me previously and I messed up on something and I don't know how to delete pages. Thebluesharpdude ( talk) 04:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk - Contribs) 14:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased game by unknown studio which has had a mostly blank page since 2006. Simply isn't notable at this point in time. This article should be created after the game is actually released. AmethystPhoenix ( talk) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. An article on a "comedy writing duo" whose only public work appears to be Proud & Prejudiced: A Gigolo's Tale, available through self-publisher lulu.com. Two of the three references provided are sourced through the subjects' website; the third is "customer reviews" found at lulu.com (a clear failure of WP:V). Possibly a WP:COI. The creation of Mike ay a WP:SPA who claims to be the copyright holder of the image of Harris & Harrison included in the article. Prod was removed by an IP with the explanation "Do not think article should be deleted - article has been improved with editing changes". In fact, no editing took place between the application and removal of the prod tag. Victoriagirl ( talk) 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a list of story arcs in the xxxHolic manga series. The list essentially constitutes an extended storyline (i.e. plot summary) without substantial real-world content, and the classification of these various (fictional) events and sequences as deliberate story arcs may constitute an original synthesis based on primary sources. (To be honest, I'm somewhat confused as to how some of the entries qualify as story arcs: e.g. "At the beginning of the arc, Yuko complains about how hot it is because of the Japanese summer. Later, Yuko decides to hold a ceremony with Watanuki, Doumeki, and Himawari at Doumeki's temple.") There is also the issue of notability: while there are many websites that mention story arcs in the xxxHolic series, there does not seem to be non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Black Falcon--
Anyway, for what it's worth, I don't think that this article should be deleted. Edited? Maybe, but then again I don't know -- that's what an article's discussion page is for.
NBahn (
talk) 01:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
P.S. -- I see that Collectonian disagrees with me. I respcect his/her editing and suspect that his/her viewpoint will carry the day.
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to pass WP:WEB The Evil Spartan ( talk) 23:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable neoglism, article possibly created to push a website. Serious original research problems. Prod removed by author without comment. J Milburn ( talk) 23:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
-- 5thworldart ( talk) 15:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I should probably speedy this, but let's get some eyes. Unreferenced with disparaging comments about living individuals violating WP:BLP. But deletion is probably best as whilst the individuals may be noteworthy lumping them together as a mafia-style family is clearly loaded and prejudicial. Especially without any sources dealing with them as such. Docg 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. Editors undertaking to perform this merge are reminded to follow WP:MERGE, for the sake of the GFDL. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 09:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school. Attempt to redirect to local school district reverted without explanation. No reliable secondary sources cited in article, none found in a Google search. Beeblbrox ( talk) 22:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted without prejudice to recreating this article once the novel is released. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure about this one. PROD removed by anonymous IP, saying "I don't see why it should be deleted if there's an official author announcement." The specific guideline at WP:BK#Not yet published books is quite clear that articles about not yet published books "are generally discouraged unless multiple independent sources provide strong evidence that the book is widely anticipated"; that is in line with the general notability guideline, and serves a useful purpose in discouraging use of Wikipedia for advertisement by every author who announces a book. This article clearly fails that standard - the only source is the author's web-site; and this is the only contribution of the originator Zachary yamada ( talk · contribs), raising the suspicion that it is promotion. On the other hand, we don't appear to apply this standard in practice: Category:Upcoming books has over 200 entries. I looked at half a dozen at random and none, not one, cited any independent source; some did not even have a publication date. Have we, in effect, given up on the notability standard? I make no recommendation, I would like to see what the consensus is. JohnCD ( talk) 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is an instruction manual written by a single editor. It also appears to be, loosely, an advertisement. George D. Watson (Dendodge). Talk Help 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 04:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article violates WP:CRYSTAL. There are not much sources, no need for such speculative article. Any noteworthy information can be merged into the article French Navy. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actress, appearances in two shorts are her only claim of notability. Corvus cornix talk 21:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is given no context. If Conceptualist is a personality type, what typology is it a part of? Either there should be an article about the typology with the Conceptualist and Experimentalist types described in it (since they're stubs now anyway), or it should be deleted as non-notable. ParagonDoD ( talk) 06:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect. There has been an effort already undertaken by Pixelface and others to merge the content. The consensus here is rather split, about 1:1 (weighted) to delete or keep/merge. That results in a non-consensus that defaults to keep. Since the "keep" stances are primarily merge, and since the merge has already been done...I'll finish the redirects (and keep the history of each new redirect intact per GFDL.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Also including:
Contested prod, and someone reverted the redirects on all of these. Cruft with no reliable third party sources or references. Fails WP:FICT. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per Wikipedia:Deletion policy by benefit of the doubt. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
An underground group. No coverage. Eleassar my talk 10:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Collaborations with notable artists such as KK Null, DJ Surgeon, Eraldo Bernocchi.
Interviews in printed media (Dnevnik, Muska) and national radio and TV stations (TV Slovenija, Radio Slovenija), in 90's.
Sources:
"PUREH - ena od najbolj pomembnih elektronskih skupin z začetka slovenske scene elektronske glasbe." http://www.radiostudent.si
"Ne znam dal je ulazak u europsku uniju imao kakvih utjecaja na ovu slovensku skupinu, no, ovo je album na europskom nivou, ako vec ne na svjetskom." http://www.terapija.net
"Hier ist die Schnittstelle zwischen Hochkultur und Popkultur in diesem Werk vereint." http://www.elektrauma.de
"Pure H delajo glasbo, katera je za slovensko sceno vec kot potrebna. Tudi novi album je pomemben del tega mozaika, saj je izredno kvaliteten in unikaten izdelek." http://www.radiostudent.si
"This album is a must for lovers of unique IDM and for people in search of a new sound. Absolute brilliant!" http://www.cuemix-magazine.com
"Unterhalb der ranzigen Mainstream Fettschicht wächst der Electro Underground und bringt interessante Gewächse wie „Anadonia“ zum Erblühen." http://www.musik.terrorverlag.de
"Menite, da v domovini ni muskontarjev, ki bi stružili zlobni, darkerski drum&bass, breakbeat in ambientalo, da ne premoremo nikogar, ki bi z zvokom in sliko, pa brez jokavega patosa ustvaril razklano vzdušje razklanega, izkoreninjenega sveta? Znova premislite in si omislite plošcek menda tajske crede konjev, ki brcajo kot štirje in drevijo kot Pegaz." http://www.mladina.si
"On Signia we are dealing with a musical expression of truly renewing free minds." http://www.compulsiononline.com
"PureH are a successful electronic rock band out of Slovenia" http://brainwashed.com
"Eden izmed najboljših izdelkov letošnjega leta. Zveni moderno, eklekticno, cvrsto. 10 modernih produkcij, skoordiniranih iz naše majhne državice." http://www.rockonnet.com
"Prvoborci domacega elektro preporoda v devetdesetih, pogojno celo novorockerji." http://www.rtvslo.si
"Et l'inconvénient pressenti, de devenir un véritable avantage, quand apres plusieurs écoutes, on finit face a cette conception de l'électro, qu'on aime retrouver : plurielle et innovante. L'effet "bordélique" évité, et mis de côté quelques longueurs, on peut reconnaître la une réelle réussite." http://www.dmute.net
"So hat PUREH bereits auf der Hannoveraner Weltausstellung 2000 gespielt und ich könnte mir die Klänge gut im Rahmen von Ausstellungen der bildenden Kunst oder bei Videoinstallationen vorstellen." http://backagain.de
"PureH drenches one with an array of sonic abrasions that Nine Inch Nails couldn’t call window dressing." http://www.smother.net
"PureH is a band from Slovenia and active in the underground electro music scene since 1993." Rigodon Netherlands
"Skupina z basistom in odlicnim bobnarjem, ki sta nadgrajevala elektroniko, je nastopila v temi, tako da je glasba delovala kot nekakšen soundtrack." http://www.dnevnik.si
"Nisem še doživel takšnega hard core koncerta!" Revija Muska
J3az6u ( talk) 02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
An underground and not notable band. No independent sources. Eleassar my talk 10:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 05:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory swa q 20:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 12:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
per WP:FICT. No references. No real-world information. The JPS talk to me 20:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrew. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 10:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable kitchen utensil.
Polly (
Parrot) 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Withdraw nom.
Polly (
Parrot) 02:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedily Deleted A7 -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 00:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, no coverage in reliable third party sources. Polly ( Parrot) 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NEO, and WP:NOT. Does not belong in an encyclopedia Hu12 ( talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into The Dark Crystal. Sheffield Steel talk stalk 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Film seems to be lost in "development hell", as there is no current information on the status of the project. The article says production is expected to begin in 2006. The production blog for the movie dried up a long time ago. Therefore, delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Beeblbrox ( talk) 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The Unknown Hitchhiker 20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Hut 8.5 21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Today's entry from CAT:HOAX. This village does not exist. The grid reference given is a one-kilometre square in the location described, but the Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 map, which is detailed enough to show individual farms, does not show "Monvilla", there or anywhere nearby. To check the map, go to the Ordnance Survey website here, click the large pink button and enter SJ325375 in the search box. You can try entering "Monvilla", but if you have popups blocked you won't see the popup which says the Ordnance Survey can't find it.
A quick look at Google does give the impression that this place exists; but I think automatic systems must have been picking it up from this article (which has been in for more than two years) because, when you try to pin Monvilla down, it fades away like a mirage. "Thetownguide.com" has an entry for it under Shropshire here; but if you scroll down the long list of villages and click on "Monvilla" there is no information. If you then choose "aerial photo and road map", you get a map of Tennessee because "The closest match for 'Monvilla, Shropshire' is 'Monoville, Smith, Tennessee, United States'". "England for all" has a page about it here, but it doesn't say anything, and the "Books about Monvilla" it offers are just general books to do with Shropshire. I can't find anything about its "Druidic temple" either.
Originator Nikolas.Evans ( talk · contribs) has made no other constructive edits.
Delete as a hoax article which may have been misleading other sites. JohnCD ( talk) 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't pass notability - there are four links on the page - one to the movie's site, three that each have a one-paragraph description of the film (two of those are exactly the same). Furthermore, the page was up for Speedy since a large portion of it is copied from fatherhooddreams.com, though the creator of the article says he wrote the words and is granting copyright - or something like that, but it's murky. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Bduke ( talk) 10:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per WP:N and WP:V. -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 15:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Canadian radio sportscaster. Unable to verify claims in the article with any independent sources. No references. It does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines. Only source I could find was his bio on his blog page. Gtstricky Talk or C 21:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Rock and Roll Jesus. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It's been tagged as non-notable and unreferenced for some days, but nothing has been done about that. The song fails WP:MUSIC for songs, because it has not charted. The only possible claim of notability is the guest performance of Billy Powell of Lynyrd Skynyrd, but this information is unsourced, as well. Victao lopes ( talk) 19:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Bduke ( talk) 10:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per WP:BIO. Though a hit in google returns few pages with this name but still notability is not sufficient to pass WP:BIO. -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 14:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete no sources or references and badly written Dreamspy ( talk) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to album per precendence, as set out at WP:MUSIC guidelines. History intact per GFDL. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song. After removing lyrics of the song from the article, which was a copyvio, article rehashes information already in All The Hype That Money Can Buy, the article on the album the song comes from. No indication of significant secondary source coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer ( talk) 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per copyright infringement of http://www.hillwallack.com/web-content/news/article_v18n1_10.html. 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This page contains original research, is clearly biased, does not meet any of Wikipedia's style guidelines, and appears to simply act as an advertisment for Ms Hardwick RJE42 ( talk) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep - article simply requires some good old fashion cleanup. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic, and no attempt at finding sources seen since last AfD. This article was created quite a while ago by a now-banned user (some of the details are in the first AfD) who was apparently only interested in having the article say what he wanted; the article was lively until the socks were cleaned out, and all of a sudden there was no one there. The earlier consensus to keep leaned strongly in favor of there needing to be better sources for the article. Seven months later, nothing has really changed, except for some repetitive header vandalism. Each one of these types of pipes already has its own article, and there is nothing of substance that can be said that isn't already in one of the other articles in more depth. MSJapan ( talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The Unknown Hitchhiker 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, removed by author. Article was originally PROD'd for being pure WP:OR. Cites no secondary sources; fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A perspective but still underground group. Their biggest success was winning the contest of the Festival Nova scena (festival that tries to promote unknown musicians) in 2005. -- Eleassar my talk 10:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Check out this: "Festival of new songs is a festival for new and non-notable musicians from Slovenia and abroad." Source: http://www.evrovizija.com/?content=36&item_id=69
J3az6u ( talk) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a biography of a Judge that only gets 2 google hits, and the references provided only mention his name in a list at the bottom of the page. Fails notability. Mars2035 ( talk) 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems unnotable, I know it is not a reason for deletion, but as evidence you can see his last.fm page only has 9000 or so plays. αѕєηιηє t/ c 20:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete author has tried hard to make subject look notable - but clearly isn't. Dreamspy ( talk) 23:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I PRODded this article, but the PROD was removed with the comment "full professor with two books, probably notable". We need more evidence than that to pass WP:PROF BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. Seems to meet WP:PROF. Article could use better sourcing though, (and is already tagged as such). No valid reasons to delete have been presented, IMO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus to delete. A merge may be appropriate but should probably be proposed in connection with merging other related articles. Eluchil404 ( talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Cruft, article makes no assertion of real world significance outside of the fictional Marvel Universe Whit stable 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Just for the record, it should be noted that George the Dragon and Whitstable are the same person. BOZ ( talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. TigerShark ( talk) 14:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems unnotable, and doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BAND. Also, low last.fm count. αѕєηιηє t/ c 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Sourcing is adequate to satisfy WP:BLP, although the article in its current state does not meet the standard footnoting conventions, as the added maintenance tags have highlighted. This is a matter for editing, not deletion. Office actions for the ticket can override this AFD or outright separately delete the article, but do not directly influence the consensus of an AfD debate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
An individual who is asserted to e an art forger, but we have OTRS ticket 2008022810020292 that asserts otherwise. Either way this does not look to be a notable art forger or artist. Tom Keating this is not. Sourcing is way too thin for a biography this negative. Guy ( Help!) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 15:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable book written by a non-notable author and published by an obscure company. Does not meet any of the criteria set out in WP:BK. Only three citations which are from the author's website, a list of a radio show lineup (with no mention of the book at all) and the book's purchase page on Amazon. Lordjeff06 ( talk) 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Article has been updated. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 00:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a non notable, local, amateur theatre company? Paste ( talk) 17:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Paste ( talk) 17:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The one source found is not significant coverage, and there is apparently not multiple non-trivial coverage. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A compilation album without evidence of notability. PROD was contested with comment: "Article passes Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums since the musicians are notable." I disagree. Albums released by a single artist/band often get reviewed in independent sources, but why would this be true for a compilation album that merely re-arranges previously released songs? B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Most of the songwriters who recorded these demos are noteworthy in themselves, including Boy Meets Girl, Michael Sembello, Billy Steinberg, and Marti Jones. Very strong keep, but article could use improvement to show why this album was an important one. B.Wind ( talk) 03:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 author blanked the page. Chetblong Talk Sign 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
contested speedy - notability of this company needs considered Docg 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm willing to give up the article. User talk:Whenaxis
The result was speedy delete as copyright violation of http://www.deviamanullah.com/Aboutme.php and other pages from the same site nancy (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Beyond saving in terms of WP:NPOV and unencyclopedic style. Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 17:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 18:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
He's director of an Institute on Holocaust denial, but there's nothing here to suggest the individual is worthy of an encyclopedia bio. Docg 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Information about the subject or incident might be useful in other articles, but consensus is to not have a biographical article.-- Kubigula ( talk) 22:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
An article about someone who was once detained for a week in Dubai and, er, released without charge. The closest to a claim to fame is being IT manager for the firm that produces Big Brother. This is a tabloid story which might have gone somewhere but didn't because he was releasd. Guy ( Help!) 16:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Improper nomination in good faith. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability/advertising
I'm not sure about the suitability of this article. It was created and has been edited by only one user ( WP:COI?) The user account appears to have been created for the sole purpose of creating this article and inserting references to this product in other articles. This is my first AfD nomination and I feel this subject requires discussion. On the other hand, I feel that the information is notable enough and it would be a shame to lose it fom Wikipedia. So, in spite of the fact that I have nominated it, I shall place a a keep vote for it. TINY MARK 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 22:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC) -- Sri ( talk) 09:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)'i am a member of the madakkavil family and i had read what was written... and that was true... i had wondered who took the pain to do such a detail study on my famiy.... i want to confirm that the content in that is true and still exist... '''''''=== Madakkavil=== reply
Largely unsourced article about a family in India. The first nomination closed with "no consensus"; some editors expressed the hope that substantial independent sources could be added to the article over time. As a matter of fact, this has not happened for more than 1 1/2 years now. Hence I propose to delete the article as failing WP:N. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to House of Bourbon -- JForget 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Unless I am missing something, this is nonsense. The heir to the Spanish throne is the Prince of Asturias, and much of this page appears to be a cut-and-paste from there. Individuals mentioned in the first para appear to be ficticious. Delete as vandalism. Note that a similar article [8], was changed into a redirect. Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 08:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actress. One of a dozen or so articles user introduced on people from his amateur film company. No claim to notability. No secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI. Redfarmer ( talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory. Singu larity 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This list was split from a singular list with no prior discussion. Length wasn't an issue and there's no real reason I can see for the split other than an editor deciding for themselves it was required. As it doesn't fall under WP:SPINOUT, on its' own merits it's very light on any real content and the characters listed are not very notable even for a minor character list. treelo talk 17:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Torchwood items#Amnesia pill. -- MCB ( talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Article lacks notability, and consequently has no reliable sources to back-up any significant real-world context. cf. recent AfD discussion for Time Agency. Trystan ( talk) 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Printer222 ( talk) 15:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)This article does not meet WP:FICT. The guideline states "fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this article does not meet this. For similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) and all the other fictonal character pages that were deleted as they wern't considered notable Printer222 ( talk) 15:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I have also decided to nominate the following articles for deletion for the same reason as above, these articles are about mainly relatively new characters. these include
The discussion for all of these articles should take place here. Printer222 ( talk) 15:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced collection of local trivia; possibly original research; stereotypical Ryanjunk ( talk) 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. notability established - and WP:SNOW - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The guy sounds nice, but the article is heavily POV, and none of it is notable. He only gets 4,000 GHits Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 15:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per additional sourcing by User:Nsk92. The article still contains a lot of peacock language (for example, is regarded as a pioneer - regarded by who?), probably has COI issues, and definitely needs additional cleanup plus inline sources for notability assertions to read more encyclopedically and less resume-like. Marking with a clean up tag as none of these issues alone are reasons for deletion of a notable subject. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A resume-like piece that makes many claims towards notability; but sources with substantial coverage about this person seem to be missing. The article has survived a speedy G11 before, I'm putting it up for wider discussion here. Given that the article was edited mainly by an WP:SPA, I actually suspect an autobiography. B. Wolterding ( talk) 15:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 23:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable biography: I could not find any trace of this individual via a cursory google search; the book A Grain of Sand is not carried by Amazon nor listed by Worldcat. The subject is apparently notable as a metaphysical philosopher, but does not seem to have either an academic position or a published work in the field. Unless sources can be found, this appears to be a hoax, or at the very least, a non-notable individual. скоморохъ 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 23:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable under pornographic actor criteria in WP:BIO. Coverage by AVN article not substantial enough to satisfy general criteria. Vinh1313 ( talk) 14:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy redirect, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. A full article about the subject exists here. Salih ( talk) 14:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is entirely WP:OR and is rather incoherent. It reads like an essay, and doesn't seem all that encyclopedic. It cites no secondary sources, and so fails WP:RS and WP:V. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلَوْ آمَنَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَّهُم مِّنْهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمُالْفَاسِقُونَ
The result was delete all. Pigman ☿ 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article does not meet WP:FICT. The guideline states "fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this article does not meet this. For similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) and all the other fictonal character pages that were deleted as they wern't considered notable}} Printer222 ( talk) 13:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as above, they are fictonal characters that aren't notable in the real world and they don't meet WP:FICT.
The discussion for these articles can take place here.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. -- Ave Caesar ( talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Non independently notable per
WP:BIO.
Ave Caesar (
talk) 13:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn due to discovery of his involvement in the 5th Virginia Convention. --
Ave Caesar (
talk) 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician. Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:MUSIC; only press coverage seems to be in relation to his death. PC78 ( talk) 13:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 08:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. From an article on Buffaloathome.com: "Say Anything is starting to think about the follow-up to "In Defense Of The Genre." While new music may not be on the agenda for a while, lead singer Max Bemis is revealing his thoughts on melodies on the current album. Bemis adds that Say Anything might start working on new music later this year, for a disc tentatively titled "This Is Forever."" (Emphasis mine) I think this sums up my case for WP:CRYSTAL in much clearer terms than I could possibly have. Recreate when they actually record and/or release the album. Redfarmer ( talk) 13:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 08:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax, or at least highly non-notable. I am unable to find any sources that verify the existance of this band, or their alleged "hit single". PC78 ( talk) 13:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
(Edit conflict)*Delete-No websites related to the band ( WP:N); no websites to prove they even exist ( WP:CITE). The article states that "they finally became a famous group" and "performed at St.Mary of Assumption school in Brookline, Boston". If so, there should be some links relating to them. I have tried very specific searches, but there were no results. -- Zachary crimsonwolf 13:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The Unknown Hitchhiker 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Longstanding content fork of portable media player with a hazy definition of its subject matter and a predisposition to be critical. All the good bits have now been merged to more appropriate articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
School not notable Bleaney ( talk) 12:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. howcheng { chat} 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
There are exactly 143 unique Google hits for "pashtun mafia", most of which seem to draw some or all of their content from Wikipedia. The remainder are largely polemical. We therefore have an article and a category, Category:Pashtun Mafia, which are blazing the trail in defining this term. The talk page shows strong evidence of racially or ethnically motivated editing. I would like to nominate this as a Crap Article and leave it at that, but we've had complaints that it's biased and uses polemical sources in a selective manner. The 143 unique Googles persuades me that a POV is being pushed here. Guy ( Help!) 12:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
a main part of this article. I think this is a wonderfull article which seperates a race from a criminal factions that exist from it.-- Khanhamzakhan ( talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC) — Khanhamzakhan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
misunderstanding because the only books they see are online books. Wikipedia: Don't hope the house will build itself -- 71.183.58.25 ( talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web forum. Very poorly sourced; most is from the primary source (the site itself) and the ones that aren't, still aren't sufficient. Also wary of it being web promotion . . . this was once temporarily speedied, but failed and followed by an influx of fresh accounts making promotional comments on the talk page. In the interests of full disclosure, any of my personal beliefs were not factors into nominating this. - Warthog Demon 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn, default to keep. Singu larity 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per
WP:BIO. I tried to find some reliable sources but failed (at least through Google search). I think his notability is also questionable. --
Niaz
(Talk •
Contribs) 23:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Today (27 March 2008)
User:Lakpr requested me to have a look at this article once again since it is now cited with third party references. I have gone through those citations and found them really rich and reliable. Thus, I am withdrawing this nomination. Cheers! --
Niaz
(Talk •
Contribs) 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
In response to the WP:NOTINHERITED comment, an article was added from The New York Times that discusses Brad Simon's career as a federal prosecutor as well as excerpts from a profile written about him in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Also added were the most recent examples of the news media seeking out his thoughts on major news stories. (Added by User: 66.43.90.186 )
The result was delete all. The deletion arguments indicate that the highly segmented nature of these charts violates WP:NOT#INFO as noted in the nomination. With regards to the Hot Digital Songs list, the fact that digital sales figures are currently included in the main charts means that this list is similarly limited in scope. -- jonny- m t 14:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Also included:
These lists are for Billboard magazine component charts. I feel that these pages go against WP:NOT#IINFO, as they do not represent any of the "main" singles charts produced by Billboard, nor do these really represent the charts of a particular country, such as the UK Singles Chart or Australia's ARIA Charts. These particular lists cover either airplay or sales in a very specific segment of the singles market which in turn are used to comprise bigger charts like the Pop 100. These charts are discouraged from song pages and artist discographies per WP:CHARTS so it doesn't seem logical to have lists like this for every chart produced by Billboard - in fact I see it as a bit excessive. - eo ( talk) 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I declined a contested speedy deletion for Blatant advertising for this article as I feel it is borderline and has some solid references. While the article needs work, I'd rather see consensus before deleting it. Toddst1 ( talk) 11:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that there is insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild ( talk) 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not give a reason for encyclopedic notability; no sources AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 10:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Fire safety where the topic is already covered. Davewild ( talk) 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per NOR. -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Nom has withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a copyvio of a commercially published market research paper called "What is Demand Sensing" published by AMR, but speedy delete was declined. I don't have access to the original paper but here are the reasons for suspecting this article:
Nomination withdrawn - the new stub is well referenced. andy ( talk) 08:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The fact that many people who insert this sort of article are unable to write clearly, concretely, or concisely, and have a promotional conflict of interest that makes their prose — unwittingly or calculatedly — vague, evasive, and tending to belabor the obvious in polysyllabic abstract nouns, seems to me to be a flaw of the breed. The impression that kind of prose gives me is that the writer is at pains to conceal the obviousness and lack of real innovation in their method; and to describe them vaguely, to make them seem univerally applicable, and evasively, because plain language would make their obviousness and lack of real innovation plain to see. If this is bias, so be it. But generally, if I find the prose of an article clear, concise, and concrete, and free from management paperback buzzwords, my inclusionist tendencies can take over. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 11:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep I found (and added a reference) from the official MIT website. Sculptors of Demand (MIT Center for Transportation and Demand), making the case for notability quite strong. -- Firefly322 ( talk) 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, no evidence has been produced to show that reliable secondary sources are available to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organization. Independent sources are scarce. Grand total of 18 unique Google hits. 4 Google News hits, all from August 2007 or earlier, apparently based on two distinct articles (see here for the AP one from July 2007). Apparently they didn't do anything except being founded. While that's verifiable, it's not especially notable. Possible conflict of interest since the logo is claimed to have been created by one of the chief editors. Was prodded, prod removed without improvement. Huon ( talk) 08:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and uncited. - Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Lack of sources is not the same as unverifiability is just plain wrong. No sources does in-fact mean delete. We are building an encyclopedia here, not creating or defining new terms. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism; only two sources - one of which doesn't mention the term, the other of which is not-reputable; recreation of deleted content; etc. - Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Classic coatrack article, in this case not for pushing a POV but as a dumping ground for large amounts of track listings for CDs. The track lists in general seem to be directory information that has no context and tells the reader nothing about the topic. Chardish ( talk) 06:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of Notability, no sources provided and none that I can find on google that would otherwise support this. Benea ( talk) 05:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
— Chaney L. Irving ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Delete -- JForget 22:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Crystalballism. Offers no sources, and Google provides nothing but rumors and a statement from someone in the company, nothing substantial. Prod removed by author. JuJube ( talk) 04:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to class conflict. I know the majority says delete, but Dhartung's alternative suggestion seems to be ideal. Singu larity 06:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition with a generous helping of original research added. Unsourced since mid-2006. It's possible that a decent article could be written on the subject, but the existing one is so bad that we'd be better off nuking it and starting over from scratch. *** Crotalus *** 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, allowing redirect. The keep !votes adequately established that the detention camp, and the detention of this individual, are notable, but not that the detention of this individual is notable individually, distinct from other detainees, and not that the detainee is himself notable. No significant sources independent of the detention are provided. The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources. Wikipedia should not be the first place to write notional biographies of living individuals, but luckily that is not what was happening here since the article is largely comprised of minor details of his detention. Summary: Gitmo is notable, the fact of a number of people being detained at gitmo is notable, the things that go on at gitmo are said by many (and with some justification) to be an outrage to human decency, but Wikipedia is not Amnesty International. Guy ( Help!) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
You have to be crazy to say that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is unnotable. That being said, it does not mean that every prisoner that was or is held at Guantanamo Bay is notable. There has been over 700 detainess held at one point on Guantanomo Bay. Should there be an article on each prisoner? Of course not. Except, of course, if there's substantial coverage about the person that WP:BIO requires. This article in no way shows any sort of media coverage on this specific person. The refs provided are just a bunch of Army files were he is listed as a prisoner.
The creator of this article Geo Swan ( talk · contribs) continuously creates these articles even after similar articles go through afd with the vast majority of them ending up as "no concensus", "redirect", or "delete". Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Nobody told me that posting above others with lines is the new the afd discussion guidline, but I will accordingly get in style. The creator of the article believes that the continuous repetition (and putting them in boxes) in this discussion of incorrect Wikipedia notability guidelines will validate the guidelines. Some of us have responded at each turn, but as our fingers hurt, and we have real-world issues, there might not be a response at each turn pointing out again and again the misconceptopns. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I believe this nomination contains a number of misconceptions. I am addressing these misconceptions up here at the top, several days into the discussion.
The detainee stayed at a legal college in Kandahar owned by Usama bin Laden.
This page in a nutshell:
|
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC) replyAn argument proposing "significant coverage" to mean lack of original research doesn't require a response.
England said | my comment | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
|
|
"It [OARDEC] is not a third party as they were involved explicitly with the subject and they produced the review that was itself used to determine the article subject's future in captivity.
"OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It has no reputation at all."
"OARDEC reports cannot be independently verified as there is no/little access to the primary sources."
The result was delete. Singu larity 02:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. There was also a page for this same person under the name Pin Chen - confirmed by an identical website photo. That page has already been deleted. Kleinzach ( talk) 02:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 02:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:BIO, WP:NOT and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account (8 edits), with no other edits other than related to Chris (CP) Powell. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and vanity, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 ( talk) 02:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirected. No merge needed, plausible search term. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The information in this article is already present in Hellenic Navy, and there is no reason for a separate article. -- Mars2035 ( talk) 01:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep for several reasons. Firstly, as pointed out by User:BigBlueFish, the subject can be said to meet notability guidelines based on her appearances and award nominations. Secondly, WP:OWNership is not grounds for deletion - that requires dispute resolution and cleanup of the article. In the event an editor has violated WP:3RR, administrative action can be sought at that time, however deleting an article to "ensure that [an editor] does [their] homework before trying again" is inappropriate and disruptive. Thirdly, despite my warning earlier in the discussion, this debate rapidly degenerated into arguments over just about everything except reasons to delete the article, including some perhaps-not-entirely-good-faith attacks against the author. Finally, the one and only thing I was able to get out of this discussion was that there is definite incentive to "whip the article into shape," a conclusion also drawn from the extensive edit history of the article since it's nomination. If there are still concerns about an editor's conduct in relation to this article, bring it through dispute resolution, not through AfD. As stated below, a user is not a reason to delete an article. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Former child actor whose major credit was in Annie. Only one other credit. Rest of article is trivia. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 04:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Roles in notable films and awards are all that make actors notable and the subject of this article covers the criteria. Dimadick ( talk) 19:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete There are zero secondary sources, all come from IMDB. And the article falsely stated she won an award, and was only nominated. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Re: Richard Arthur Norton's statement that the article "falsely states" the actress won an award. It actually stated "Her portrayal won Toni Ann a Best Young Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture nomination..." There are also more secondary sources now too, see below, than just the IMDB. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] -- Seahamlass ( talk) 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment I too am considering a switch to delete. An editor who insists on faking references has either not read WP:BLP, or is WP:OWNing, as is apparently also the case with the 'nominating' thing. It appears Seahamlass is super stressed by this AfD, and that she needs to take a wikibreak and step back for a bit. As such, a delete would probably be a good thing at this point since it would ensure that she does her homework before trying again. -- Fullstop ( talk) 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I would also like to state that I know Delicious carbuncle was only doing his/her job when they decided to nominate this article for deletion. Of course I was against the idea, hence my defence of the piece and subseqent edits to include more references to try and help it stay on Wikipedia.
I always believed Wikipedia was about creating, maintaining or adding to articles which would help people learn new facts, or provide an interest for them. This debate, however, has descended - in my view - into cyber-bullying. If you want the article deleted, then fine, if you want it to stay, then great - but please stop all the rest of the very personal attacks on me and others which have been carried out here. -- Seahamlass ( talk) 11:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
References
Along with Stevens and special guest Charles Strouse, over twenty former Annies and orphans are expected to attend, including Martha Byrne, a former July and Annie understudy who won two Daytime Emmys for As the World Turns, original Broadway cast member Robyn Finn, and Rosanne Sorrentino and Toni Ann Gisondi from the Annie film.
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
The result was delete. Singu larity 02:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable myspace band, they only have an EP out, founded in mid-2007. MySpace notability does not meet WP:BAND. Claims of notability, so I brought it here. Corvus cornix talk 04:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This PSA does not meet notability requirements. It shows up on a few video-sharing sites, but there's no citable information about it available online. We can't have a page for every funny video on YouTube. Alvis ( talk) 03:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn, default to keep. Although there are three delete !votes, WP:HEY can be applied here. Singu larity 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This page isn't really a disambig at all; more like a series of (unsourced) dictionary definitions disguised as a disambig. Furthermore, I can't find any sources for any of the three definitions given here, least of all for the game show trilons.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 01:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn per Dhartung's improvements, now looks like a decent dab page to me. Still needs work to remove all the
red links, but it's a good enough start.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Merge to Raid at Cabanatuan (non-admin closure). SilkTork * YES! 11:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn book, fails WP:BOOK, ranks #564,173 in Books sales at Amazon. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Singu larity 02:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced article about a dog breed with nothing explaining why this breed is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A NHS trust in the United Kingdom is notable enough for a stub, which the article is. Scope for development and potentially more sources which have not yet been added. Rudget . 12:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails notability guidelines at WP:ORG. – Dream out loud ( talk) 00:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn city park, unsourced, with no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Singu larity 02:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Coatrack against 4kids et al Will ( talk) 01:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable band. speedy declined, prod contested Will ( talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the clarification, TPH. Bft ( talk)
The result was keep. John254 02:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
does not assert notability. Going through AFD because it can't be speedied Will ( talk) 02:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Due to consensus that this will always violate the Bigoraphies of Living persons policy and that the list is redundant to other wikipedia articles. A rename was tried after a previous AFD but clearly did not address the problems with the list. Davewild ( talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
BLP nightmare Sceptre ( talk) 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply