The result was speedy delete author consent to delete. Pegasus «C¦ T» 01:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable brewing company. My speedy deletion tag was removed for a specious reason. Little Red Riding Hood talk 03:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
>
The result was Speedily deleted. Grutness... wha? 00:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be written by the subject of the article. The article does in fact assert notability, and therefore no speedy criterion applies. However, the article does not appear to be on a notable subject. Will an admin please delete this article anyway? Richard Cavell ( talk) 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No coverage in secondary sources. No notability. There currently isn't a guideline for notability of airports but going by Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability, Spruce Creek wouldn't make it. Dismas| (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I listed the article at the aviation group ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
General Aviation airports
General aviation (civilian non-airline) airports which meet one of the following criteria are considered notable:
Airports not meeting these criteria may still independently achieve notability per WP:RS and WP:N guidelines.
Current or former military or government airfields are notable as airports if they meet basic notability
Mjroots ( talk) 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Good Olfactory. (non-admin closure) - Richard Cavell ( talk) 23:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Another hoax article in desperate need of a speedy criterion. Some kid-just-mucking-around, borderline vandalism. Richard Cavell ( talk) 23:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This is almost an attack page. The article is little more than a dictionary definition. The term is not sourced, and even given the benefit of the doubt it would be a regional slang term that is of no value to an encyclopedia. Richard Cavell ( talk) 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. This article is a crude hoax: zero ghits; no-one of that name has received the Albert Einstein Award (which is not awarded by St. John's College); many incoherent statements such as the title of Frame's first publication; article created by previously warned vandals andy ( talk) 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This article must not be deleted yet again. Edward Frame is a tutor at St. John's College and is indeed author of the essay cited in the article as well as numerous others. He is himself a vocal opponent of the internet and especially wikipedia and his followers do their best to keep any information regarding him off the web. It would be a mistake to delete this article without first contacting St. John's.
Secondly He did not win The Albert Einstein Award but rather the "St. John's College Albert Einstein Award which is a different award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilani ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G3 by Useight
This article exists to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Again, no speedy criterion applies but will some kind admin please speedy it? Richard Cavell ( talk) 23:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. Boldly redirected, nothing to merge. ( non-admin closure) — neuro (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, non-notable web-stub. Notability is not vicarious and requires coverages in reliable sources to be established. MBisanz talk 23:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a fake. Normal publisher, JoWood, makes no mention of it and doesnt exist on a GameFAQs search. A general google search returns only torrent site links, from two of these sites, Mininova and Pirate Bay, have users repeatedly stated it is a fake and that the thing isnt the game but something all in Russian Salavat ( talk) 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 06:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No improvement since last AfD, and I can't find any reliable sources on him. Wizardman 05:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I know I'm breaking my own rule and nominating this for deletion on the day of creation, but I don't see how this will ever be salvageable, and IMO it's better to sort it out now. Quite aside from the totally inappropriate tone (which can be fixed), there's an issue of the total lack of sources and total lack of the slightest suggestion of notability (which can't). – iride scent 22:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. It's in the process of being written, and a number of us are producing sources. There's good enough proof of his notability if you stop to even look for a little while in any online -- and even physical! -- game publication that has bothered to cover Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix since he has literally been the driving force behind it. It's mainly up to those of us writing it to finish it, and that's what we're working on. It is salvageable (it already is leaps and bounds better than when it was originally written). -- nothingxs ( talk) 22:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. Sirlin is a Creative Professional, who is highly regarded within the gaming industry. The lack of referencing, as has been stated, is in the process of being remedied. He is also an accomplished Street Fighter player, placing highly and winning many high profile events. I'm not sure Wikipedia's stance on the notability of e-athletes, but it would be safe to say that David Sirlin has competed at the highest tournament level. - Psymunn ( talk) 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC) — Psymunn ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I don't know if this helps, but I wrote a lot of stuff on gamasutra. You can go to gamasutra.com, click search and type "sirlin" to find this stuff.
World of Warcraft Teaches the Wrong Things Saving the Day: Save Systems in Games (they chose that title) Understanding the Fun of Super Mario Galaxy Difficulty Tuning in Games (was the lead design article in the print magazine, Game Deveoper Magazine) Power of Pacing (was also the lead design article in the print Magazine) An Achievement-Oriented CCG? Designing Kongai The Trouble With Patents My book excerpt on their site: [2]
The warcraft article [is]—even to this day—the most-read article ever on gamasutra.com, the industry's main trade site. I don't know where there's links to prove that, but here is at least proof that it was the #1 article in 2006 and the separate gamasutra post that's just about the RESPONSES to the article was the 4th most popular thing the entire year on their site.(ref removed)
I'm also mentioned in other people's gamasutra articles: [3] [4] I like this one because famous game designer and writer calls my patent article the best one ever written on gamasutra, even though actual patent lawyers wrote several articles on the same subject: [5]
And all that is just from gamasutra. Not to mention Puzzle Fighter and Street Fighter being high profile, or Kongregate's meteoric rise, with my Kongai game as the metagame for their entire site. Or that I'm in Bang the Machine. Hell, I got 5th in the last two years of Evolution's world finals in ST, I won ECC3, ECC4, and ECC7, just to name a few, and some people seem "notable" on wikipedia JUST for winning at games.
— User "Sirlin", "David Sirlin wikipedia page!", Sirlin.net, 22nd November 2008
The result was keep. John254 22:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability issues, and essentially an advert. The only references relate directly to the company to verify any certifications or affiliations it has. I've removed the external link spam a couple of times, but regardless the article has its mailing address on it and reads to me like an advert. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Although there is one more delete than keep, it's hardly a demonstration of clear consensus, so default to keep. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 06:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has sat untouched for over two years without any references. In its current state it discusses the route the road takes, but it does not give any information that cannot be gleaned from a map. I therefore believe this entry is not encyclopedic and unverifiable and should be deleted Mgm| (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
recreated deleted page of a fantasy kids backyard crap DanteAgusta ( talk) 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Kid pretending to be a wrestler DanteAgusta ( talk) 22:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. (A7) notability of individual has not been established. too little context to distinguish him from other film makers Mgm| (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax? Non-notable, Wrong written The Rolling Camel ( talk) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 07:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Swedish language article that dosent even exist on swedish wikipedia. The Rolling Camel ( talk) 21:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Disputed PROD. Clearly a WP:Hoax, should probably be speedied, but taking to Afd as a disputed PROD. ukexpat ( talk) 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. G3, as vandalism, I checked textbooks, IUPAC and Pubmed and none of them heard of the term, so it's not a viable redirect either. Mgm| (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an elaborate hoax. The term literally translates to 'killing water work'. The external links do not support the text. For those with a knowledge of chemistry, the equations make no sense. Richard Cavell ( talk) 20:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. G11 J.delanoy gabs adds 21:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. Oscarthecat ( talk) 20:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. duh J.delanoy gabs adds 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
What kind of a moron would make this page? Who does he think he is? What the is wrong with him? Delete, salt, burn up, stomp on, eat, whatever it takes!!!!
Also, indef-block creator, delete and oversight all his edits, hack the servers and remove all references to his logs. Checkuser him and indef-hard-range block his entire ISP for daring to let this idiot on the internet!!! DO IT NOW, MAN!!!11!!!!one!!! J.delanoy gabs adds 20:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Thingg, as copyvio. (non-admin closure) - Richard Cavell ( talk) 03:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The article may be on a subject that is not notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. The article appears to be written by someone associated with the project (see the use of the term 'we'), and appears to present an entirely positive view of the subject without criticism. The article is therefore tainted by conflict of interest and should be removed. Richard Cavell ( talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mgm| (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
nn superhero no independent sources also maybe wp:custral on the movie part also this seems to possably be a hoax as well contested prod Oo7565 ( talk) 20:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Could not find any articles or websites to prove notability. Would CSD, but article mentions significance of person. No notability per WP:BIO, possible WP:SPAM. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nominator, no consensus to delete improved version.. So Why 23:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Blogger and developer, but no apparent notability. -- Oscarthecat ( talk) 10:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be mostly pro-corp advertising, already speedy deleted per db-advert, but recreated. So AFD posted. Perhaps a merge to Reliance Globalcom would be appropriate. Oscarthecat ( talk) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
We at IIT Bombay did a study on the acquisition and this wiki entry is a part of our project. We do not intend to advertise any stuff as we are not remotely associated with any of the entities involved. Satyakamd( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC). reply
The result was merge to The Kingdom Keepers#Characters. So Why 09:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not establish notability independent of The Kingdom Keepers 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 any coverage in the main article is enough detail on the character. TTN ( talk) 23:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No biographical sources. A few marginally notable voice acting roles but no real sources outside IMDb et al. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. reliable sources have been provided Mgm| (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No notability or reliable sources per WP:BIO or WP:N. Would CSD, but the article describes the significance of the person. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film. Seems like an advert for some amauter documentary. Lugnuts ( talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Advertising which is not notable. SEWilco ( talk) 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sandstein 21:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I entered "John Olson" into Google numerous times, each time coupled with one of his works as mentioned onto the page. Most of them received hits only in the 20s range, and one or two had sixties at most. From what I can gather, the only real claim of notability that he won an annual "Genius award" from "The Stranger", an alternative weekly newspaper in Seattle. CyberGhostface ( talk) 01:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
As a member of the innovative poetry community, I can attest that John Olson is a widely respected and influential author. He represents an American strain of surrealist and Dada writing and has been published by prominent presses and in countless literary magazines. His book of selected poems, BACKSCATTER, was published by Black Widow Press. Check out the web site of Black Widow and you'll see their list of authors is world class. And I don't know how CyberGhostface performed his Google search, but when I searched John Olson's name coupled with BACKSCATTER I got 194 hits on this new title. It would do a great disservice to Wikipedia's mission of representing a broad spectrum of cultural activity, as opposed to corporate-sponsored trivia, to delete John Olson's entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignaz Mees ( talk • contribs) 03:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi -- creator of article here, to kindly suggest considering the following, from the May 2008 on-line calendar of Open Books: A Poem Emporium (a venerable poetry bookstore): "Olson was an early winner of The Stranger's Genius Grant and is well-known in Seattle's, and the nation's, experimental writing communities." http://www.openpoetrybooks.com/calendar/archives/000322.html The Open Book people know what's up with poetry: it's their specialty. Thanks.
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Was speedied but article improved, however there must be 100s if not 1000s of candidates for Mayor and I see no indication that this person is in any way notable! Paste ( talk) 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Newton is basically the same size as Cambridge, MA and their mayor has a Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Denise_Simmons
Their city manager has a page....he's not elected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Healy
Also several current members of the Cambridge, MA City Council have their own Wiki pages, which can be seen in the Cambridge, MA wiki page. Newton's population is 85,000 and Cambridge is 100,000. Ken Parker is a current office holder in Newton.
Searching for candidates... unsigned comment added by Spfitz ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
City Councillor Toomey's notability seems similar to Parkers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spfitz ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Northampton MA mayor has a page, and her City is a third of the size of Newton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spfitz ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I guess Mayor Cohen does have an entry. I'm guessing he didn't write it. It seems to me that there are many cities that are comparable or smaller in size to Newton whose elected officials have Wiki pages. As an at-large alderman, Parker represents the entire City of 85,000 people, has held office for 17 years and is a credible candidate for mayor.-- Shawn P. Fitzgibbons ( talk) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Do not delete - why though would elected officials who serve on City Councils be allowed pages? Ken is a long time elected official. At the time of his election, he was one of the youngest elected representatives of a city the size of Newton. Also, there are many mayors and even city managers who have wiki pages who are from much smaller cities. A city manager is simply an appointed administrator. As an at large alderman, in Newton, Ken Parker represents many more people. He also serves as a member of the Massachusetts State Democratic Party.-- 132.183.223.35 ( talk) 20:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Your point about City Councils would hold true if there were no other city councilors with Wiki pages, but there are as I noted at the top. Also, you point out that the City should be noteworthy. Newton, MA is a noteworthy city in many ways as you can see on the city's Wikipedia page. Just this week it was once again rated the 4th safest city in the country. It is home to nationally prominent individuals from many fields including sports, academia and business. -- 132.183.223.35 ( talk) 15:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Original research essay. Furthermore, WP:NOT a travel guide. KurtRaschke ( talk) 18:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. consensus is clear Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable; soapbox. Recently deleted from the Norwegian Wikipedia. — the Sidhekin ( talk) 17:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete (G7) courtesy of J.delanoy. Non-admin closure. Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I suspect this as a hoax and serves nothing but to attack. I've no knowledge about Canadian politics, but I've tried to search this and Google gives no hits. If there are reliable sources to support this article, then I'd say this article stays. Dekisugi ( talk) 17:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. While all users are welcome and noone's !vote is more important than someone elses, here the only ones in favor of keeping where those associated with the subject,. That said, the consensus, even if the discussion is long, is for deletion. So Why 09:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This is essentially an ad placed here by the artist who draws the strip (username: LenKody). Speedy and prod tags were deleted by an anonymous IP who has a very similar edit list to LenKody. -- Bachrach44 ( talk) 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is objective. There is no "advertising language" used in the body of the article. There are already red links looking for the article in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenkody ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
comment: above comment (unsigned) reformatted as use of section heading was screwing up the format of the rest of today's AfD MadScot ( talk) 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
You have a list of restaurants who you think warrant entries. An eatery means more than a crafted work? A webcomic that gets more hits than anything with your name on it does not live up to "criteria"? You ARE biased, and sorely behind the times. Having mod powers on an encyclopedia site is not an excuse for a power trip, and not an excuse for you to ostracize something that is apparently lightyears beyond your grasp. I could even argue that any entry concerning a living person or ongoing work or existing business is just another advert, hypocrite. Richard Caldwell/nilskidoo
Please educate yourself on the topic before you speak up, Mandsford. After reading your above comment I am to conclude that you did about two minutes worth of research with a deletion bias before posting that unbelievably condescending piece of garbage. First off this webcomic is NOT just carried on the "Webcomics Nation" site, it is also part of Shadowline Comics [ [20]]. Now seeing by your blatant ignorance about the subject of webcomics and comics in general, I will tell (as others here have mentioned many times) that Shadowline is part of Image Comics[ [21]]. So to make it sound like this is simply a guy who threw up a webcomic on free site and is hoping to use Wikipedia as a mean of advertisement is incorrect. Wikipedia has a page about Image Comics which includes a link to one of its divisions, Shadowline. On the Shadowline page there is a link to projects that it currently working on, one of which is Chicago:1968. So please tell me why if someone who is reading up on Shadowline and sees a title like Chicago:1968 that grabs their interest that there can not be a Wiki page about it? Also your can save your "hopes" that maybe someday Len Kody will "make it into print" because he already has numerous times [22]. Your comments about getting "syndicated in a newspaper" and reference to a "comic strip" only amplifies your ignorance on the subject. As I sat back rereading your comment and trying to figure out why you would lash out so inappropriately one line stuck out..."Wikipedia is a godsend for many a talented writer who has been blocked out of the world of publishing." I'm sorry you never made it in to the world of publishing, but stop trying to impose your outdated and uneducated view on a subject you know very little about. Maybe you should save your "hopes" about getting published or syndicated for yourself and someday you can stop hiding behind a keyboard. Until then, I would remove yourself from the article selection committee as not only do you embarress yourself but are detrimental to the growth of Wikipedia as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKody ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability HAS been established, just that your regulations are contradictory enough so as to block out any topics you yourself remain personally ignorant on. Mindsets like some of those here are the ones insistent that comics are but sunday funnies fare, or men in tights purporting acts of violence upon themselves, while in truth the medium is vastly more than that. The strip cited is historical fiction, though well researched and so educational. Web-comix in particular, as with all modes of technologically based forms of information/communication, are growing rapidly enough so that the standards of this cite must adapt with the times. Don't make me post links to the MANY forums on the net wherein wiki is openly criticized for just this manner of discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decan lude ( talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 17:07, 25 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 ☼ 17:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 6). So Why 09:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable episode, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
=== Van Duyn v. Home Office===this case was important because it established that a directive can have direct effect
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts; the article is incredibly unclear, provides little context, and one reference. KurtRaschke ( talk) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
*Speedy Delete Fails
WP:RS and completely unclear as to what this is about... to the point that I feel that it should be tagged with a {{db-nonsense}}. --
Pmedema (
talk)
17:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy keep. ( non-admin closure) — neuro (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy; no context, no sources, and not encyclopedic. KurtRaschke ( talk) 16:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Susan McClary. MBisanz talk 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is a point-by-point summary of an essay that does not appear to have any inherent notability. Unable to find reliable sources that give substanital coverage (the only source cited in the article is the essay itself), and it has only been cited 7 times according to Google Scholar. SheepNotGoats ( Talk) 15:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus.
The full result should read "No consensus possible for now". Let me explain: When this article was nominated for deletion two days ago, it looked completely different ( permalink) from the current revision ( permalink). All discussion that took place within the last days revealed one thing: That this topic is so complex at times that people cannot even agree on the correct article name. The recommendation by Rlevse should be followed: agree upon a title and improve the article with renewed focus.
Following a suggestion by the nominator, Timtrent ( talk · contribs), and after input from admins Rlevse and Jennavecia ( permalink), I decided to close this AfD early because it cannot possibly lead to any consensus for reasons outlined above. This does not mean this article cannot be renominated for deletion again very soon if nothing changes. The current article name has WP:NPOV issues and the topic itself may fail WP:NOT. A new deletion discussion might even benefit the article and allow us to reach consensus on the topic.
Deletion debates are a way to reach consensus and there are several procedural points to follow when dealing with them. While "speedy keep" and "speedy delete" are valid options, "speedy no consensus" usually isn't. The whole reason why there is a 5 day period is so that there is time to reach consensus. Here, I decided to bend the rules a bit, with an interpretation of the snowball clause: Judging any consensus here will be very weak because the closing admin, who'd have to decide "keep" or "delete", cannot judge which !votes were cast for which revision of the article. So if there is no way that clear consensus can be reached, there is, going with WP:SNOW, no reason to complete the whole process. Again, I believe that consensus is possible and can be sought very soon once the article is reasonable stable. It is just not possible to be determined from this discussion.
Regards So Why 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I was in two minds about this article. I see it may be potentially "important" in some manner and have no wish to upset LGBT folk by nominating it for deletion, but it feels like an indiscriminate collection of information, thus I am proposing it here for the community to reach a consensus upon. The article does need work if it survives, but that is not the basis of my nomination Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete This list seems indiscriminate. I think the issues and notability are best addressed in the appropriate articles. But lists of people according to how they died doesn't seem notable.
ChildofMidnight (
talk)
04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
* Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. --
Cameron Scott (
talk)
15:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
Note: When the title can not even be agreed upon, an afd will inevitably be hard to reach consensus on because the focus of the article is so nebulous as a result of an often-changed title. I have no problem closing this as no consensus with a very strong recommendation to those interested in it to agree upon a title and improve the article with renewed focus if no one objects. I posted this on the AN thread too. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This article has an extreme POV, and it is very unencyclopedic. It is more like an Urban Dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article. I cannot imagine how this article could be worded so that it does not violate any policies (and WP:IAR certainly does not apply here), so it is probably best to just delete the article. If someone thinks they can write a good, neutral, and encyclopedic article on the subject, they are free to recreate it. Nat682 ( talk) 06:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was userfied. Created by a new user who is resisting attempts to provide him with some clue. His last comparitive "article" (XP vs Vista) was speedy deleted and he got very stroppy. So I've userfied this one pending him ever reading his talk page. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Original research. Blowdart | talk 14:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Thingg. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 ( talk) 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Doesn't meet notability criteria as outlined at WP:BAND CultureDrone ( talk) 14:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I am requesting the deletion of this page on Mehmet Ramiz's behalf. Since the page has been created personal details and harmful information about Mehmet Ramiz has appeared on the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiehutber ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination...the sockpuppet of the user who created this apparently wants it deleted. It asserts some notability, whose sufficiency I leave up to the editoriat to decide. the skomorokh 14:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No hit in google, highly possibility a hoax. Matthew_hk t c 13:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Dubious as to whether this sub-genre exists. No references, and nothing comes up on google. - filelake shoe 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Persian war elephants. Mgm| (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources, at best this is a definition which should be in the appropriate article(s) and in fact is better covered in Sassanid army already in the section War elephants and mentioned in the article Persian war elephants dougweller ( talk) 08:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. per unanimous HEY turnaround ( non-admin closure) — neuro (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, unreferenced. ṜedMarkViolinist Drop me a line 17:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Originally prodded (by myself) with the complaint that "A list which is out of date, incomplete, and unrefenced. Category:Canadian expatriate soccer players already exists and provides similar information." Prod was removed by TakTak ( talk · contribs) who said that "Content will be updated to be current and layout will be reorganized for a cleaner appearence", but I still feel that the content is already covered by the category. Giant Snowman 17:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Once I discounted the comments that either boiled down to accusations of bad-faith on the part of the nominator, or assertions along the lines of "It is interesting", "It is useful", "It is popular", or "I like it", only Peregrine Fisher, John Z and DHowell actually referred to sources that they felt established notability. Since these comments were outweighed by those feeling that the article failed our notability policy, I think this has to be a Delete Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This is not notable and is fancruft. There is solely an in universe context and no real world notability can be established. Doctorfluffy ( robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Macgyver problem solving in my opinion can stand on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 ( talk) 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete This needs to go on deletionpedia for eternal preservation. - 72.93.211.14 ( talk) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. Feel that the article is relevant and valuable both in relation to the show MacGyver and in allowing users to gain an insight into what MacGyver is/does. AlbertSimon ( talk) 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to PayPoint. So Why 09:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, no independent reliable sources. Lots of Google hits, but Google News shows only 6 hits with no significant secondary coverage among them. Huon ( talk) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi Huon,
I am new to wikipedia, so I am not quite sure what went wrong. I've edited a couple of bits on the article and I hope that would have made the difference.
What do you mean by google hits? Please let me know if there's anything else that could be wrong with this article and I will edit it to reflect this.
Thanks, ( Dina Jones ( talk) 10:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)) reply
Hi Dunbot,
Apologies for all these questions.
What do you mean is now listed? is it still up for deletion? if so what can I do to change this?
Thansk in advance for your help. ( Dina Jones ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC). reply
Hi all,
I believe that Paypoint.net should have its own page. Yes it is owned by paypoint plc but the services that they offer are different is not just paypoint services for ecommerce sites.
I will get sources added to the article, and I hope that will make a difference.
Thanks ( Dina Jones ( talk) 17:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
WP is not an indiscriminate collection of info, and frankly, the lack of WP:RS for WP:V only further lends to the possibility of WP:OR. The bigger question though, is whether such a list, on a purely fictional and redundant topic is necessary - I guess that's up for you to decide. Flewis (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
There are not two pages, one page had spoiler alert in it and that was removed. Just because it doesn't just focus on the "epic" kills does not mean it not interesting information to viewers of the series. It is different from the character list because it shows exactly how many kills he has thoughout his life.Just because a fan made it doesn't mean that it not true or relevant information. Wikipedia is a site for fans made by fans. There are references in this article. The kills are organized by what episode they occur in. If you think the information is false then watch the episode and verify it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugz15 ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
shouldnt it be on a different page so people that are browseing the main page arent going to see whats happened already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugz15 ( talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
then merge it with the main dexter article. whats the big deal if there it an extra or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugz15 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems like an advert, without any useful information. From personal experience this site seems to just be a marketing ploy, and therefore shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I would follow through with the other steps in the deletion process, but I don't have an account. 151.32.171.132 ( talk · contribs) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted. IAR, rouge, etc. As Mgm says, most likely a non-controversial delete: the article isn't going to survive this AfD; and there's nothing meaningful to redirect it to. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not fall under any speedy criterion. This date article falls outside the guidelines of the appropriate Wikiproject. Richard Cavell ( talk) 11:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. A3, lack of content Mgm| (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
An article in search of a speedy deletion criterion. This is an unverifiable and unsourced slang dicdef, and something made up one day. Richard Cavell ( talk) 11:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established even with the one 'ref' to google books. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. Article deleted by Herbythyme ( talk · contribs) [40]. Procedural closing of discussion by non-admin. Darkspots ( talk) 11:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Again, I wish I could fit this into a speedy criterion. This article is a blatant hoax/some-kid-mucking-around. Richard Cavell ( talk) 11:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Luna Santin (non admin closure). - Richard Cavell ( talk) 11:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I cannot find any CSD criterion that this falls under (but I wish I could). The article is patently a hoax (I'm medically trained), and not a very clever one at that. At any rate it is unverifiable and unsourced. Richard Cavell ( talk) 10:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. G12, copyright infringement Mgm| (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I am unable to say what language this is, and so I'm not able to work out what the article says, but I can say that it is not suitable for inclusion in .en.wikipedia.org. This does not satisfy any strict reading of the CSD criteria. Richard Cavell ( talk) 10:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. G10, attack page Mgm| (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is unsourced, and makes unverifiable criticism of the subject. The article contains information that is not relevant to an encyclopedia, and is not written in wikipedia markup style. Google does not seem to have any information on this person. Richard Cavell ( talk) 10:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Article appears to fail criteria for WP:ATHLETE, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BIO. Lee only played football at the college level. His IMDb page shows only role was as a waiter in two episodes of a TV show. Job titles indicate employment as a lower-to-mid-level marketer for Sony and as a marketer for a a non-notable webpage. A search finds no significant coverage. (Note: I was unable to access two external links provided because they are listed as internet attack sites.) — CactusWriter | needles 10:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Were the magazine links looked at? ( Peterheater ( talk) 23:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)) reply
I also don't understand how ELLE MAGAZINE and PREMIERE MAGAZINE websites are 'attack site...' those are major publications. ( Peterheater ( talk) 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)) reply
DEAR WIKIPEDIA. I AM KYU LEE. I WAS TOLD BY SOME FRIENDS I WAS ON THIS SITE. I'D RATHER NOT BE ON THIS SITE DUE TO THAT FACT THAT I AGREE WITH MOST OF THE ABOVE. PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THIS ASAP - THAT WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED. I DO NOT NEED THIS KIND OF ATTENTION. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.158.17 ( talk) 11:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Federation of student associations - no independent assertation of notability - would seem to fail WP:ORG and guidelines at Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Student_life CultureDrone ( talk) 09:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Białołęka#Education. MBisanz talk 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Article proposed for deletion because "Non notable elementary school, fails WP:NOTE". Prod contested "Per long-standing disputes, schools should go through AFD". Bizarre reason, because a) every article can be prodded and b) per WP:OUTCOMES, "Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AfD" anyway, making the deletion uncontroversial and a ProD perfectly applicable. Anyway, someone wanted an AFD, so here we are. No claims to notability, few Google hits [43], one Google News hit [44]. Young, large primary school, no indication of any notability. Fram ( talk) 09:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced, assumptions and statements are backed my no facts, is by default all opinion βcommand 09:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kinnikuman. MBisanz talk 20:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable fictional subrace from Kinnikuman series. Pure plot, OR, and non-free images. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 07:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reasons:
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable fictional tournament from Kinnikuman series. Events already covered in plot summary. Article is purely excessive plot and OR. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 06:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Extremely unnotable fictional element of the Kinnikuman manga series for describing character power levels. Almost purely WP:OR. Also fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 06:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable fictional race from Kinnikuman series. Pure plot and OR. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 06:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and without sources. No relevant google hits. Wikipedia is not for something you made up in school one day, nor for something you made up while getting drunk after school. Gimme danger ( talk) 05:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Hangover Hannukah is a new phenomenon at the University of Richmond. It is a thoroughly thought through and developed game, precisely not something that was just thrown together while getting drunk. The gameplay is on wikipedia now as an anticipation of its gradual establishment among college kids around the country. The page was made by the creators of the game, making references and citations unnecessary. There is no harm in keeping the page up, and it can aid in the game's spread. As the game grows, the page will be improved upon by others, and therefore more useful. We the creators only mean to preserve the credibility and usefullness with which wikipedia has provided internet users. The goal of the article is not to personalize wikipedia for our own gains, but to continue making wikipedia the best.( sjack ( talk) 06:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
There's no references that mention solar hot carbon or anything that resembles what's described in the article.
I tried searching for "solar hot carbon" on Google and the only results that turned up was references (directly or indirectly) to this article. Also, the article makes a poor job at explaining what this is, at least in a way that makes any technical sense. Of the alternative names listed only "solar methane" returned any somewhat relevant results
[45] but that does not appear to be what is described here.
—
Apis (
talk)
05:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
I'd like to know if this is feasible for use in the newer tube type technology currently using vacuum to prevent heat loss from the absorbers which convert sunlight to heat. Even if efficiency in available heat from the sunlight conversion is less, perhaps there is a savings on creating heat collection tubes with carbon dioxide in them instead of vacuum, also fewer seal leakage problems such as occur in vacuum tube solar heat systems. Also should have use as a medium between window double and triple glazing in homes to help stop heat loss. Joe Zyzyx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.206.154 ( talk) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I think this article might be a hoax. Burgos is not playing for UCF, and I see no evidence for the other claims in the article. Zagalejo ^^^ 05:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable amateur team season article that is contrary to previous AfDs and agruments. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Grsz 11 →Review! 05:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was '. Speedy deleted while I was writing up the AfD nom. :) Protonk ( talk) 05:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax article, though not blatant. I declined the speedy (though the article was previously speedied). There are "references", of course, but the think tank is a fiction (as are the references). Some time spend looking at the formatting and the claims in the article should make this clear. Please don't speedy this outside of this process--I'd rather we just work through the AfD process as WP:HOAX suggests. Protonk ( talk) 05:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. ( non-admin closure) — neuro (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No offence to Mr Wertheim or his family, but this seems inappropriate and non-notable as far as WP articles are concerned. It might be plausible to redirect this to whichever year's US Open (tennis, presumably) this occurred at, but outright deletion must also be a possibility. Grutness... wha? 04:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. still falls under G11 L'Aquatique talk 07:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged for speedy G11, but the promotional material was then removed by the creator. What is left is a dicdef that asserts no notability. Delete.
Also nominating:
Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 04:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Ah I see why I'm confused. The three articles all lead to the same AfD.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic content and redundant with List of Dexter characters (sections Villains and Victims of Season X). Contested PROD (see article history). Pentasyllabic ( talk) 03:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Bering Strait bridge. MBisanz talk 02:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non-notable research project. Only very recently published. Could not find any third-party reliable sources. Millbrooky ( talk) 19:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable news journalist. I couldn't find many sources for her besides what she has covered herself, which makes her a victim of WP:V and possibly WP:OR. Tavix (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Improper forum MBisanz talk 03:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Improper CNR to a template, bot created, probably an accident. MBisanz talk 03:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G4 and G5. Stifle ( talk) 11:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
OR,POV fork,created by sock puppet of banned user Agricolae ( talk) 02:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Lots of weak comments both ways, but I see a rough consensus to keep, apparently out the deference to the fact that we're dealing with non-English sources. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 15:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to The Agonist NAC Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Not independently notable, band seems to fail as well. SummerPhD ( talk) 13:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 20:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Metal webzine that fails WP:WEB; no coverage about the webzine in independent sources. Only claim to notability is an Alexa score, which just doesn't cut it. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:Athlete User:2008Olympian chitchat seemywork 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply
*His amateur career seems to satisfy the guidelines for inclusion.
ChildofMidnight (
talk)
17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to E-Trade. MBisanz talk 02:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
An unnamed baby that featured in a TV commercial is notable enough for an encyclopedic article? I don't think so. My speedy got declined because "Advertising character is not a "real person" for A7 deletion". AFAIK a baby is a real person, but okay, let's bring it here.
SIS
21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 04:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the article already exists at Wiktionary. Mgm| (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Should be a wiktionary term either mishugana or meshugana Clubmarx ( talk) 03:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 20:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software product. Has previously been speedy deleted as blatant advertising, the current version is not as bad but the software is still of questionable notability. Note that while there are three sources presented, they all just define the term "RAD", and do not mention either of the products discussed in the article. RAD technology is notable, but these are non-notable implementations of it. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 04:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I put an advert tag on this article in July. Nobody's touched it since, so now I'm not even sure it's notable. Mbarbier ( talk) 05:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Not an actual registered political party; no notability established through media coverage; the few Google hits one does find are mirrors of this Wikipedia page or merely listings of having appeared on the ballot. Even fails the more generous proposals in Wikipedia:Notability (political parties) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis ( talk) 08:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. So Why 13:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable ABA basketball team. Since being "formed" in 2006, this team has yet to compete in a single game and the ownership group recently announced that they will NOT be playing in the '08-'09 season. Millbrooky ( talk) 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis ( talk) 08:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced and incorrectly titled sub-stub on a small school created by single purpose account who seems to have lost interest. Guy ( Help!) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis ( talk) 08:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Self-published Canadian lawyer. No other qualifications for an article noted. Given the name of the article creator, clearly autobiographical. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 01:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply
(Note: this was created a few days ago, but not listed here for some reason.) -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 12:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deletion G4 as recreation of article deleted via AfD. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Deletion along the same lines asCopa Toyota de America at User_talk:Perucho08 billinghurst ( talk) 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. NAC. Schuym1 ( talk) 18:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A conflict of interest with creation by User:addisneger. Not notable. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) ( receiver, archives) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I found these sources within minutes of search. Give the article some time and it will eventually evolve. If the article didn't reach considerable amount of detail with sources after a month, than you should remove it. -- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I looked around for some third-party sources to indicate notability, but couldn't find much. Of course, the article has no sources either. And the whole "plans to move into a new home in late 2007" bit doesn't look too good either - if it looks like someone wrote this for promotional purposes, never intending to maintain the article, well, that is what likely happened: its creator's only contributions are for this article. In sum, then, fails WP:N and WP:RS. Biruitorul Talk 23:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect to List of characters in Warhammer Fantasy. Mgm| (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not establish notability independent of Warhammer Fantasy Battle 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 any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN ( talk) 23:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect to List of characters in Warhammer Fantasy. Mgm| (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not establish notability independent of Warhammer Fantasy Battle 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 any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN ( talk) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect to List of characters in Warhammer Fantasy. Mgm| (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not establish notability independent of Warhammer Fantasy Battle 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 any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN ( talk) 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect to List of characters in Warhammer Fantasy. Mgm| (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not establish notability independent of Warhammer Fantasy Battle 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 any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN ( talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect to List of characters in Warhammer Fantasy. Mgm| (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
This group of characters does not establish notability independent of Warhammer Fantasy Battle 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 any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the group. TTN ( talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
fails WP:Notability_(music), no sources Dlabtot ( talk) 01:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 20:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A massive article which nonetheless manages to entirely avoid citing a single source independent of the group, which appears on the face of it ot be a generic fraternity. Guy ( Help!) 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
how about pages such as Scouts Royale Brotherhood, Alpha Kappa Rho or Tau Gamma Phi with absent citations as such, yet seem to freely exist in the pages of wikipedia? this organization is the same league as theirs Supremo106 ( talk) 03:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged as lacking sources since February and not fixed, this is a self-sourced article on a generic fraternity. Guy ( Help!) 00:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Self-sourced article on what appears to be a generic fraternity. Guy ( Help!) 00:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A fraternity which is different from all the others because er.... er... actually it is the same as all the others. No independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 00:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A fraternity just like all the others, with no independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:INDISCRIMINATE list (there being no obvious reason to link fraternities and the Philippines) most of whose entries are WP:LINKFARM, the logos would violate WP:FUC, the unlinked ones violate WP:LIST (lists are supposed to be navigational), the linked ones don't look that notable and anyway could be linked by a category. Guy ( Help!) 00:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Isabelle Arnfjell is a non-notable singer because there are little to no third party references for her and I couldn't find any other sites that genuinely include her except for the external links at the bottom of her article for her. Therefore, she fails WP:MUSIC. Tavix (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:Notability_(music) Dlabtot ( talk) 02:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Weak delete I cannot find the artist in question anywhere else, besides a few other artists by a similar name. If the author of this article has any valid reasons why she is notable, keep, but otherwise just delete (per WP:NM). Rtyq2 ( talk) 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mgm| (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
No references; therefore not verifiable. Notability of the topic is not established, and the article's present format is listcruft. KurtRaschke ( talk) 00:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 05:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable marketer. Possible COI. Definitely no notability from working at Madacy. President of Fresh Marketing might have been notable, but no google hits on "Fresh Marketing FFM" so unlikely that the business brings notability to the subject. — Noah 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was improve it!. DrKiernan ( talk) 08:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The article replicates material at Personal union, an identical or similar concept. Propose deletion and a redirect to Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary is commonly named 'The Dual monarchy'. I'm not aware of the term used for other monarchies. Gazzster ( talk) 08:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply
comment Wikipedia presents itself as an encyclopedia. Concepts and terms need to be referenced. There are no references and citations for this article. Even if this AfD fails, appropriate tags will have to be placed on it. More importantly at this point, we should ask ourselves, is 'dual monarchy' being invented here? Are as many 'examples' as possible being crammed here to give credence to a term which appears to be invented solely for the purpose? If 'dual monarchy', why not 'triple monarchy' or 'quadruple monarchy'? In other words, is this article self-serving? Now I believe it's fairly well established that 'dual monarchy' is a term used by historians to describe the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. And I'll give you Portugal-Brasil if it can be adequately reference. But to the best of my knowledge, Scotland and England were never called a 'dual-monarchy'.
Arbitary classification
Another issue is the apparent arbitrary classification of a number of the monarchies in the list as ‘dual monarchies’. For example:
The Netherlands and Great Britain 1689-1702. But why classify this as a ‘dual monarchy’? For a start, the Netherlands was not a monarchy; it was a republic. And ‘Great Britain’ at the time was ‘’two’’ monarchies- England and Scotland. So it should be a quadruple monarchy: England, Scotland, Ireland and the Netherlands. But let’s treat, for the sake or argument, Great Britain as one entity; England and Scotland. Why single (or double?) out Great Britain and the Netherlands as a ‘dual monarchy’? Ever heard of Ireland? Why don’t we call Ireland and the Netherlands a ‘dual monarchy’? Or the union of Scotland and Ireland? Or the union of Ireland and Hanover from 1714 – 1801? I’m not trying to humiliate the persons who wrote the article. I’m making a point that the classification can be very arbitrary indeed.
Babylon and Nippur? Egypt and Kush? How can we possibly transfer the relatively modern concept of a personal union to civilizations that existed before the Christian Era?
Aragon and Castille. Castille was composed of four state unions before it united with Aragon. So you may as well call it a quintuple (have I invented a word?!) monarchy.
So I believe the term should only be applied to countries which are habitually dealt with by that term.-- Gazzster ( talk) 10:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
But by what justification? I have made my point.-- Gazzster ( talk) 11:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
I think the idea is changing from keep, delete or redirect to 'edit heavily'. And DrKiernan and myself have already started. Unless there are other comments I think we can close this Afd?-- Gazzster ( talk) 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The closure tag is on the article. But I can't do the pretty blue backround/border stuff.-- Gazzster ( talk) 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply