The result was Delete. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable business executive, failing WP:BIO. Fair number of hits on google. About 400, but most seem to be social networking, mirrors of zoominfo, couple of bits in newspapers where is is quoted about something HP is doing. Started a company called Oblix in the 1990s (incidentally the name of the article author) and he is currently a VP of strategy and planning at Hewlett Packard. Nothing earth shattering that would seem to make a prima facie case for notability. Montco ( talk) 23:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
A freeware game. Google finds blog mentions, bulletin board posts, astroturfing, and no reliable third-party sources at all. Prod was removed by an anon claiming independent sources aren't important for video games. — Cryptic 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Declined PROD. This article is about a forthcoming book, that is apparently currently being written. As such, it does not meet the notability guidelines for books. There can be no critical commentary because there is no book, is not available for many of the other criteria, and the book's author does not meet the standard required for works to be automatically accepted. Fritzpoll ( talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:MUSIC songs must meet the notability criteria which states that to be notable a topic must have received significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. This does not appear to be the case for this unreleased single and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In this case the artist does not even have appear to have a page. Guest9999 ( talk) 23:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't think the subject of this page is notable per
WP:BIO1E. The event he is notable for is, of course, well-known within UNC, but is it notable by Wikipedia standards? Most sources are local to the Triangle. A secondary issue is a large part of the page is also a cut and paste of various letters. It's been a couple of years since the event, so hopefully notability is easier to gauge now.
Artichoke2020 (
talk) 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was deleted by Ohnoitsjamie under A7 (web). asenine say what? 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Megapen ( talk) 22:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:N. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This is merely a summary of a research study. ZimZalaBim talk 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Articles on individual TV episodes are just slightly controversial these days. I looked at the recent Arbcom case and at Talk:List of Happy Tree Friends episodes, to find out the opinion of those editors on having individual episode articles. I'm confident that a Delete verdict (as favored by a majority of the editors below) does fit with current policy. There is no bar to re-creation of the article if reliable sources can be found showing out-of-universe notability. There is not really anything to merge because the proposed target article already has a table entry for this episode containing everything that will fit in the cells. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Arbcom reply
I don't think that individual Happy Tree Friends episodes meet the general notability guidelines, and that List of Happy Tree Friends episodes is enough. There are many other individual Happy Tree Friends episode article, and though I do not list them all in this AfD, and individual articles should be treated on their merits, notability issues, and the best course of action will probably coincide for most of those episodes. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy and declined prod; WP:NOT a how-to site. KurtRaschke ( talk) 21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non admin closure) Cenarium (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I rejected the A7 CSD on this actor bio. Procedural nom, not checked for sources yet, so I'm neutral on the issue for now. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:NEO. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Neologism, fraught with unsourced POV statements, and if rectified, will likely be little more than a dictionary definition. ZimZalaBim talk 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) The consensus is that a disambiguation page should exist at Dr. Acula. Darkspots ( talk) 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I rejected the CSD of this band per some coverage, however, it seems to be thin, and mainly press releases. They have two albums out, but not on a major indie label. (at least not that I know of). Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The article contains no information that is attributed to reliable sources. The link to the organization's web site at www.68dli.co.uk is worth keeping, but that website is already linked from the article on the 68th (Durham) Regiment of Foot (Light Infantry). EdJohnston ( talk) 02:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
There's no indication that this is a notable organisation, and I haven't found anything that would make it notable. The only Google hits are Wikipedia and its mirrors, and it gets no Google News hits. A ecis Brievenbus 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Scottsdale Unified School District. No sourced content to merge. Sandstein 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Rather short article about a nn Arizona middle school. Article does not assert the importance of its subject. Google pulls up some things, but next to nothing to establish notability. Mizu onna sango15/ 水女珊瑚15 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article, suspected hoax; I could not find a record here and that website in effect provides records for all notable fighters. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Www.Revisionists.com speedily deleted (G11) by Jmlk17. Redirect at title below deleted by Jpgordon per R1. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 12:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
List of "revisionists" from this website. I have no idea what this article is supposed to be (even the title doesn't make any sense to me).There's a pretty large overlap with Category:Holocaust deniers, but according to the source website's bios, not all people on this website are holocaust deniers or even historians. Currently it borders WP:CSD#A1: Speedy deletion for lack of context. Huon ( talk) 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
(Deletion log); 16:55 . . Jpgordon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)" (G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted page) (Deletion log); 16:54 . . Jpgordon (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)" (Copyvio; cut-and-paste from www.revisionsists.com)
The result was Snowball Delete -- JForget 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This page is alleged to be a list of military controversies, but a closer inspection suggests that the page has OR issues and POV issues as well. These are thought by editers at MILHIST to be enough to warrent an afd for the article, as we do not think it can be salvaged, therefore I have filed this afd to begin the process for removing the article. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable internal committee within Trinity College, Dublin; as a comment on the talk page says of this article, "What's the point?"
The only reference in the article is to the committee's own website, and a Google News search returns nothing ... so it fails WP:N (no independent references). — BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this neologism doesn't seem to have received the kind of coverage from reliable sources to write an encylopaedia article. Guest9999 ( talk) 19:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
are people homophobes around here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddygotfingers ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable university committee. Yes, it's quite significant to student societies with in Trinity College, Dublin, for inclusion in wikipedia it needs to demonstrate notability by substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. A Google News search for "Dublin University Central Societies Committee" OR "Central Societies Committee" returns only one trivial mention in an article about someone else. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist: no refs to reliable sources, let alone substantial coverage of him, so he fails WP:BIO. A Google News search throws up no hits for him. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as lies. DS ( talk) 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The 21st no less in line to the Monegasque Throne, now is this claim alone enough to meet the notability guidelines? Personally I think not. Polly ( Parrot) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:N. Although unreleased, there is significant secondary coverage and therefore WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Has previously been prodded by different editors on a couple of occasions. The game doesn't seem notable to me, it's never been released, and the article's infobox says it's on indefinite hold. I don't see any evidence that this game will ever be released. Bingobangobongoboo ( talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Ernescliff College; no consensus about the other two. Sandstein 20:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating for deletion:
All three of these article are about residence halls that do not rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. I would be happy to withdraw this nomination or change my mind if additional evidence were offered. ElKevbo ( talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I have dropped a note on the Talk page for the Universities Wikiproject to generate thorough discussion of this nomination. -- ElKevbo ( talk) 18:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per consensus; WP:AIRCRASH. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
These are regular-ish occurences in general aviation. They do hit each other from time to time. If this exposes a massive flaw in Air Traffic Control operations I would reconsider, but for now I think this isn't quite notable enough. Please also see the draft notability guidlines produced by WP:AIRCRASH and the list of past AfD debates collected there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails notability criteria (no notable people involved). See this AfD discussion for details of notability criteria. Mjroots ( talk) 07:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Fan cruft, uncited, not notable. Madcoverboy ( talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per consensus; WP:AIRCRASH. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a very minor crash. No-one was injured, and hundereds of light aircraft crash in similar circumstances every day, usually with fatalities. Please also see the draft notability guidlines produced by WP:AIRCRASH and the list of past AfD debates collected there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No sign of being covered in secondary sources, first Google hit is his Myspace and the second is this Wikipedia page. No sign of being signed to any label, cf WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten ( talk) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Person is not notable. For someone who "has given talks on popular media", one unrelated Google News hit is not impressive. Punkmorten ( talk) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Rather like Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (currently at AfD), all we seem to have is an advert: inticement to buy via external links, no evidence of notability and the only content is a table of contents. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The current version of the article does not appear to satisfy the expressed wishes of the Keep voters, since it contains *no* entries for which there is sourced information to show notability. (The closest one is the Afghan friendship group, which is undergoing its own AfD at present). If we restrict the list to include only those friendship groups for which sources are provided, it would have either no entries or just a single entry. That would not be much of a list. I will provide a version of the article for anyone who wants to work on it in their user space, for adding sources. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This is simply List of non-notable organizations. Per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not an collection of random NN information. The page was prod'd, but the creator has removed prod, so I'm bringing it to AFD. Ragib ( talk) 17:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Bduke ( talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No notability is shown, and there are no references. King iMat thew 20 08 17:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Wizardman 17:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Frankly this AfD has been so distorted by nationalist POV-pushing and votestacking that any result would have been meaningless anyway, even if one side had predominated. ChrisO ( talk) 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Blatant POV fork Avg 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
How-to page. Unsourced and made by a company. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non admin closure) Cenarium (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable judge; news coverage relates primarily to his failed nomination to the Ninth Circuit, in articles that were mainly about squabbles between Clinton and Bush. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. An overwhelming consensus for deletion. In addition there are no secondary sources to stand up the various claims in the article that consequently fail WP:V. TerriersFan ( talk) 01:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Either not notable due to a lack of coverage by reliable secondary sources or a hoax, no web results and the link to a myspace page is dead. Guest9999 ( talk) 16:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 08:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic NPOV essay Andreas (T) 16:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems like an inherently
POV opinion piece someone's homework on a topic which is likely covered in some form or another in the many other articles we have on,
magistrates,
judges,
courts and the
legal system.
Guest9999 (
talk) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) The consensus below is that MV Island Sky is a notable ship. Darkspots ( talk) 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I really have no idea about this: are ferries notable automatically or not? The number of articles we have on them seems to suggest they are, but just what evidence is given here that this ferry - not even built yet - could be considered notable? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete — Alex. Muller 12:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Can't see how this could be anything more than a WP:DICDEF. ZimZalaBim talk 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability, and thus non-notable. His teaching at Matthew Boulton comes from a personal page of his, while his CV here indicates no research after the awarding of the PhD. The rm of speedy claimed hits on Google Scholar - there were none. "Y.H. Le Teuff" gets more hits but the majority of them are not for the PhD work as claimed, but rather a database for which he was not the sole contributor. Therefore, I do not see credible support for the statements in the article that would establish scientific notability. MSJapan ( talk) 15:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Individual of questionable notability. Of the 19 google hits returned some of those are even repeats of each other. Also nominating his two albums:
-- Roleplayer ( talk) 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. When this AFD started, the only source that would have "confirmed" this was a picture that might have been from Corocoro. However, since then, Nintendo Japan has officially announced this, giving us a reliable source. The Placebo Effect ( talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Nothing on the page complies with
WP:BALL. Nothing official has been released (to the best of my knowledge and google searching).
EDIT: Not even confirmed by the developer!
asenine
say what? 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
NN character per WP:FICT, no real world references Dismas| (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Attack page (speedy nomination reverted) citing a source that doesn't even mention the person (removed twice, see history); notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-05-11 t14:20z
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a codeshare agreement. It is not a separate entity from the two airlines. Airlines codeshare with other airlines all the time, and such an agreement does not merit its own page Neo16287 ( talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 17:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a hoax, I can't find anything on MC MC or Special Dave or the show "Lord Blige Commands" Not speedied in case I'm just not seeing something. LegoTech·( t)·( c) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is an autobiography and the author had conflict of interest. She was attempting to gain notability through this encyclopedia. A search for her at Google (excluding Wikipedia and mirrors) received 266 hits. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Since the nomination and the one delete comment were predicated on the lack of sources, now that multiple sources have been provided I have given greater weight to the keep views. TerriersFan ( talk) 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No references ( WP:V), does not pass notability guidelines ( WP:N (Google shows lots of directory entries; can't see any reliable coverage.) Largely game-guide material ( WP:NOT#GUIDE) without any out-of-universe context ( WP:WAF). Basically no improvement from the previous two deletions (one expired prod, one speedy). Marasmusine ( talk) 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Although the comments calling for a speedy keep are out of place--the nomination was clearly made in good faith--the arguments raised in favor of keeping the article are persuasive. WP:WEB is a guideline for the application of WP:N, which defines notability as having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". From looking through the discussion below as well as the external links provided, it seems that there is a consensus to keep based on sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources (see, for example, [24] and [25]). While it is clear to me that the article could use some cleanup in order to more clearly present its claims to notability, this should be handled through normal editing means. -- jonny- m t 04:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article has no sources independent of the site itself that prove its notability. It has no assertion of its notability from independent sources. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Smartyllama ( talk) 13:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (Failed)
- This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: (No reliable published works found)
- Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. (Probably the article itself)
- Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
- The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. (No award was ever given)
- The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:
- Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites ( GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) (None so far)
Also:
1. It's been used and cited in several acadmic studies. One of these is now referenced. 2. I've found several non-trivial references by Googling +"Hattrick" +"ExtraLives". As mentioned elsewhere on this page, their non-inclusion thus far is not grounds for deletion. 3. Wrong. Read the page. You "doubt the Philippine membership on this site"? Eh? How is that in any way relevant to an AfD. If you bother to check (takes two minutes), you'll find that 275 of the 965,000 active players are Filipino. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic series); I have redirected the article. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, cited information. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This page concerns a fictional character that is not notable, because it has not received any nontrivial coverage. In other words, there are no reliable sources that have this character as their primary subject. This nomination is not a blanket nomination on purpose. User:Krator ( t c) 12:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Totally unsouurced biography for person of doubtful notability, whose only Google appearance appears to be this article RolandR ( talk) 12:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi Nsk92! I have not compared Clancy with anybody; not Batchelor, not Landau, nor anyone else. You are the one who has introduced the concept of comparison of one person with another. If you carefully read my words on this page you will see I wrote only that certain articles (eg Hydrodynamics) cite certain authors and provide links to biographical articles about those authors. (eg Batchelor et al). My words are statements of fact. Thank you for the links to WP articles. I will study them. Dolphin51 ( talk) 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was revert to redirect. Calling WP:SNOW on this ridiculous... thing.- Wafulz ( talk) 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Reads like an enlistment brochure crossed with a how-to manual. No references cited. Would need a complete re-write even if it is a valid topic.
User appears to have cannibalized the FA "vampire" for the talk page when the redirect was cut. Matt Deres ( talk) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article cites no sources to assert notability or verifiability per WP:N and WP:V. Content includes a large amount of information that would be more suitable for a manual or strategy guide per WP:NOT#MANUAL. Article has had maintenance tags on it since September 07 and been through a contested PROD, hence the reason to raise it here Gazimoff Write Read 10:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability ( WP:N), no independent references ( WP:V). Tagged with notability concern last year, which was removed with the comment "We're working on notability." There have been no improvements since then. Marasmusine ( talk) 09:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- JForget 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a collection of stuff made up one day. An article on "intuitive" game rules and gameplay might be workable (if highly prone to authorial POV), but this article only covers one specific "intuitive" game that was invented by the article's creator(s). - Sean Curtin ( talk) 08:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable political party. Has 100 members and in the three elections it has contested has only managed a grand total of 232 votes. The article been speedily deleted before but I am bringing it to AFD this time as one of the elections was national not local ( Scottish Parliament) but even so the candidate only convinced 124 of the 33,785 people who voted in that constituency. nancy (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, then made into redirect. DS ( talk) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Originally nominated for speedy deletion but that is generally not appropriate for hoax articles, which is what this appears to be. I find no sources whatsoever describing this film and as such assume that it does not in fact exist. Footnoted sources do not actual establish the existence of the film. Should be deleted as a hoax. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely neologistic day. asenine say what? 07:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to CVECA. There's nothing to merge any more, so I'm just redirecting. Sandstein 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Just a dictionary definition translation, plus it's not clear that this term is in widespread use in English. The given source barely mentions it, providing nothing more than a translation.
Powers
T 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Despite a clear "keep" majority, some "keep"s are of the weak WP:EVERYTHING and WP:GHITS type. Sandstein 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The article doesn't assert and there doesn't appear to be evidence that this is in any way a notable camera lens. Ghits are mainly locations it can be purchased with no evidence of any significant reviews other than personal blogs. Wikipedia is not a camera guide or a HowTo, this is far too detailed for an encyclopedic article and I'm not sure that a re-direct to Sigma Corporation#Telephoto Zoom Lenses would be appropriate as I highly doubt this as a search term. Talk to Cari the Busy Bee 03:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Nominated for the same reason as its recently deleted sister article, List of songs with state names in the title. Like the aformentioned article, I initially prodded this on the grounds that it was unencyclopaedic, but the tag was removed by the author. The sister article was deleted a day or so ago per AFD discussion, so, considering this list is essentially the same thing, I decided to take this here as well. Mizu onna sango15/ 水女珊瑚15 07:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Cryptic (A7: nngroup). Non admin closure. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable indoor football team. asenine say what? 06:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The subject has no significant championship wins to his credit so the question is whether the secondary sources are sufficient to achieve notability. Until the relisting opinion was divided on this question. However, the later commentators have had the benefit of examining the additional sources found during the AfD and have judged them insufficient. There is clearly scope for this page to be recreated if better sources can be located and added to the article, and I am happy to userfy it to anyone who wishes to develop it. TerriersFan ( talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestler with none-barely any information/references in the article iMat thew 20 08 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 05:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article creator removed db-band and noted that "BoC gained notability in 2008 as being the first Wise County band to upload music onto the internet". I'm not sure that this is sufficient to meet the notability guidelines (and it's uncited, to boot), but it is at least an assertion of notability. There's nothing else to indicate that this band meets the WP:MUSIC notability criteria, Google searches are unusually barren and even catalogue sites like All Music Guide do not have an entry for them. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki ( talk) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax -- originally proposed for deletion by Cunard since it appeared to be made up (no Google hits for an supposed NHL player), prod was removed by an anonymous editor who continued to expand the article oddly. ArglebargleIV ( talk) 04:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an OR Essay LegoTech·( t)·( c) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per consensus and taking into account meatpuppetry. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
A Google News search gets 22 hits but most seem to be calendar listings. Google Scholar gets 4 hits. The article lacks WP:V or WP:RS, only her commercial website provides some info. I just don't see much there but if people can dig up more, great. Pigman ☿ 04:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The possibility of a merger can be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The article (originally titled "Canadian Refugee Policy") was made primarily to talk about a supposed urban legand. I don't see proof it's a big deal in Canada, and doubt it will be of lasting interest. While some of the original article was about the generic issue of "Canadian Refugee Policy", it wasn't of sufficient size/quality to use anywhere, which is why I renamed the article, and AFD'd it. Rob ( talk) 04:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article M. S. El Naschie. 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 per consensus and taking into account meatpuppetry. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
After doing a Google news search and a Google Scholar search, I don't really find anything notable on Dennis Chernin. There isn't a single source except for his own website. The article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. If I thought these were fixable problems, I'd fix it myself but I can't find WP:V sources. Without sources, this becomes a bit of a WP:BLP problem. He's written books but I don't find any indication that they've sold well or that they've been cited. Unless more is dug up, I'm leaning toward delete. Pigman ☿ 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 01:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Two albums for Mercury (apparently), but no reliable sources to be seen aside from the Rolling Stone source. Proof in my opinion that
WP:MUSIC isn't always set in stone.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 02:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, never thought to check Google Books. Good enough for me.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 01:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. A highly meritorious project but for a page on it to survive it needs reliable, secondary coverage, which it hasn't. There was a unanimous view that the article should be deleted. TerriersFan ( talk) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutely no substantial coverage of subject in reliable news media. All sources are simply advertisement-like or massive directories. Also, has a 1.5 million Alexa ranking for its website. Electricbassguy ( talk) 02:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Whilst at first, this AfD was going towards the deletion side, there was extensive work done on the article as the debate progressed. As this was done, there was a large switch in the comments and a clear consensus to keep the article, hence my decision. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The lead on the Genetics article constitutes an introduction for the layman to this subject. I don't see the point of this article. Perhaps redirect. Nk.sheridan Talk 01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource. Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Band with no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, no reliable sources Stormie ( talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Fabrictramp ( talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Appear to fail WP:MUSIC. Two albums on a record label that is bluelinked, but it's a redirect and doesn't appear particularly notable itself. Black Kite 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page (a member of the band)
And I am also nominating their album: