The result was delete. kur ykh 01:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:GNG. A recently started poetry magazine that is published twice a year. No extensive media coverage, no claim of significance. A google search for "Rhythm poetry magazine" turns up only 16 hits. Nouse4aname ( talk) 22:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable, does not meet WP:CORP. 2 man agency started 4:th quarter 2008, no Google hit or Google news hits that confirm any notability. -- Stefan talk 22:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. as copyright violation Mgm| (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a dictionary; also a possible copyvio. KurtRaschke ( talk) 21:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, A7; notability not even asserted. Author Psychestudio ( talk · contribs) blocked as a promotion-only account. Blueboy 96 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparently an extension of their company website. Notability hadn't been established in the article. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 23 November 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}} . |
This publication does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:N. I undertook Google searches of "Fightback" and "Canada", but came across no independent coverage of the subject, other than at the Trotskyists' own sites at marxist.ca and marxist.com. Previous attempts by other editors to tag this article for improvement have been deleted. Skeezix1000 ( talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I have reviewed the third-party sources provided in the article, however, and I am not convinced that they meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:N, and in particular of WP:SOURCES. My reasoning is as follows:
* Two of the sources are merely directories of publications (Independent Media, Broadleft), and inclusion in a directory is typically not considered to be coverage in independent sources sufficient to satisfy WP:N (for the same reason a local business would not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines merely because it is listed in the yellow pages and other business directories).
* Three of the sources (Hands of Venezuala, the Celia Hart piece, and the Spanish-language article) do not appear to even mention Fightback (although I do not speak Spanish, so I could have missed a specific reference in that article). Although the Fightback publication might have been involved in the events mentioned in those third-party sources, for a source to satisfy WP:V it needs to explictly refer to the article subject.
* Finally, two of the references do mention Fightback - the International Communist League piece very briefly in passing, and the Bolshevik.org piece in more detail. Both references are critical of Fightback, so arguably constitute sources independent of the article subject (which is good). I am just not sure that these two sources constitute the "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that is required by WP:N, esp. since the first source contains only the briefest of mentions of Fightback in a presentation that addresses other topics (the recent elections) rather than the subject at hand. I would prefer to see some non-opinion piece sources from the non-Communist media to satisfy myself that the article subject is notable outside a select group of people.
For those reasons, I do not feel that the new sources are sufficient for me to support the retention of this article. Having said that, I hope other editors chime in with their thoughts. -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 14:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Also this http://www.marxist.com/conference-trotskys-ideas-venezuela-cuba.htm
http://www.marxist.com/miners-memorial-day.htm
I dont know if these are third party sources though as they come from www.marxist.com which is the website of the international , although it is not the website of fightback.
Also this is the whole section of articles related to fightback on www.marxist.com some of them might be good to see the verifiability and notability of fightback or the canadian section of the IMT http://www.marxist.com/canada.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotskyistmaniac ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
kk sufficient *Keep age. Not ideal coverage, but as much as can be expected for topics in this area. We have always been breoad minded in accepting articles on political parties, and we should do similarly for their newspapers. DGG ( talk) 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that the organization is not notable, and that a press release does not constitute enough coverage to pass WP:ORG. StarM 15:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails the general notability guidelines and WP:ORG. Article about a small county organization that has not been written about except in an article in the small local newspaper. Article mostly consists of the company's beliefs and history and contains little assertion of notability. Themfromspace ( talk) 20:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No notability asserted. Blue links appear to be unrelated (a predeceased actor of a different nationality and an American football player). Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparent autobiography. 20 year old subject is wholly nonnotable and fails WP:BIO. He landed an interview on a small special-interest website for a film he created over a few days. Article is strewn with unsourced claims. Google doesn't help at all when it comes to finding sources for verification of notability. Themfromspace ( talk) 20:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC) - reply
The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources supporting the existence of this movement. Zouavman Le Zouave 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Mgm| (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Dictdef with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch not showing notability; dictionary.com doesn't list the word. Prod contested by article creator without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. kur ykh 01:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Four COI product promotions disguised as encyclopedia entries. They fail WP:PRODUCT. Author was indef blocked for spamming. Prods removed by anon IP who restored spam links to the manufacturer's website. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
contested prod nn album by nn artist also unsourced Oo7565 ( talk) 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Obscure toy programming language Damiens.rf 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Declined prod; neologism with no references. Borders on being unencyclopedic. KurtRaschke ( talk) 18:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod contested by IP with "Hi, I have erased the deletion notice after substantially contributing to the article, and thus I believe there is now enough information to constitute an article. Thank you." Clear cut WP:HAMMER nonetheless as the sources still say very little. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Cozy Powell. So Why 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Not a notable band on its own. Unreferenced, little prospect for expansion of the article. Preferred action is redirect to notable band member Cozy Powell per WP:MUSICBIO#6, but it was reverted. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - Not notable and is the smallest of stubs. -- Teancum ( talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician. The article is written by the subject, so conflict of interest is evident as well. CyberGhostface ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Article cites very few
notable sources reads like an
advertisement.
Teancum (
talk) 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
Delete: I also propose we delete this article based on very few sources and is also an advertisememt would except if they spruce it up a little. Hairy Perry 19:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep - The article could use work, yes. Deleted? It's notable in that it's one of the earlier guitar hero clone games for the PC. And then there's the fact that it's for the PC, before any 'official' guitar hero style game came to it. There's active discussion going on and possible reductionist editing ... but that doesn't mean it should be removed. 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.154.232 ( talk)
The result was keep. John254 06:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell this band fails
WP:MUSIC completely and Google doesn't throw up anything notable either. Delete.
SIS 16:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Ščekić, born 1986, have No reliable source to prove he is a professional footballer. I found souce he is a Montenegrin U17 international but not to prove he is professional
[1]. And there is
Aleksandar Šćekić born 1983, is a professional player
Matthew_hk
t
c 16:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross ( talk) 03:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable social centre. Harry Cowley who the centre is named after might be notable but that would be covered in an article about him. Cameron Scott ( talk) 16:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I discounted the comments by Jrcla2 and TonyTheTiger for not providing a reason and Theseeker for not addressing the other sources. After reading the other comments in detail it seems to boil down to a discussion about whether the sources are reliable and whether he actually coached a highest amateur league. Neither of these points received consensus. I recommend especially the last point to be worked out if the article is ever renominated. Mgm| (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. College football coach who fails WP:NOTE. All we have is statistical info from some 9 Google hits [2], all of them used in the article. He is mentioned in four Gnews hits [3], but these are truly passing mentions, not giving us any information about the person. Has not coached at the highest level of the sport by far, has not played professionally, has no other claims to notability. The college football essay referenced on the talk page has been ignored many times in the past few months and does not represent the consensus of most Wikipedia editors, as it is way out of line compared to WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Fram ( talk) 15:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Several related projects have been sent notificaiton of this discussion.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. doesn't have enough non-trivial reliable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album. Only sources are primary or say nothing about the album, and only other sources found were directly related to Rufus Wainright. Seems to fail notability guidelines for albums given the utter lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for neologisms and stuff made up by one author. Having attended one of the institutions and lived in the area for 5 years, I cannot recall there being a formal or cultural link between these universities to the exclusion of other major universities metropolitan Boston like Boston University, Boston College, Brandeis University, or Northeastern University. Moreover, these universities have facilities all over metropolitan Boston (e.g., Tufts and Harvard Medical schools are nowhere near the alleged triangle). If there's any brainpower polygon in metro Boston, it's an irregular dodecahedron or something! Madcoverboy ( talk) 15:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn It may not have charted in Norway, but it did chart in the US, and that's good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Chart position seems bogus. Without that, nothing notable about this song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Firstly, A NN young footballer not yet made his debut on fully professional league, (at least in Serbian First League}, and/or secondly without source to support the notability. Matthew_hk t c 15:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I also nominated
Matthew_hk t c 15:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy A7 -- B ( talk) 15:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
CSD A7, but it might just pass the speedy deletion; that's why it's up for deletion
Imperat§ r( Talk) 15:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
An article regarding a person whose only claim to fame seems to be starting an obscure birthday tradition in parts of Nicaragua (and so fails WP:BIO1E. Google searches throw up a blank so none of the claims can be verified. I strongly suspect a hoax here, but thought it more prudent to put it up for AfD instead to allow others to see if they have more success. Bettia (rawr!) 15:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Don't see anything passing WP:ENTERTAINER, many of the bluelinks appear to be part of a walled garden of NN / borderline movies Black Kite 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
nn actor with half a dozen film parts, either bit parts in major films, or parts in bit films, and a couple of TV appearances. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. I originally tagged A7 bio, but that was declined (I still don't see much claim of notability, unless one assumes all actors with jobs are notable). gnfnrf ( talk) 15:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unreferenced tour article. Not even sure whether this was the tour's title - seems like something made up in order for it to be made into an article. Whether the set list remained the same throughout all shows is unknown and there are no venues listed or any other info found in legit tour articles. Any info that may be notable could easily be placed in Rae's main page. eo ( talk) 14:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
NN proposed building, not one reliable source I could find in google other a couple of real-estate guides. Fails WP:V as far as I could tell Delete Secret account 14:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedied as a copyvio -- B ( talk) 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NOTABILITY. This speech should be paraphrased and added to the OBOTE's article if it is at all notable for him. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Nonexistent airline. No notability DonaldDuck ( talk) 14:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 08:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Not Wikipedia notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, secondary published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 14:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. So Why 20:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOTDICDEF -- Suntag ☼ 14:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTE. Book by a non notable author from an unknown publisher (e-book?) has not received any attention in reliable independent sources. 22 Distinct Google hits. No Google News, Books or Scholar hits. No claim to notability is made in the article. Fram ( talk) 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Also nominated: Weightrix (neologism introduced in the above book)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced BLP, stub, claim to notability is weak. MBisanz talk 13:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Since the nominator did not provide an explanation on why he deemed the subject not notable and the recent reveal of an NYT article that shows he was on the first squad of a notable team means there's no policy based reason to delete, also early comments saying the article is unreferenced are also no longer relevant. Mgm| (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
this person really is not notable. there is nothing special that he has done. 68.192.45.84 ( talk · contribs) Text copied from article's talk page ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Time Magazine I found a copy of the October 23, 1963 issue of Time Magazine showing and naming James McKinstry and the rest of the NY Jets. Because of copyrights I can't post it to WikiCommons. If there is a way that this pullout can be helpful in proving the legitimacy of this Wiki, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuscgp ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close as redirect. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
this page is a duplicate of an already existing page FreeMorpheme ( talk) 22:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. kur ykh 01:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I found six articles from the Rutland Herald through Google News that mentioned the subject, one that seemed to have non-trivial coverage (which I have added to the article), but I am not convinced that we can write a decent-length stub that is thoroughly referenced to reliable sources. Given that this is a WP:BLP, I'm not sure that it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia or the subject for this article to remain. the skomorokh 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Well, I think there's more to Burlett's career than simply a google news search. Burlett's a local hero, something I wish to expound on in future edits. Is there any chance we could fold this into one of the municipal articles, if you think this doesn't work? Michaelcuddyer ( talk) 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
nothing here to assert notability of this company — G716 < T· C> 00:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Jack and Jill School. Spartaz Humbug! 19:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable karate school with conflict of interest present as well. CyberGhostface ( talk) 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
It would be a great help if you could please consider the changes i've made or help develop and improve this article this article. Thankz a lot!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjskarate ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm trying to improve this article. The Jack & Jill Karate Kids would have a great time if they could see their dojo in wikipedia. i'm hoping that somebody who has the expertised in this matter will rescue my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjskarate ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I have included Philippine Karatedo Federation to testify that JJS Karate Dojo is a notable karate school in the Philippines.
Jack & Jill School is an institution in Bacolod City, Philippines. JJS Karate Dojo is martial arts center located in the school campus of Jack & Jill School. When joining the karatedo competition JJS Karatedo is the official team of the school.( Jjskarate ( talk) 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)). reply
For now I have included 2 reliable sources like Visayan Daily Star and Sun Star Bacolod Newspapers. I hope you could help me or give me some more tips so that this article will survive.( Jjskarate ( talk) 03:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)). reply
As of this moment I've edited and make some changes in JJS Karate Dojo articles (to the best of my ability)... The following changes are:
Hope my little knowledge regarding wikipedia will be able to save my article fron deletion. ( Jjskarate ( talk) 08:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)) reply
I have added more sources today like the Junior Inquirer of Philippines Daily Inquirer distributed every Sunday, also an article in BYLINES Magazine written by a respected journalist NONOY ESPINA "Way of the Kids" during the 2005 SEA Games held in Bacolod City, Philppines. I included also a press release and official fliers by Milo Sports Clinic as one of the Karatedo training center in the Visayas and the latest newsletter of Negros Occidental Private School Sports, Cultural, Educational Association (NOPSSCEA) in which our team highlighted the sports opening ceremony. Jjskarate ( talk) 06:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Just to inform everybody that our dojo/team is not a world class dojo for the reason that we are included in the grassroot level of sports program in the Philippines. Most of our karatekas are ages 6-12 years old (children division) that why its not easy for us to established records because the spectators and sports officials focus on the collegiate level such as UAAP, NCAA, SEA Games, ASIAN Games up to World Championship / Olympic. Few organization included children in the competitions. But if given a chance to compete our kids are doing their best to established a personal record. Jjskarate ( talk) 07:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Miss Puerto Rico. Content under the re-direct if someone wants to merge. StarM 15:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Notabilty uncertain. Say Headcheese!-- hexa Chord 2 22:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was G4 by TexasAndroid , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, per CSD G10, a purely negative, unsourced biography of a living person J.delanoy gabs adds 17:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was prodded as a hoax, but no information was provided as to why this would be the case. I'm bringing it here instead to make sure this is truly a non-controversial deletion as prods are supposed to be Mgm| (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is essentially a catalog of products sold by this company. Moving to AFD after prod was contested. Rtphokie ( talk) 12:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Tag for notability removed. A use of a phrase in a source doesn't make it notable in its own. Anyone who believes finding X sources who can utter a particular phrase can make it notable has far more clarity than the rest of the wiki community who stopped relying on things like google hits a long time ago. The phrase itself hasn't seem to have received any significant coverage and half a dozen people writing it down doesn't garner it an article. WP:NOTE doesn't have anything specific for phrases, but I don't see any significant coverage of the term (e.g. analysis, discussion of history, usage, etc) that is being done by 3rd parties on this term. Crossmr ( talk) 11:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Further discussion on where the material should live can be discussed on talk pages, there is no consensus to delete this article StarM 15:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability unestablished for far too long. last time I asked for it to be established the tag was removed with no changes to the article and the claim that "notability was assessed" with no evidence given. I'll direct !voters over to WP:NOTE. Basically you need articles from reliable sources about crack intros (I highly doubt any will be found which is why we're here). Also read WP:ILIKEIT, none of these arguments are remotely relevant to keeping the article. we're not a repository of all human knowledge nor the keepers of all the little cool things we remember from when we were kids, because frankly we weren't a significant portion of the population. Crossmr ( talk) 11:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources, this has probably sat around long enough. This looks like nothing more than an attempt to define a neologism. Inline lilnks make it look like possibly a clever advert. Crossmr ( talk) 11:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be a WP:HOAX. No references are provided. An internet search of any combination of Unity, Lake, Pond, Maine, Monster, Legend, etc. finds zero information. — CactusWriter | needles 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. I note that all comments by established users favoring deletion preceded significant improvements in the article, and that two of the established users initially favoring deletion changed their position to "keep" after reviewing the revised article. John254 06:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Conflict of Interest, Original Research Ponty Pirate ( talk) 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was After discounting several comments with bad or no reasoning, I'm left with an equal number of delete and keep comments. Most of those didn't take into account the option to merge information. I would recommend merging this somewhere until such a time more than a single sentence can be written about him. As it stands the result is no consensus. - Mgm| (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Nom, and opine for ...
Del: The page was ProD'd on the basis
but ProD was refused, arguing
That pathetic presence would persuade me of non-notability, if i could reproduce it.
(Perhaps the colleague who asserted it will provide URL's that clarify the claim; going to
http://news.google.com/nwshp?ned=us and pasting
-- having clip-board-copied it from the image of the summary on the edit's diff page -- into the "Search and browse 4,500 news sources updated continuously" box, and clicking "Search News" gives me
)
In any case, my result from a
vanilla G-search gives
Inspection of three samples -- the 1st 10, 111-120, and 223-end -- reveals
In fact Google offers plenty of evidence of him being no more notable than any other small town mayor or first selectman: it's one thing to say that if the Nobel winner hadn't done xyz, there are hundreds of others who could have done that feat, by some equally interesting (but interestingly unique) route, before too long; this is quite another situation, where anyone among something like 5 or 10% of those 17K Eliz-citians would have done the essential thing he did, as long as none of the other 800 or 1500 of them stepped up, on the same schedule, and we have no sign of his having done anything more worthy of encyclopedic mention than each them would have done simply as a matter of course.
I'm open to learning how much, that is more significant than what i found, someone else can pull out of the 200 unique hits that i didn't look at -- some small-city mayors are notable -- but i think the above is a good-faith attempt no less than what
WP:notability intended, when it failed to hint an exhaustive search for evidence is needed.
--
Jerzy•
t 05:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is written in a (self?-) promotional style with numerous non-neutral and unsourced statements. Unlikely to meet WP:MUSIC, therefore delete. TheFeds 07:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under CSD G7. Pagra shtak 14:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I created this by mistake. I meant to create NCAA Basketball (SNES), not NCAA Basketball NES. FSUNolez06 ( talk) 07:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. and salted Mgm| (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Here are six reasons this article should be deleted: It is little more than a definition; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Apart from the content which belongs in a dictionary, this article contains speculation that the term "will be included in major dictionaries, including Webster's, by the year 2012"; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The sources are almost certainly fabricated—the first several versions of the article listed the sources as: 1. "The English Language- an Ever Changing Dialect." Tim Geerlings, 2008. Not yet published. / 2. "Modern Etymology." Alexandra Oosse, 2008. To be published shortly / 3. "A Synopsis of Major English Dictionaries." Elizabeth Cain, unpublished work. 2007. This article has been speedied twice already. As noted on the article's talk page, the term being defined by this article is simply a misspelling of splendiferous. Furthermore, splendiferous was not "first used commonly in the later part of the first decade of the 2000's"; it has been in use since 1843 according to Merriam-Webster. This article is a hoax through and through. — Bkell ( talk) 06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 05:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
2nd nomination. Still fails WP:CORP and WP:REST. Kickstart70 T C 06:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). The article needs better referencing, to be certain, but WP:RS concerns were fully addressed by Phil and Geoff (thanks, guys!). Ecoleetage ( talk) 19:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails notability requirements per WP:CORP and WP:REST. Note that these restaurants are ( were) names after the famous Les Halles in Paris, but are not otherwise related. This may confuse notability searches. Please understand the notability requirements on this (generally, reviews do not confer notability). -- Kickstart70 T C 06:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. per WP:SNOW Mgm| (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased album of no notability yet, I can't even find verification of existence. Icewedge ( talk) 05:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources on the article, and not many good related sources to be found in books [13] or journals. Terms like "Instadommes" dont appear in any fulltext searches I have done. The Egyptian (film) doesnt mention this term. While there might be people who do engage in this, this article is just hogwash and doesnt touch on the psychological aspect, nor does it give statistical evidence that this is more than just a few bloggers/scammers who are happy to take money from unhappy men. John Vandenberg ( chat) 04:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging this article and that of the other main character, Stephanie Edgely, can continue on the article's talk page ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 15:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not establish notability independent of Skulduggery Pleasant through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN ( talk) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete and redirect to Remixed & Revisited. Since it was never sold, the track itself can't have charted on any chart based on sales, and even if it did receive some airplay, that's not enough per WP:MUSIC#Songs. A redirect to its parent EP is reasonable, though. Black Kite 18:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo single only, no references and full of original research Paul75 ( talk) 04:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. So Why 20:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Nominated on behalf of a comment made at Template talk:Dubstep, at the bottom, quoting one of the references citing this article. "Wonky" is not a genre, and the article in its current state is bordering on CSD A1.. describing a style of music as being characterised by "use of synths" and "slow rhythm" is not exactly helpful in determining why it's so unique that it can be considered a separate musical genre. While the term "aquacrunk" does seem to have been used by multiple sources (though none explicitly suggest that it's synonymous with "wonky"), it is not necessary to turn every buzzword the press uses into a separate "genre" article. - filelake shoe 11:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - WP:NOT#STATS Black Kite 18:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information or statistics, see WP:NOT#STATS, only references are to the organization itself. Terrillja talk 19:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
KEEP - Strength Data is very important for the evolution of sports. 24.82.151.229 ( talk) 18:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
KEEP - Especially if the info on this articles Discussion Page is added to this Article. 24.82.151.229 ( talk) 21:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - WP:NOT#STATS Black Kite 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information or statistics, see WP:NOT#STATS, only references are to the organization itself. Terrillja talk 19:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
KEEP - Ever since ancient Greece Strength Data has been very important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.151.229 ( talk) 18:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 24.82.151.229 ( talk) 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
KEEP - Especially if the info on this articles Discussion Page is added to this Article. 24.82.151.229 ( talk) 21:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
highly questionable notability; purely promotional. -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 07:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 22:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This person does not meet the notability requirements for musicians at WP:Music. Further there are no sources. Delete as non-notable. Nrswanson ( talk) 03:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per G7 - One author who has requested deletion [17] Nancy talk 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is a long and sprawling list of statistics, per WP:NOT#STATS which are unnecessary details beyond that listed at Football League Championship 2008–09. This is superfluous detail, which is best in an almanac and not in an encyclopedia. See also the prod for List of Serbian Superliga 2008–09 scorers and List of Goalscorers in the Football League Two 2008-09 Season. Peanut4 ( talk) 03:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete, G5 by User:Sarah. Lenticel ( talk) 10:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet notability among corporations. Its coverage is few and usually discuss about its endorser Angel Locsin rather than the product itself. Starczamora ( talk) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Anyway, here's my vote:
The result was No consensus, default to keep. Of course, merge/redirect discussions may continue outside the AfD process. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Relevant information about the early incarnation of Bugs is already on the Bugs Bunny page, anything else that isn't there already can be merged into the main article. The rest seems to be a list of plot summaries of the various shorts the proto-Bugs appeared in. Odie Hume Hannity ( talk) 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, the reliability of the website itself should be addressed elsewhere ( non-admin closure). Icewedge ( talk) 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Besides being used as a source a couple of times and having minor coverage, this is not a notable web site. There's no reception to the web site, no major coverage of it. It's just a site with a lot of hits, and that's got nothing to do with notability. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
1 The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
These meet the criterion. [19] [20]
3 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
These meet the criterion. [21] [22] [23] [24]
It is obvious VG Chartz is notable.-- Kukule ( talk) 04:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. So Why 09:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased Bollywood film. No evidence of notability claimed, let alone having evidence provided for. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply
If the article fails even WP:GNG with that Google news coverage of actors and producer, then it should have been immediately tagged for speedy deletion and not brought to AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. So Why 09:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The subject of this article is a non-notable formerly-working actor who has won no awards that I was able to find, and has no material coverage--even on fansites like tv.com--beyond the most basic filmography info. The subject's roles have not been covered in reviews of the shows he has been on, nor has he had starring roles in any of them. Bongo matic 17:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. G7'ed. ( non-admin closure) — neuro (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
There appear to be no independent sources for this proposed ship, only the rather glossy promotional website, that has been in existence all of three weeks. It makes grand claims but the only other reference to this project I can find is here, on a page that lists dozens of attempts to build a new titanic. No funding sources have been finalised, suggests this is a bit crystal ball. Other AFDs such as this one would indicate that we ought to await further developments before a wikipedia article can be justified. Benea ( talk) 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Nick in the Afternoon. MBisanz talk 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable character, no out of universe info, mostly duplicates info from the show. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jclemens and the nominator convinced me. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Not even bringing up the lack of sources and terrible prose (it also seems to have been vandalized significantly in Leshawna and Courtney), but it's mostly just a summary of what the characters do in the episodes, which isn't important, and acts mostly as a second list of episodes. A Link to the Past (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 15:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not establish notability independent of Skulduggery Pleasant through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN ( talk) 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 08:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
as per WP:NOTDIR, also a bit of WP:SPAM and WP:FANCRUFT. Michellecrisp ( talk) 05:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This is basically unsourced listcruft. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL ( talk) 07:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Article does not explain how the game is notable ( WP:N), or provide any references ( WP:V). Prod with these concerns was removed without comment by the article's original contributor. As for a web search, [34] and [35] are the nearest I could find; basically blogs that do not satisfy WP:Reliable sources. Marasmusine ( talk) 09:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources with non-trivial coverage to substantiate this individual's notability. Reads like a resume. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. So Why 13:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy; promotional tone, no references (third-party or otherwise). KurtRaschke ( talk) 16:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
*Speedy delete as copyvio
http://www.nabarro.com/about-us I will tag as such.
ChildofMidnight (
talk) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect to The Used (album). MBisanz talk 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod. Article on a demo. Per WP:MUSIC, demos are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources. Article cites one reliable source, but the source does not mention (much less cover substantially) the demo in question. Source provided is about a collection which, presumably, drew from this demo. No other sources provided. No other reliable sources found. SummerPhD ( talk) 18:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This article makes no claims of notability. One of its references is to a media guide that may show circulation data (aggregate seems to be 460,000, which seems quite high--but composition matters), but it is in Japanese and the information is in bitmap format, so translation software fails to identify it. Neither of the other references does anything to demonstrate the notability of the subject, and there are no hints in the article. It has been tagged for reference improvement for more than a month and nobody has touched it since the day it was written. Bongo matic 22:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable research project. Only citation is someone's lecture slides. Search for "Human Doable Challenge-Response System" on Google or Google Scholar reveal no results. ZimZalaBim talk 19:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 05:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company with. Article cites no 3d party references, makes (let alone demonstrates) no claims that would give rise to presumption to notability. Bongo matic 00:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply