The result was Speedy Deleted per G7 (One author who blanked page). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
prod removed, concerns were of g11 and notability. Neutral on this article, procedural nom. Torchwood Who? ( talk) 22:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Par being the original PROD'er. Company seems to fail Notability guidelines. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs) 23:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was a train wreck. This AfD is only two days old, but it is evident that there is no way that consensus can be determined from it. The nominator's first contribution was to start this discussion, and virtually all of the participants have few or no edits outside this topic. Accordingly, I am closing this discussion and relisting it. Blueboy 96 17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Peucinian Society ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD) The article on the Peucinian Society does not meet Wikipedia standards: In that the "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline." Were the peucinian society among the "nation's foremost literary societies" then perhaps it would warrant a page, but in actuality it is a newly revitalized and obscure student club at a very small liberal arts college. The Society is unfortunaely not one of the among the "nation's foremost literary societies" and thus does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.Furthermore the article violates a number of wikipedia guidlines:
Thus I recommend that the article be deleted. ( Cowan50 ( talk) 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC))— Cowan50 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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}} . |
~~~~
to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s)." it's not that you can't make comments, but you must sign them regardless. (
Cowan50 (
talk) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC))—
Cowan50 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
replyReasons to preserve: I would like to refute two claims against the author of this page, although I admit my surprise at and failure to comprehend the vehemence with which these people are opposing this article’s preservation. One can only hope that they are equally passionate in their assault upon other literary societies. Indeed, I cannot help but question their motives, as they continue to make blatant personal attacks on the society’s members, addressing them with disturbing and unspeakable phrases, surely injuring their own credibility and character. Nevertheless, while I regard the first two points of their most recent entry as completely absurd, I am obliged to offer a response for the sake of history and dignity. Let me state, first, that the citations posted on the article are absolutely accurate. The offensive allegations are no more than personal attacks. For, having argued that there are insufficient citations, when they are presented with proper citations, they proceeed to question the accuracy of these. Yet, in respect of the first book, Joshua Chamberlain: The Soldier and the Man, while it is true that Chamberlain passed away in 1914, the author discusses Peucinian in great detail, in fact stating that the Society continued to thrive into the 20th century. By the same token, another publication, College Literary Societies: Their Contribution to Higher Education in the United States, 1815-1876, in the passages which discusses the association in a number of passages, once again clearly stating that the society persisted beyond the 19th century. I can only, therefore, attribute the careless and uncritical assertions to the fact that these ignorant attacks were based solely on the title that presupposes a of 1876. Nevertheless, are they so ignorant as to suppose that the author cannot include statements beyond this date in his book? It has been repeatedly emphasized, time and again, by faculty and students alike, that there is ample evidence of the society persisting independently of the college and thriving for many decades without collegiate affiliation. This claim has also been supported by several local historians in Maine. As for the comparisons to the Druid Cult and the Continental Congress,” I would contend that, since the society’s dormancy in the 20th century was so brief and each of its original traditions has been carefully preserved, these analogies are completely false. Indeed, if one belonged to an institution that emerged from the Druid Cult, restoring it after only a couple decades of dormancy and meticulously preserving its original constitution and substantive traditions, then one does in fact have the right to claim succession to that historical association. Therefore, the comparison is specious insofar as the Druid Cult is much older and has had no period of “dormancy.” Regardless, the article cannot be deleted, if only because the Peucinian Society was founded just eleven years after the establishment of Bowdoin College itself, and thus remains historically synonymous with the very inception of Bowdoin. Finally, once again, I am deeply offended by the claim that this article is merely a ploy for “self promotion.” The author has made every effort conform to Wikipedia policies in crafting an article that is both informative to readers about an historical organization that has engaged some of the most potent literary and political minds in American history. This cannot be dismissed as bias; it is fact. Emily444 ( talk) 14:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Emily444 — Emily444 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The purpose of this article seems to be to promote a non-notable film (if it does in fact exist). 'Notability' and 'proposed deletion' tags were removed. Author has stated that information is "first-hand", which would appear to be an admission of original research and a conflict of interest. Signalhead ( talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
yes, RubberBand Productions is a very small, independant company without a webpage. All movies that RBP has made thus far have been not-for-profit and for the sake of gaining populartity, and a wikipedia article seems like one of the best ways to get the name across. I assure you, this is not a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.47.39 ( talk) 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Excuse me? you have no right, not to meantion no proof, to block RubberBand Productions from wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a symbol of democracy - by the people, for the people, and by taking away my right to edit articles, you take away my freedom of speech. There is no proof that you can possibly have that states that RubberBand Productions or TH3 do not exist. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that is constantly updating itself. If you let any other film be published, you should let mine. If this continues, I will contact the media. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.68.43.49 (
talk) 13:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
I dont see how the TH3 article can possibly be bias. I mean, its reporting on a series of films, right? What's so wrong? It's not hurting anyone at all, and its reporting information regarding an independant film company, something that needs publicity anyway. This is not to say that its an advertisment though. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.94.104.121 (
talk) 20:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure), given nearly unanimous keep suggestions. The possibility that sockpuppets ares involved in editing the articles has no relevance to whether or not the topics are notable enough for an encyclopedia article. "per nom" !vote disregarded. Skomorokh 17:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable video game. Page created by known sockpuppet. See these SSP reports:
Primary sockpuppets involved Buckcherry91, Princess34, Dream180, Shawty18, Bratz12, Braves3005, Evil3005, Doctor35 Strongsauce ( talk) 23:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all non-notable and pages created by known group of sockpuppets
Leaves us with:
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Smacks of spam, no verifiable references. We could stubbify to just the "company" section, but most of it reads like an advertisement... Tan | 39 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article was always inaccurate from its first revision (some made up story about an American with potato chips), and has recently, over the past day, been made into a long, satirical article fit for something like Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia. Mubd1234 ( talk) 18:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 06:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable term Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as G4. Nothing has changed since the original AfD and later recreations. I have protected the page and will unprotect if sourced, encyclopaedic material can be produced. However, any recreation would be better done under the original title for consistency. TerriersFan ( talk) 04:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Very little information. It possibly fails
WP:CRYSTAL, depending on your point of view of that policy and the article in question. Article can be re-created once more information is known. My vote: Delete Speedy Delete after reading below comments.
TheProf -
T /
C 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. John254 23:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is a massive amount of original research, with 3 real references that are already in the article it is mentioned in, Parodies of Harry Potter. It is not nearly notable enough to have its own article, the reliable sources put it as a section in the parody article, so this should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Toddst1 ( talk) 16:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:NN webzine. The only valid sources are primary - all other sources failed verification. More info on Talk: Godspy. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article violates WP:DICT. It should be deleted and redirected to "child sexual abuse". The term "sexual predator" is a politically loaded colloquialism, and not an official definition you would find in any medical, scientific, or legal publication. This article cites no sources whatsoever showing that a scholarly usage of this term exists. The fact that some mainstream tabloids and politicians use the term "sexual predator" is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion.
A few analogies: The colloquial term "freetard" is frequently used by mainstream media such as The Register. If Wikipedia doesn't allow an article on "freetard" then it shouldn't allow one on "sexual predator" either. If we keep this we may as well create articles on other Daily Mail lingo such as "eurocrat", "lycra lout", "benefit scrounger" etc. See Talk:Sexual predator where deletion has already been discussed. Cambrasa ( talk) 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No independent references since its nomination over a year ago. Although it was a finalist for the 2006 IGF Modding Competition, this is not a claim to notability ( WP:N makes no mention of competitions, but I would usually accept winners of awards to have some claim.) No sign of this PC Gamer article; in any case, multiple coverage is preferred. Marasmusine ( talk) 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 03:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The speedy for the nomination (under A3) was declined and I was recommended by the reviewing admin to expand the article. I did so, but found little to no claim of notability for its subject. Note that this is not a deletion under A7, as I did not create the article, but rather expanded it and did not find a claim for notability. The article has also been tagged with {{ Template:Autobio}} because the subject (?) appears to have created the article. GlobeGores ( talk page | user page) 22:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completing unfinished nom for SilkTork ( talk · contribs). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC) (Incomplete Twinkle and EC) Contested merge to Howard_Hughes#Near-fatal_crash_of_the_XF-11. This was the subject of a keep AfD in 2006 which was before the WP:BIO1E guideline was written. Since 2006 the consensus has grown that articles on individuals known for only one event should be written only where the notability of the individual has grown larger than mere association with the event. Otherwise the individual should be written about within the article on the event itself. It is proper that Durkin gets a mention in the Howard Hughes article, however his life beyond that event has been rather ordinary. He gets very few mentions on a Google search, and those mentions, like this and this are as footnotes to the event. He is known for rescuing a notable man, but as notability is not inherited, consensus has been that that alone should not be reason enough for a standalone article. Remove and redirect to Howard_Hughes#Near-fatal_crash_of_the_XF-11}} SilkTork * YES! 22:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actress. One of a series of articles created by user on his non-notable production company. Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI. Redfarmer ( talk) 09:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources thus is not notable. The article appears to have been cribbed entirely from IMDB, which may be a copyright problem (as well as using an unreliable source). -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article fails notability requirements. Andrew Cappuccino is "famous" for one thing: He was one of the physicians involved in treating a spectacular spine injury for a professional athlete.
The article does not meet any of the basic notability requirements in WP:BIO: He, himself, has not been the subject of published secondary source material. He has won no important awards. He has not (yet, at least) made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field." He's just a nice person who is doing a new-ish style of back surgery and happened to get a famous client.
For the purposes of Wikipedia's notability requirements, the coverage of his famous client is irrelevant: Notability is not inherited. Cappuccino can be (and is) mentioned in the article about the athlete and his injury. The mere fact that he was a surgeon for a celebrity does not mean that the surgeon is independently notable (and independent notability is what we require for independent articles).
In academic terms, he's published a handful of papers. Or -- his name is on about a dozen published papers, and except for the most recent, there are always at least five authors, and his name is never listed as either of the two most important authors. This argues against him meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements on the basis of his publications. He does not qualify under WP:PROF.
The Google News refs, when you exclude the one famous client, are remarkably unimportant: He talked about a surgery technique at an investor reception. One of his patients sued someone else. He got his name in the local paper for some charity work -- two normal fundraisers (bleachers at the local football field and Second Harvest food bank) and one surgery on a Russian girl. Just for a little perspective, I ran the same search with my own name and found a handful of references to myself. I don't consider being quoted in articles on the wire services to actually make me notable, however.
This was nominated for {{ prod}} a few days ago; one editor thought that it should go through AfD. I think that the article should be deleted. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tikiwont ( talk) 08:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
In-universe list for which I can see no use. Was tagged for speedy, but does not meet any of the criteria. J Milburn ( talk) 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Has already appeared to be userfied. Wizardman 14:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article of a book that clearly fails WP:BK, having no reviews or independent coverage. Amazon.com reviews do not count...
The result was delete. The discussion below indicates that the topic fails the verifiability requirements. -- jonny- m t 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:V. Although it is listed as a demo in many print sources, there is no evidence to suggest that it ever existed. The band's official website does not list it, although it is otherwise extremely comprehesive with regard to demos, compilations and other appearances. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 16:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert significance; no notability. Article exists only as an advertisement (cites availability on commercial sites). Taroaldo ( talk) 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be a notable comic; the sources are pretty much marginal at best. Also likely COI given page author's name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- jonny- m t 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article was created by the company who develop this software. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not for marketing purposes... Frap ( talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. When it's SNOWing outside, it's suggested you put some clothes on, lest you get frostbite somewhere nasty :) krimpet ✽ 19:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Where to start. I guess we could go with WP:NOT#INFO, except that most of this doesn't make it as far as being information, since it's merely opinion. The degree of detail is absurd in many cases, plus of course there is no objective definition of "featuring". Whereas nudity in mainstream films may once have been unusual it is now commonplace. One might as well have list of non-millinery films featuring hats. But to be honest the main problem is that this is really a list of films to wank to if you are too young or too embarrassed to rent proper porn and haven't yet found the internet. If kept, can we nominate this article for the bad sex awards? Guy ( Help!) 21:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Espresso Addict ( talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
He has published only one article. -- Ephraim33 ( talk) 15:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a massive in -universe repetition of the plot sections of the Prince of Persia game articles. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a massive in -universe repetition of the plot sections of the Prince of Persia game articles. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Article tagged by User:Curiosor with the following edit summary: "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anind DeyThis article should be deleted because the person does meet the general notability guidelines." I'm just finishing it. Jobjörn ( talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No refs for a start. But even if it did this really isn't a notable rivalry. Buc ( talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). WilliamH ( talk) 17:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable, apparently not professional (or not indicated) Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 20:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Was up for deletion last year as a result of the previous version being a BLP violation. Article was kept after I found sources to establish notability, and the dodgy edits were oversighted. However today, I got an email from Dr. McSweegan demanding that the article be deleted, as he seems to think even the cleaned-up version constitutes stalking and harassment. Subject meets WP:N--question here is whether it's marginal enough that it should be deleted per his request. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Blueboy 96 20:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was transwiki and delete. I've gone ahead and deleted the article for the time being; whoever would like to transwiki the content should feel free to post a note on my talk page. I'll be more than happy to restore it in their userspace so it can be transwikied. -- jonny- m t 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sourcing, and is just an in-universe repetition of information in the plot and setting sections of the Ace Combat articles. As such, it is duplicative of those articles and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The discussion below appears to have been subject to significant sock/meat puppetry--I'll file a request for checkuser this afternoon for confirmation--and so I've discounted all but the original arguments presented by that user. After doing so, it is clear that the consensus is to delete based on a lack of significant coverage in unrelated sources. -- jonny- m t 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Insufficient notability: despite apparent coverage in one notable media outlets (CTV), most coverage seems to be of the human interest story type and not related to music notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
How can this article be edited to be conserved? What souceing would preserve it. please. Thanks. -- Ilecity ( talk) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It's irrelevant whether you dream of having a wiki article or not. It's also irrelevant whether the voters are new users. Wikipedia is not a beuarocracatic hierarchy, its a factual database & encyclopedia. It belongs the world, it is current and it is free. Rhetoric and slander are really not appreciated. Neutrality is much appreciated. If you feel this person does not meet WP:BIO or has no verifiable sources, please offer and a well structure and intelligent argument based upon the rules of Wikipedia. If you have notable sources and are a notable individual, please create a page. The same logic applies for you: read WP:WAX. Thank You. Whordwind ( talk) 03:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fearless Son, if you'd like a copy of the wikimarkup text after deletion, feel free to email me and I will provide you with a copy of the deleted text. Keegan talk 07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts zero notability through multiple reliable sources, and is an in-universe repetition of the plot of Ace Combat and other games plot sections. It is therefore totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete. Keegan talk 07:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A non-notable web producer. Jmlk 1 7 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per G11 by user:Blueboy96, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. As for a merge, there is too much information to warrant a history merge for a brief entry. Keegan talk 07:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe plot repetition of plot section information from the Command and Conquer series article and the game articles. It is therefore duplicative, has no non-plot information, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
He's still a major character and there's a decent amount of information on him here. Geshpenst ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Keegan talk 07:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and by its own definition is "miscellaneous", which could be easily interpreted as "non-notable". Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Keilana| Parlez ici 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I find this article very confusing. It seems somewhat ethereal and far removed from the real world of GPS devices. It starts by mentioning "some suppliers" - suppliers of what? The sentence "the tendency to apply for patent rights on applied mathematics where time is a parameter leads to closing the books on algorithms" reads like original research. So I wonder whether the whole article is. It forms something of a walled garden along with Real time locating and Real time locating standards but those two articles seem to have seemed attention from other editors. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 19:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Pseudomonas( talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Pseudomonas( talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This unreferenced biography was blanked by User:Banderon with the note, "removed at the request of Sue Ulu". That user presumably doesn't know that blanking is not deletion, but shall we help him/her out by discussing the deletion of this article? As it is, I'd support deletion on the grounds that she is of dubious notability. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 14:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a list of programming languages by category, which is better served by actual categories. This was suggested on the article's talk page here. We already have a list of programming languages in alphabetical, chronological, and generational order. I don't think a categorical list adds anything over this and the categories (see Category:Programming languages). swa q 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. (jarbarf) ( talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Movie is name "Nerdcore Rising" on IMDB, not "Nerdcore Rising: The Movie". Page by other name already exists. Steve Stair ( talk) 18:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
As it stands there are no significant reliable sources and no way to create and article with meaningful content with verifiable information. Notability was called into question and a request was put forward to provide sources. None have been forthcoming. The only sources to date have either been from those that fail the criteria set forth in wikipedia for reliable sources or ones that provide trivial references to the subject (one only had him in a caption of a photo). Only one source is both reliable and non-trivial and is a short article about attempting to trespass at an airport. Per basic wikipedia policy and particularly policy on biographies of living persons this article should be deleted. Tmtoulouse ( talk) 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. I have not been able to locate much of anything on this individual that would rate an article. I googled him and I see no links to anything that I recognized as a reliable source. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if there's enough material out there that I missed. Famspear ( talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. The person who is proposing this AfD deleted some reliable (and some less-reliable) sources from the article prior to issuing this claim (see the page's discussion page). One of the sources he deleted was a Boston Phoenix article [49] that starts off describing his airport protest and includes the following quote which speaks to his (admittedly limited) notoriety and notability:
Some of the other sources that were deleted were used to provide additional background information about Kanning's protests, or to back up statements about them that are not actually matters of any real-world accuracy dispute; the controversy over the reliability of these sources therefore seems pedantic and manufactured. - Moorlock ( talk) 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
NN "think tank" fails notability guidelines for organizations. The few Google hits I get are blog entries. Prod removed by an IP. - IceCreamAntisocial ( talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Seeing the distribution of keeps and deletes there is a consensus for the latter. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable local radio show. No significant history. Not syndicated. Rtphokie ( talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
*Weak keep While it's true the article is not perfect and lacks sources at this point that doesn't mean it can't become a better article. I'm sure if the proper resources were found, we could get it up to a good article.
Milonica (
talk) 18:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
nn Toronto TV weatherman. Was previously incorrectly nominated as part of a bulk AfD of CityTV articles. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod for a term even the article creator admits is a neologism. Sourcing consists of a news article that does not mention the term and a link to a web forum. Delete as per WP:V unless independent sources provided to establish verifiability. -- Allen3 talk 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio/advertising by User:Eliz81. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No indication that this company has been recognized as notable by independent sources. NawlinWiki ( talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Note that if references are found, that the article should be recreated. Keilana| Parlez ici 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Page is apparently entirely WP:OR, no real references. Tan | 39 17:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
http://www.indiaprofile.com/lifestyle/kolis.htm http://theory.tifr.res.in/bombay/history/ethnic/koli.html http://theory.tifr.res.in/bombay/history/ http://annaparabrahma.blogspot.com/2006/10/chavlachi-roti.html http://www.everyculture.com/South-Asia/Koli.html http://www.indianetzone.com/9/koli_tribe.htm
This article may need modifications as per wiki standards. I am looking for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkoli ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Please undelete. What should I do now? How can I undelete this article. I have references as mentioned above. Please help. This is my first article Mkoli ( talk) 10:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Uncited in-universe trivia, plot summary and original research. -- EEMIV ( talk) 17:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Keilana| Parlez ici 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
nonencyclopedic, notability doubtful, self-promotion Andreas (T) 17:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Hotel with no special claim to notability. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This is absolutely not true. It is the only hotel located on the Lincoln Road pedestrian mall. Automobile traffic is currently being closed on the westward part of Lincoln Rd. It is also the only hotel on South Beach that uses furniture restored from the 1930s, in addition to other amenities. Quixote09 ( talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This is absurd. Lincoln Road is an internationally-recognized tourist area. Some of the best restaurants, art galleries, and nightclubs in the world are located there. This hotel is a reflection of that (seeing as how it's the only hotel on the pedestrian mall). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixote09 ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 March 2008
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable author of technical manuals. No evidence of passing either WP:N or WP:BIO guidelines. All references are to self-published sites Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
fails WP:MUSIC; no charting or notable media coverage - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, leaning towards keep due to reliable sources being provided. Wizardman 14:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Just a regular season game played in the snow where nothing notable happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 ( talk • contribs)
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO - specifically Entertainers, the section for models, which advises that they need to have had "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". None of these appear to apply. Contested Prod. Possible self-promotion. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 13:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I created this article by seeing the red links in List of cities and towns in Bangladesh. But there is no hint in google search [60]. Even no hint in Banglapedia [61]. Banglapedia has all Bangladesh related entries. I am confused over existence of this place. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Dicdef without possibility for expansion. Has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Taroaldo ( talk) 16:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I've searched high and low to verify this product and these claims. I can't find a thing. It is either a hoax, extremely obscure or miswritten. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tikiwont ( talk) 08:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:ATHLETE, team and its members are not at a sufficiently notable level to be included in Wikipedia. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick ( talk) 17:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A poorly sourced article about a marginally notable living person. Further, according to an email from the subject ( OTRS) the article and the sources are incorrect and overstate his role on some projects and he is uncomfortable with having so much of his personal information here. Given the WP:BLP concerns, the marginal notability of a non-public figure, the inadequate sourcing to unreliable sources, and the factual inaccuracy in the article, the best solution here is deletion. Mr. Z-man 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as hoax by user:John Reaves, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 17:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax -- I cannot get any Ghits on the key terms or names used in the article. ukexpat ( talk) 15:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Not a hoax -- the nation guild of Brtion has confermed this country, and the names and terms are in Traluvian, and it was in contact with the U. S.A. forern relations—Preceding unsigned comment added by Asafedi ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 26 March 2008
Undefined -- the article is incomplete, we should hold off the deletion until then —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Asafedi (
talk •
contribs) 12:13, 26 March 2008
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio of this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No strong evidence of notability. Assertions of notability by writing controversially in international media unverified. Dweller ( talk) 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Having checked with JNU where he claims to work, there is NO SUCH PERSON there. So this person is a hoax and apropriate action maybe taken in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.52.48 ( talk) 08:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and cleanup. Marked for cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article possibly a non-notable subject, seems to be wholey original research and has been marked unsourced for some time. neonwhite user page talk 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close and redirect to existing article. Non-admin close. KTC ( talk) 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Redundant to the articles List of Nazi Party leaders and officials and List of SS personnel. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Pink Floyd tribute band tagged as non-notable for a year and as an advertisement since December. Procedural nomination; prod was removed by anon ip with no explanation. — BradV 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No vote. The article was 'prod'ed as a nonnnotable actress. Judging from imdb profile, IMO it is borderline case which cannot be decided by 1-2 persons. `' Míkka >t 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy. Indeed, no content. The text was: "New business is what most companies want lots more of all the time. Companies like Retriever New Business are expert in cold calling, networking, sales training and other skills that help companies oped doors and win new business" `' Míkka >t 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: This article does not make any sense. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Closed as keep. Procedural listing; no delete votes. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No opinion The article was tagged "prod" as a nonnotable advertising agencey. But this company is it not a mom-and-pop business. Requires broader discussion. `' Míkka >t 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment This article has an active listing on the Deletion Review Page. TimBlount ( talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Bedroom musician who falls well short of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Michig ( talk) 14:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tikiwont ( talk) 08:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO with one non-notable book, no awards, and no references found for claims of publishing in national media outlets - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close: merge suggestions are not subject of AfD. Article kept, tagged for merging. `' Míkka >t 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable, merge with State University of New York at Binghamton Wsanders ( talk) 18:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect title to The Process (Memphis Bleek album). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
One song is not notable enough for an article. Fléêťflämẽ U- T- C 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirecting per nominator. DJRafe, welcome to Wikipedia! If you ever need any assistance (with redirects or anything else, please feel free to ask on my talkpage!. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The main article on The Triumph of Time and Truth already has a section on the earliest version of the oratorio with this title. Thus this entry with the Italian title is redundant, in my opinion. DJRafe ( talk) 05:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), WilliamH ( talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 19:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Weak keep sources seem to denote limited degree of notability Dreamspy ( talk) 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirected to List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents by User:Peregrine Fisher. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t• c 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article was created by me. It was a fork (unintentionally created) and the content has been merged into List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents Tony ( talk) 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
please carry on. I've never done this before. Tony ( talk) 16:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Tony reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article duplicated the article Pedophilia in films. It was a fork created inadvertantly by me. Tony ( talk) 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Tony reply
&Delete as an article WP:FORK. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 16:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. There is no indication that this programming language is notable. I can't find anything. Google search for MyL Moreira does not come up with anything interesting. Author removed prod, and also removed {{notability}} tag. ... discospinster talk 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Keilana| Parlez ici 01:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Guru advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Discussions on notability criteria for ISKCON religious leaders are located at:
Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board,
Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics,
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, and
Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).
Ism schism (
talk) 10:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replyHe even has his own WIKI Answers page - [102]
See also [103] Wikidās ॐ 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Swamis are little like cardinals who travel, and GBC is more like resident(if grihastha) or zonal(if swami) cardinals who manage money and man. But in his case he is notable among both types because he is an educator. Wikidās ॐ 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense. NawlinWiki ( talk) 14:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete — fails notability guidelines. -- Haemo ( talk) 07:19, 4 April 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}} . |
Non-notable song, by non-notable group. Cannot find any sources to verify info as well Wildthing61476 ( talk) 14:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus isn't so clear on Afro-Australian, and a second nomination of that article separately may be in order. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 15:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is a
WP:SYNTH there is no term in use of African Australian, even the article states this;
There is no clear definition of what constitutes being an "African Australian" (or "Afro-Australian"). Along with indigenous Africans who were born in Africa, the term could encompass people as disparate as
Caribbean British,
African Americans or
Cape Malays who with an African upbringing or family background have chosen Australia as their new home. The
Australian Bureau of Statistics records people according to their birthplace and their self-described
ancestry, although aggregated data for Africa is split between "Sub-Saharan" and "North Africa and the Middle East".
Gnan
garra 14:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Article needs rewriting and sourcing, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 14:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be a notable rapper; albums were released mostly on non-notable labels. No coverage in reliable sources; no chart singles; no evidence that they meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Identicle article I Live to Code blanked by author after I prod'd it, and recreated here which I take as a contestion. Article is not supported by independent references ( WP:V), no real claim to notability ( WP:N) and the tone suggests a possible WP:COI. Marasmusine ( talk) 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be a notable album, even if it is on a major label. The producer is a red link, and most of the artists don't have pages; no sources could be found attesting to this album's notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 13:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 06:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be a notable musician; no valid sources could be found in a search -- no major label albums, no chart singles, etc. Listed per suggestion of Pharmboy ( talk · contribs) (see my talk page). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 13:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 06:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources provided, none found. This article is one sentance about an album that won't be released and one sentance about an album that might be recorded to replace it, plus some vague "recorded" info. Nothing verifiable to merge, no justification to keep. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 13:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete under criteria A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine ( talk • contribs)
Delete: Falis WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article David Alssema. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Twice speedied under A7, insufficient assertion of notability, authored by a user ( User:Atifk.butt) whose name bears a suspicious resemblance to the subject. Skomorokh 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced album. Written as "upcoming", but set in the past, so no one cared enough to notice that it didn't happen. Kww ( talk) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete, CSD A3, non-admin close. Redfarmer ( talk) 13:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Neologism with no Ghits or Yhits. Fails WP:Neo and WP is not a dictionary. ukexpat ( talk) 13:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 06:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources, no dates. Deleted at previous AFD, and no clear reason for recreation. Kww ( talk) 12:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 06:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: There is no need for such a list. In this way nemerous such lists can be created starting with "Contemporary women...". Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
simply living notable female artists practising today....thats how ive defined contemporary for the purpose of encyclopedia...this is open obviously to interpretation! but i think a list cant harm but will only add! perhaps this should be said at top of list...living female artists??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Humbridg ( talk • contribs)
The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 13:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources, no date, no confirmed tracks. WP:CRYSTAL violation Kww ( talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising. Spellcast ( talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be a notable shopping district; no coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 12:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted. - Fall en An gel 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:RS, and this is not suppose to even be a article, Poor Writting, no sources Fall en An gel 12:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article originally was written in French and translated into current form. Show is allegedly on NBC and "premiered" on February 26, 2008, however this show did not air. Producers of show do not have the show listed in their IMDB profile, also link to IMDB goes to "Quarterlife". Probable hoax? Wildthing61476 ( talk) 12:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I boldly redirected this article per WP:SNOW, but that was undone by another editor. This article is a technical component of a notable product, and does not deserve its own article. No sources have treated this component in a nontrivial way. The main article already treats the subject sufficiently. User:Krator ( t c) 11:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
"Relatively unknown" poet and his poem. No references supplied, and I can find absolutely no trace - Google, Scholar, the British Library catalogue, the Oxford Companion to English Literature... I suspect this is a hoax, but if not, he comprehensively fails Notability (people). Either way, Delete both. Two more poems are threatened, presently red-links; if they appear I will add them to this AfD. JohnCD ( talk) 11:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No significant edits in two+ months since no-consensus AfD; article remains in-universe plot summary. Previous AfD seems not to have prompted any push to improve the article. -- EEMIV ( talk) 11:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Spellcast ( talk) 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable company, previously speedily deleted several times as non notable and spam. Torchwood Who? ( talk) 09:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I am a secondary source, originally i have not made this clear.
I have collected this infomation from the websites owner.
Yetol.com is a company, and even through not world wide known it is still a company.
If you wish to observe the website go to www.yetol.com
I am a writer/critic for a small website analysis company that rates new websites and publishes a history about them.
Triippe (
talk) 09:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Just delete it. the whole page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Triippe ( talk • contribs)
Triippe ( talk) 12:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily kept. Nomination withdrawn; no "delete" votes. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 16:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTE. CorenSearchBot has already tagged article for potential copyvio. Taroaldo ( talk) 09:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 08:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Autobio of US-based Kenyan actor, journalist, photog, etc. Refs appear to be self-published. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was already deleted. Zetawoof( ζ) 08:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 07:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable company. Blatant advertising. Appears to be WP:COI. Considered a CSD candidate. Taroaldo ( talk) 07:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy-Deleted Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly- Tom 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy declined. Slang word that has no references and not encyclopedic. Tan | 39 06:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable invention. Also not likely the most common use of the term, as a TENS would qualify as matching that name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Per WP:MERGE I've ben Bold and merged the content to Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.. This discussion is pretty much useless now. Since now we are talking about the content of a diferent article. Please feel free to close this Afd. Also, per the subst:del template it is appropriate to remove the template from the page and merge. -- CyclePat ( talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I've even made a template to help the closing administrator... actually I've even placed it on the talk page.:
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2008. The result of the discussion was inconclusive because the article was merged to Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. under Wikipedia's guidelines of WP:BOLD and WP:MERGE. |
The result was keep. John254 23:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable victim of the 9/11 attacks. She DID receive a bit of press coverage a while back, but not enough to establish any notability. Jmlk 1 7 06:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong keep I think you should read the articles you tagged more clearly than you seem to have. "A bit" of press coverage? It was a cover story in New York magazine, followed up by coverage of the appeals court decision a few months ago in the New York Times. I think that's two instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources right there.When I put this up for DYK and it ran on the main page, there was ample opportunity for the community to suggest that this was a non-notable individual. No one did at that time. Suddenly we want to delete this now?
The only reason I can see for this is as part and parcel of an understandable effort to clear out truly nn 9/11 victims. But it is important to note that she is not a confirmed 9/11 victim, just someone whose whereabouts have been unknown since the night before the attack and may have been near the towers. If we didn't have the 9/11 victims cat (and, if we're going to delete all these people we might as well just get rid of the category too, since it will be too small to justify, or a magnet for continued recreation of these articles, and there certainly aren't going to be anymore 9/11 victims), I doubt we'd be having this discussion as we have kept articles on any number of missing persons with much less notability claim than her, even post-disappearance. Only because four of five appellate judges decided, using logic that would get deleted here as speculation and OR, that she had to have been at the towers because she hasn't been seen anywhere since, is she in that category.
If we're keeping Abraham Zelmanowitz, with much less media coverage over a shorter period, and a similar claim to non-notability if he weren't a 9/11 victim, we can keep this one. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. There is no evidence to support his notability as a "best-selling author", as he only ever wrote one book, and that book has almost no relevant Google hits (see The Jesus Scroll AfD below. MSJapan ( talk) 05:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). WilliamH ( talk) 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no assertion of proper notability ("bestseller", "forerunner to Da Vinci Code") that is supported by any evidence whatsoever. If this book was such a bestseller, the WP article should not be the second hit after the Amazon listing (which states it was only, not "first" published in 1973) if it was such a big deal, followed by a bunch of blogs, with all significant hits < 20. Not only is the book discredited, but the lawsuit regarding the source of Da Vinci was brought by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail which postdated this book by ten years. so the forerunner claim isn't supported either. The author article was created by the same person as created this article, and pretty much states that this is the book he wrote, so the notability (written by author notable enough for WP) is false there as well. MSJapan ( talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). WilliamH ( talk) 11:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and has issues with WP:BLP1E. This researcher is described in terms of being a coauthor on a paper retracted because one of the other authors had committed scientific fraud. There is no implication that this researcher committed misconduct, to my knowledge. Other than his tangential connection to this episode, he is no more notable than the average professor of medicine. MastCell Talk 05:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete, I doubt that fraud implications this serious would rate only a mention in the Norwegian press.
Here it's asserted that the co-authors are considered dupes. This is insufficient under
WP:BLP. --
Dhartung |
Talk 10:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy Deleted Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly- Tom 09:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't even know how to categorize this. It appears to be some manner of report on how to reform certain elements of Indian national or local government. Hard to say who generated it, or why that entity thinks it belongs here. Notability is not demonstrated or even asserted. Qworty ( talk) 05:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. BLP doesn't apply, mainly the L part, sadly. The "one event" portion apparently doesn't either, as has become notable beyond his death (street naming), and it has been adequately sourced. There are "memorial" issues though, could use some cleanup to read less like an obituary, IMO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable victim of 9/11. Jmlk 1 7 05:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Jmlk17. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It's pure cruft, but I can't tell what kind of cruft it is. All I know is that the Universe would be far better off without it. Qworty ( talk) 05:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as nonsense or even attack Dloh cierekim 12:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be nothing more than an example of what it's ostensibly talking about. I'm hoping an admin will come by and simply speedy this. But if the creator of this article wants to fight it out--as so many creators of this sort of stuff do--then I suppose this will be the place for it... Qworty ( talk) 05:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE Copyright violation. ~ Bigr Tex 06:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC) - Fixed by Tiddly- Tom 09:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It's completely unreferenced. It's a textbook case of WP:COI. It's posted by someone at the company. It's spam. It's self-promotion. It's an advertisement. It looks like a cut-and-paste job. It might even be a copyvio. It should be gone. Qworty ( talk) 05:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It's an advertisement. It's spam. It's self-promotion. It's written by someone at the company. It's completely unreferenced. It's textbook WP:COI. It should be gone. Qworty ( talk) 04:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 16:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contest prod several days ago, non-notable organization. Was originally a spam article, tagged speedy on its second revision, but IPs removed the speedy tag. Also swarmed with COI edits. BoL ( Talk) 04:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
*Keep I think this is a useful article. The charts make the article more useful. The article just needs references.--
RyRy5
talk 05:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling ( talk) 06:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an essay piece in violation of WP:NOR. The general topic may be workable, but using "one example" in the title would appear to indicate that the article will be forever narrow in scope and unable to redeem itself from WP:OR. Taroaldo ( talk) 04:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted by Orangemike. Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly- Tom 09:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
"Paul Needza Friend is an American singer Songwriter. Who claims to have invented his own genre of acoustic, melodic punk rock. Very little is actually known about him. He has toured throughout the United States, Scandinavia & the Baltics of Europe."
Clearly Non-Notable nonsense. Couchie ( talk) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 15:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student flat. First reference only confirms that students live in North Dunedin, no references to notable former residents. Also, Notability is not inherited. dramatic ( talk) 03:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Scien tizzle 15:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence that this is a real soup has ever been forthcoming: cookbooks which allegedly mention this soup have not been named, Google results for the Pinyin "Wei Xi Fan" or the (apparent) Chinese characters has been entirely fruitless, and the article itself makes little mention of notability. nneonneo ( talk) 02:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted by Jimfbleak. Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly- Tom 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
PROD'd to allow author to establish notability. PROD tag removed and sources added. Sources do not establish notability or claims made in the article. I also couldn't find any reliable sources through a Google search. KnightLago ( talk) 02:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
"This is a list of dog breeds originally developed for, or commonly used at some time in their history for dog fighting."
Nomination: This article name by itself is misleading and provocative by nature. It potencially allows to include about any given breed of dogs to the list and accordongly label it as "fighting breed". For example, Manchester Terrier and Bedlington Terrier are currently on the list. User:Afru
The result was Boldly redirected by User:Ohconfucius. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Redundant and the worse of two. See United States observance. The AFD nominee list includes random crap days that are not official observances and should be deleted. Jeff ( talk) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as a coyvio by Orangemike. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS Fall en An gel 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Keilana| Parlez ici 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:CORP, and WP:RS Fall en An gel 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 plus WP:SALTed. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
[142] and [143] demonstrates a complete lack of notability. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable published sources documenting this convention. I'm just seeing blogspot and primary, closely linked sources. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted by Orangemike. Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly- Tom 09:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: per nom. Fall en An gel 00:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete A7 by user:DJ Clayworth, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 00:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G10 (for the 2nd time) by User:Gogo Dodo just as AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not asserted, no references. ukexpat ( talk) 00:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted. If it's been speedily deleted several times already, chances are that it isn't getting any more notable. Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 00:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A previous deletion debate decided to delete the article, but it was not deleted. I am aiming to rectify this error by having the articl be deleted. Jedravent ( talk) 00:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted under G3 as a hoax article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Ceppos was the original publisher of Dianetics and briefly a director of the orignal Dianetics Foundation. He apparently also had some involvement with gestalt therapy. Aside from that, the article is mostly not about him and not verifiable where it is.
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Pass the sick bag, Alice... Colonel Warden ( talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Fall en An gel 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G3 by User:Aleta, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Falis WP:RS. No hint in google search [145]. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn with no !votes for deletion made. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 01:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:PROD removed. For other reasons/info see other tags/templates on article. My reason to vote delete is because i think it lacks notability. The Prof | Talk 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The phrase is an obvious neologism. Direct copy from a Conservapedia page. Article was prodded with six prod2's agreeing. Prod removed by anon editor Dipics ( talk) 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected by Mrschimpf ( talk · contribs) to correct page (Non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 22:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)}} reply
Duplicates another existing article + wrong tournament name Garavello ( talk) 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reply