The result was keep. Now referenced and asserts notability seicer | talk | contribs 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable company? Fails to assert any notability. SGGH speak! 00:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ff m 12:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a list of "characters" that do not establish independent notability from the Sims series. They are not really characters, but rather generic "units" given names and very basic details in order to make the games not feel entirely empty when they are loaded up. The games themselves have no actual storylines and the characters can be deleted and replaced in five minutes. They don't require any coverage in the main articles, so they definitely don't need a separate list. TTN ( talk) 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Very much borderline notability, and serious COI are problematic; but the complete lack of verifiability is fatal. — Coren (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Individual of borderline notability, article however appears to be self-promotion by Dwscottjr ( talk · contribs). User's only significant contributions are to this and Luck of the Draw (board game), a game he invented. role player 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The claims of notability are not supported by the sources; and support for keeping the article appears to come mostly from the same person. — Coren (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural re-nomination after DRV produced consensus to re-list. See the DRV here. Black Kite 12:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The only quote listed in the article is a copyright violation from BBC news. If anyone is active on WQ, they can contact me or any other administrator for the link to that article for the quote. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - This article got speedy deleted first ("Little or no context") but was recreated a day later by the same author. I figured speedy-ing it again might be considered too rude, so I'm bringing it here. I don't see why it has to exist and why the quote can't be added to the
David Petraeus article.
SIS 23:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Delete - The General said one thing in one instance, and all of a sudden that means that all of his prior statements are invalid? Ye Gods! I might as well create an article called Darwin on Evolution that included just the quote "To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." The Squicks ( talk) 23:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwiki to Wikiquote, maybe. They seem to be verifiable quotes, so the article, under the title of David Petraeus, may be valid there. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 00:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No references, the info fails WP:V. Google returns nothing relevant except the WP page [1]. Possibly a hoax or entirely non-notable, per WP:BIO. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:SAL does imply that it is possible this could be a useful topic for an article. However, that same guideline also states that stand-along lists much meet the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. The general feeling I'm getting from this discussion is that this list fails both. There is only one reference for the whole article. This close has no prejudice against a re-creation that is well-referenced throughout, or against tasteful inclusions in other articles, provided they are similarly well-referenced. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a loose and indiscriminate collection of trivia and original research. The fact that aircraft carries are mentioned in a piece of media is not relevant to the topic as a whole. Popular culture sections in articles are meant to briefly describe how the topic is used rather than just list every single little mention, so one or two paragraphs in the main article may be suitable. TTN ( talk) 23:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW -- The Anome ( talk) 23:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT; more specifically - Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. NuclearWarfare contact me My work 23:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
An unremarkable combination of words for a title, and a content that reflects that: two unrelated dictionary like definitions, one of which has been added by a single purpose account ( User:Computertheology) to add a reference to a book recently published (and partially the object of another AfD : Computer Theology). I don't believe there's anything to salvage here.
The result was speedy delete. MBisanz talk 13:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an online wiki community, but there is no indication of their notability, or of meeting WP:N. rootology ( C)( T) 22:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. News coverage is more than adequate to meet the notability guideline — Coren (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to lack notability independent of the Liberal Party of Canada. No sourcing, no evidence of meeting WP:N. rootology ( C)( T) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actor with only minor, one-off roles that are often uncredited. — Scien tizzle 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation upon reliable sources confirming that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, author's username indicates that he's a 14 year old writing about his own unpublished fiction. NawlinWiki ( talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This appears to be made-up. No google hits for author, character names or any other elements of the article. Rob Banzai ( talk) 22:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Nerf, as used in computer gaming, is an online slang term... perhaps a neologism... used only in computer gaming as far as I can find.
The article cites no sources, and I have been unable to find any I feel confident enough to cite as appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, rather than a gaming discussion forum.
With the rewrite by
Protonk (
talk) and other changes this is no longer true.
sinneed (
talk) 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Objecting editors, while insisting that there must be sources, have been unwilling or unable to cite them.
While the term may eventually enter the general language, I am very dubious as to whether this and a large number of similar terms belong in a general-purpose encyclopedia. There are adequate online jargon dictionaries and gaming-specific wikis for these online terms, I think. sinneed ( talk) 21:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Please accept my apologies for the fact that this is a "2nd nomination" even though purists will note that there never was a proper 1st effort. I was too new to wiki, and simply failed at the submission process. sinneed ( talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
*Week keep per my partial agreement with the nom, but the
verifiable sources found do indicate some notability of the term, just as with other Internet slang such as
l33t (hate to imply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); however, it's not much, and more would need to be found. Proper copyediting and addltion of sources can get rid of the
WP:OR problems, but a complete rewrite would not be necessary.
MuZemike (
talk) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
A future debut album from a non-notable artist. No details, no release date, no label known. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. The only google hit is the WP page [5]. Nsk92 ( talk) 21:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced material and redirect to Pornocracy. We66er ( talk) 21:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Tara McCluskey. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was merge to Goofy. Odd, there appears to be a bug in the closing script; my reasoning didn't get posted originally. Anyway, there is no consensus to delete the article, however there also does not appear to be a consensus to overrule the previous AfD's closure. It seems that the merger tag was removed when nothing had been done to undertake the merge and it wasn't apparent that this was an AfD decision ( [9]). Therefore, I am sustaining the old closure, and making it clear that the article is to be merged within one month or it may be deleted. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable sound effect, used in a few dozen Disney movies and hardly at all outside the Waltpire. Few reliable sources. There have been plenty of stock sound effects used throughout the years - this one is hardly the Wilhelm scream, or even Castle thunder for that matter. Previous AfD closed as merge, unsure exactly why this was undone. Action Jackson IV ( talk) 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN ( talk) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN ( talk) 19:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ff m 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN ( talk) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article, with advert like features removed, is a mere one line article on a patched IP PBX with no assertions of notability. SGGH speak! 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Infinite monkey theorem. MBisanz talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Ad-style self-promoting nn web article. BobAmnertiopsis ∴ ChatMe! 18:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close (non-admin closure) — The first AfD nomination is still open. Please discuss the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West, which has been relisted the same day as this. MuZemike ( talk) 23:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
"The College Football wikiproject consensus is that college football head coaches are notable". You can see the discussion about this on the article talk page. Basically, I disagree with this blanket notability agreed upon by this Wikiproject, which is in direct disagreement with WP:BIO / WP:NOTE. There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person. He has coached this college team, that is not disputed, but that's about all there is to say about him. His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable, and there are no other facts which would make him notable. While he does meet the notability essay of the College Football project, this essay is so far remote from WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and even WP:ATHLETE as to make it not supported by global consensus, but only by a very local one. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedied as blatant hoax and possible attack page. Grutness... wha? 00:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, I had some trouble verifying the references. For example, there is not entry in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary according to their online search page; I can't find it in the print edition of the Concise OED either. The quoted Pepys diary entry (25 October 1668) uses a different word. Part of the text is copied verbatim from the cunt article. HaeB ( talk) 17:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Coren (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. No other assertion of notability beyond youth caps (on which there is a consensus that they do not confer notability) and nothing to suggest that he passes WP:BIO either. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G10 — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 18:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
An account of the author's unfortunate experiences with cosmetic surgery in Bolivia. Original research. Jll ( talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. — Coren (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and poorly-defined neologism. It appears this has come up before, early this year, and the consensus was delete, but the article was never deleted, and there's no indication either on the page or in its discussion that it was ever nominated, which makes me suspect foul play. Twin Bird ( talk) 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ff m 13:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Last AFD closed as no consensus, still no sources or explanation of why this is important. Mr. Z-man 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, A7. Author has been username-blocked by Edgar181. Blueboy 96 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
not notable. unsourced. COI. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The article was prodded previously for failing WP:MUSIC by being a non-notable mix tape. The PROD was later removed. I agree with the original PROD, and believe that this is still the case. Rockfang ( talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability - It's been tagged for notability for a year now, and the only things anyone's come up with are self-published reviews (and that I mean by self-published authors, not reviews published by the band), some club they play at every Friday calling them "The UKs No 1 [sic] Jive and Swing Band" and unsourced claims of them having worked with Van Morrison, Count Basie and John Travolta. I've done some Google searches, and can't come up with much other than self-published sources or other non-reliable sources, one article about how some members of an audience at one of their gigs in Derry were upset that they were pushing Scientology, and the Derry city council page about the award. I've also done a Google News Archive Search, and have come up with 122 hits, but they almost all seem to be either Jive Aces promotional material or promo material for jazz/swing festivals they've played at. A couple of exceptions - a couple of letters to the editor claiming they played very well, and a Guardian article briefly mentioning that the Church of Scientology allegedly used them to sweeten the City of London police. In all, they don't seem to have significant coverage, and so don't pass WP:NOTE. Darimoma ( talk) 16:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Life (manga). — Coren (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not assert notability outside the manga. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist. TTN ( talk) 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article seems to be more about Boz than the album so possibly a db-bio speedy candidate. Overly praises the artist, no evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ros0709 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. ff m 13:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, basically because "the College Football wikiproject consensus is that college football head coaches are notable". You can see the discussion about this on the article talk page. Basically, I disagree with this blanket notability agreed upon by this Wikiproject, which is in direct disagreement with WP:BIO / WP:NOTE. There is no indication that there are multiple reliable independent sources about this person. He has coached this college team, that is not disputed, but that's about all there is to say about him. His run as a coach seems to have been unremarkable, and there are no other facts which would make him notable. While he does meet the notability essay of the College Football project, this essay is so far remote from WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and even WP:ATHLETE as to make it not supported by global consensus, but only by a very local one. I have suggested making a list of head coaches for this college where this info would be available, with only individual articles for the truly notable ones, but that seems to be unacceptable. Fram ( talk) 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep per CFB:COACH and points below:
Discussion invitations were sent to Sports and American Football projects.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of The Venture Bros. episodes. — Coren (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an article which reads as a plot summary drawn directly from the primary source. There are no other sources cited. The series does not appear to be syndicated beyond its original broadcaster, it is probably the case that this series of excessively detailed unsourced articles on individual episodes should be condensed and merged to the existing list article - I would view this as a test case in that regard. Wikipedia is not a fan-wiki for publication of plot summaries drawn direct from the original medium. Guy ( Help!) 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I will open by saying that I am an avid fan of "The Venture Brothers." That being said, I am forced to concede that a great deal of the wikipedia content on this series borders on or runs afoul of the "fancruft" line. There is undoubtedly a great deal of obsessive fans out there who want an article for every episode of this series. Further, I am positive that at some point in the future there will be enough additional content available surrounding these episodes (even things like commentary from the creators) to justify wikipedia entries. That day has not yet come.
The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
A film totally lacking
reliable sources to satisfy
WP:MOVIE (just links to websites for participants in its production) ...
PROD contested by anon
single-purpose account without comment ... pure
vanispamcruftisement by editors with
conflict of interest who keep removing the {{
Articleissues}}
tag without addressing the issues. —
The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (
talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. No prejudice against a redirect to the show — Coren (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable fictional character. PHARMBOY ( TALK) 15:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted (G3). Alexf 42 22:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Blatant hoax as a quick google search shows. Speedy declined by an IP. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This page has not established notability in about a year. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 15:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close Wrong venue. Image is already up for speedy deletion, so this doesn't need to be moved to IFD. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
( delete) – ( View AfD)
Copyrighted image.
http://www.tnawrestling.com/content/view/419/37/
Bottom of that link shows this exact picture. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 15:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ff m 13:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not pass WP:ORG. Elementary schools are generally not notable and would not pass even the more inclusive proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL that was recently rejected. I looked around on google and could not find substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Based on its style, the article looks like it may have been written by a student, possibly as an experiment. Nsk92 ( talk) 13:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth; Snow'ed in September. seicer | talk | contribs 00:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN ( talk) 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. — Coren (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN ( talk) 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ff m 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN ( talk) 13:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ff m 13:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN ( talk) 13:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ff m 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Well-written essay, but that's what it is; it fails WP:NOR and WP:SYN as being original research, something the creator himself admits on the article's talk page. RGTraynor 12:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Space Channel 5. — Coren (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games (other than the lawsuit, which is already covered in better detail within the main article), so it has no reason to exist. TTN ( talk) 12:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus leans heavily toward delete with the sole keep agreeing the character is not notable enough. Deserving of a link on Pudding (dab) is not a reason to keep. While there is some minor consideration for re-direction, this is not a likely search term due to the name. TravellingCari 01:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This character does not assert notability outside of the its video game appearances. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the games, so it has no reason to exist. TTN ( talk) 12:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ff m 12:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Poorly written, no citations, and no assertion of notability. Musashi1600 ( talk) 12:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn per changes made by Barberio ( talk · contribs) and per one of the nominees being converted into a redirect. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 21:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Speedy G11 was also declined. Original research. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 11:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Also nominating:
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 10:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This seems an obvious hoax to me, even though it has been around for almost two years. Grahame ( talk) 11:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ff m 12:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I find this article unnecessary on Wikipedia for now. First of all, it is hard to think of what to write in the article as far as the television series goes (although it is written like the person). Secondly, i see very little notability on the Judge Karen subject. Mythdon ( talk) 08:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was previously deleted at Afd, but DRV determined that the new sources presented in the course of the AfD were not properly considered. The concern expressed was lack of notability as demonstrated through reliable sources. I am relisting the discussion per the consensus at DRV but have no opinion of my own at this time. Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ff m 12:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
this is not a notable person Himatsu Bushi ( talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ff m 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article on a single minor mayoral election held in Japan earlier this year. No indication whatsoever of wider impact, notability, or historic associations, nor is there even a single source--reliable or otherwise--even attesting to its very existence, let alone impact. Prod tag was removed on grounds that 'an event does not have to have wide impact as long as it has local impact and importance. Elections are generally considered notable in the locations where they exist'. I'd say that's false for a global encyclopaedia generally, and untrue in this particular case, considering voter turn-out was only about 24 per cent. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 04:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ff m 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Results of a single mayoral election in a small Japanese city this year. No indication that this is significant or historic, nor any suggestion that this could rise above being an almanac entry. Prod tag was removed on grounds that 'an event does not have to have wide impact as long as it has local impact and importance. Elections are generally considered notable in the locations where they exist'. I'd say that's false for a global encyclopaedia generally, and untrue in this particular case, considering voter turn-out was only about 40 per cent. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 04:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Consists solely of a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Somno ( talk) 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ff m 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local fraternity, 24 Google hits, none saying anything. Speedy and prod tried already. Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 03:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. appears to be enough to establish notability and absent the neutral, it's unanimous to keep TravellingCari 01:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Un-notable television show. Emarsee ( Talk • Contribs) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. TravellingCari 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Role-playing game. No suggestion of wide repute or notability, nor any sources other than a single Web review suggesting otherwise. Seems indistinguishable from an advert. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, as article does not establish notability of the composer. It also is a copyright violation of this website. While it may be that the article's subject added the material himself, this has not been verified. No prejudice against creation of a new article at such time as reliable sources can be presented to verify that the individual meets notability guidelines. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article does not meet notability guidelines. Noah Taylor is not yet a significant composer. Additionally, article may violate both Autobiography and Conflict of Interest guidelines. PianoDan ( talk) 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Dude, Where's My Car?. BJ Talk 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
MacGuffin in a single film. Not notable enough for it's own article. Unsourced. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 03:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete has no sources. Lego Kontribs Talk M 05:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Change to redirect. I created this article almost four years ago. I admit that it does not meet notability criteria and is unlikely ever to. Should be a redirect to article about the movie. ike9898 ( talk) 06:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 00:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This person appears to be a thoroughly non-notable figure, whose very existence is not verifiable. Unfortunately, the article does not cite sources, and is written in a legendary style. The legend itself is so short and so simple (Emperor had a dumb son, invented Go to entertain him) that it could just be folded into the Go article. TallNapoleon ( talk) 05:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This doesn't need to run for another five days. All these articles are unsourced two-line stubs which say "Country X have never entered this competition, but might do in 2009". Not in the slightest bit useful or encyclopedic. Black Kite 15:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Sub-stub, little context. Tagged as A7 but I declined since it's not a bio, group, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable: blogger who was fired from Google in early 2005 for disclosing corporate secrets on his blog (without thinking about the consequences of what he was doing). People get fired for doing dumb things all the time: not much that's special about this one. No media exposure whatsoever outside the context of this minor event. Flagboy ( talk) 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Wizards_of_Waverly_Place#Characters. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
A fictional figure of a minor show is Not Notable. Unreferenced. Should be merged back into main article Wizards of Waverly Place -- KelleyCook ( talk) 16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
In addition I nominated the following related articles for the same reason.
The result was delete. Black Kite 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:SOURCES by relying on primary sources. Article was set to redirect to Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), but has been restored - deleting the article would prevent this happening again. -- JediLofty Talk to me Follow me 09:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. No assertion of notability ( WP:A7). The speedy tag got removed at some point and was never readded. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article does not assert nor pass notability Canis Lupus 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY REDIRECT. Clearly not worthwhile content, but we may as well redirect it to the real content. Barberio ( talk) 12:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Not sure of what to make of this. At first I thought it was vandalism (and deleted it as such.) Then I checked the names-- and they are close enough that I just demonstrated my ignorance. I think it's a hoax, but now I'm not sure. Rewrite and formatting are desperately needed if it is kept. Dloh cierekim 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Rewritten from treatment of fact so may have been a hoax, seems like modern spin on chi balls, completely unsourced (except for the demo videos) Nate 14 81 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ff m 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:SOURCES by relying on primary sources. Article has questionable notability - the faction does not have a codex (book that lists the army to enable them to be played in a game of Warhammer 40,000). -- JediLofty Talk to me Follow me 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a hoax. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax article. This TV network does not exists. - Danngarcia ( talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Please explain why this was relisted? The explanation by the anon above proves this should be speedy deleted as a hoax. Speedy delete, move on. Corvus cornix talk 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 ( talk) 07:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
With all due respect, I would submit that Fanny Alger is only notable for having been the alleged first polygamous wife of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Although she has been mentioned in secondary source material, it is exclusively re: the above noted alleged relationship with a famous person. I am concerned with the deletion reasoning that relationships do not confer notability. Alger was not notable for anything else, even including within the religious realm: she received no notable awards or honor, did not make a widely recognized contribution in any field, did not write anything that was published, or receive notoriety (or infamy, since the allegations were mostly made via contemporary rumors) for anything other than the allegation that she was the (secret) polygamous first wife of a famous religious figure, whom she did not live or have children with. There is also no consensus among historians that Alger was ever a polygamous wife of Smith, but that there is evidence she may have had a sexual affair with him (not a clandestine marriage) - this diminishes the need for an article even more. Alger herself never made any claims that she was married to Smith and refused to speak about the subject. Alger should not have her own article when she can be mentioned in others, such as the article on Smith, Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy or List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that if "person A has a relationship with well-known person B (it) is not a reason for a standalone article on A", yet "person A may be included in the related article on B", which is already the case with Alger. Lastly, I would note that the bulk of the article relies on three unreliable sources: a website with a newspaper clipping and two parts of a non-credible website - one now states merely LDS Archives, with no further info. Thank you. A Sniper ( talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 08:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Somebody tried to AfD this earlier but didn't finish the process. Unbiased delete as this doesn't even contain a complete sentence or any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Claims to be one of the biggest leading corporations in South America. However, I didn't find any reliable sources in English or Spanish, so I believe it fails the notability guideline. Someone else tried to afd this earlier, but didn't finish the process. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The "article" is nothing more than a translation and is suited for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. seicer | talk | contribs 00:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as per WP:DICT. The article appears to be a straight translation of an Aramaic word, without any of the usual material that would distinguish an encyclopedia entry from a dictionary. Prod was contested. RayAYang ( talk) 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. TravellingCari 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely rumor-based and unreferenced. The "source" shown is Seeley's myspace page, which mentions nothing about an album title, much less a track list. The author of the article has made questionable edits, as has the author of the album cover image. A google seach on the album brings up this Wikipedia page and a blog entry (not reliable). Seeley's official website also gives no details nor confirmation about this album. I'm questioning the validity of this album and of the cover art. Would like to see it all go. - eo ( talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is to delete all TravellingCari 01:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
A similar list like this was already deleted: This just seems to be a continuation. WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OCAT#byethnicity all apply. Bulldog123 ( talk) 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Also nominated:
The result was speedied under several criteria. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Advertising for some exhibition.
Apparent copying from text of exhibition's website 02:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)The result was speedy delete. Cirt ( talk) 11:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Found no reliable sources confirming his claims of notability. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as {{ A7}} non-notable web content. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 02:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
nn website Mow3212 ( talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Website fails to meet notability standards. As pointed out by MJBurrage, this probably isn't a speedy candidate, but nonetheless still fails WP:WEB. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
nn website Mow3212 ( talk) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability not established. The article is borderline spam, albeit with "sources". seicer | talk | contribs 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
nn website Mow3212 ( talk) 02:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Non-notable company, especially one launched only a scant two days ago... seicer | talk | contribs 00:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
nn website Mow3212 ( talk) 01:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. It looks like the consensus is that there are enough sources here to justify the article. Those with COI concerns should speak to the user in question or post at WP:COIN Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No nontrivial coverage found. High COI as well--author is Eastern Auto ( talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 01:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Primal therapy (non-admin closure). RockManQ ( talk) 19:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
There are no sources to show that the term 'Scream therapy' is used in the way the article claims; it is likely not a recognized term. Shouldn't be an article on it if it is not a recognized subject. Skoojal ( talk) 00:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Based on this discussion it looks clear that the article as it exists now is not a preferred solution, but as far as what the best solution is I cannot say. I would suggest that those interested in the future of this article work something out, be it through improvement, merging or redirection, so as to avoid a rehashing of this discussion in a future nomination. Sher eth 18:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable; furthermore, the primary sources are self-published. NB: The originator of the article identifies himself as one of the creators of the theory, so he has a WP:COI.
Clarification: I do not believe that a COI is a reason to delete the article. I believe that lack of notability is the reason to delete the article. I further believe that lack of notability is well-established by the lack of references to the concept in mathematical journals which I demonstrate below. Ozob ( talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The mathematical community's reception of non-Newtonian calculus has been lukewarm. Naturally the subject has little appeal to mathematicians engrossed in the abstract realms of modern mathematics. Nevertheless enthusiastic interest has been expressed by some mathematicians, and by many scientists and engineers.
Robert Katz and I met personally with Dirk Struik and with Ivor Grattan-Guinness, both of whom were quite optimistic about the possibilities opened-up in science by non-Newtonian calculus. Professor Grattan-Guinness wrote: "There is enough here [in Non-Newtonian Calculus] to indicate that non-Newtonian calculi ... have considerable potential as alternative approaches to traditional problems. This very original piece of mathematics will surely expose a number of missed opportunities in the history of the subject."
In Mathematical Reviews Ralph P. Boas, Jr. made the following two assertions: 1) It is not yet clear whether the geometric calculus provides enough additional insight to justify its use on a large scale. 2) It seems plausible that people who need to study functions from this point of view might well be able to formulate problems more cleary by using bigeometric calculus instead of classical calculus. Clearly Professor Boas understood that: a) non-Newtonian calculus does provide alternatives to the classical calculus, b) non-Newtonian calculus does provide additional insight, and c) non-Newtonian calculus can be used to simplify formulations.
David Pearce MacAdam reviewed "Non-Newtonian Calculus" in the Journal Of The Optical Society Of America. Here is an excerpt: "This [Non-Newtonian Calculus] is an exciting little book. ... The greatest value of these non-Newtonian calculi may prove to be their ability to yield simpler physical laws than the Newtonian calculus. Throughout, this book exhibits a clarity of vision characteristic of important mathematical creations. ... The authors have written this book for engineers and scientists, as well as for mathematicians. ... The writing is clear, concise, and very readable. No more than a working knowledge of [classical] calculus is assumed." Clearly, Professor MacAdam (probably a physicist) is also optimistic about the possibilities of using non-Newtonian calculus in scientific work.
The omission by Wikipedia of information about non-Newtonian calculus would be a disservice to the scientific community. Non-Newtonian calculus IS a mathematical theory that provides scientists, engineers, and mathematicians with alternatives to the classical calculus of Newton and Leibniz.
I thank you all for your interest and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.238.187 ( talk) 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: A search of google scholar shows that "multiplicative calculus" is used in several different contexts to mean different things so I would oppose any renaming. Moreover there are an infinite number of these non-newtonian calculi and the term "multiplicative calculus" is not appropriate for all of them, rather a new article should be created to cover "multiplicative calculus" (what G and K call "geometric calculus"). Delaszk ( talk) 08:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The phrase "Non-Newtonian calculus" was invented by Grossman and Katz, but the concept of alternative differentiation operators is an old idea. I have added some references in the history section of the article to earlier work. Delaszk ( talk) 07:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The topic is notable per the references and reviews already mentioned and here's another: "Bigeometric Calculus" and "Averages" are both reviewed in The Mathematical Gazette, Vol. 68, No. 443 (Mar., 1984), pp. 70-71 Delaszk ( talk) 08:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
It is true that the geometric calculus can be obtained by "conjugating with the exponential function". However, infinitely many non-Newtonian calculi can NOT be obtained by "conjugating with an invertible function". For example, the bigeometric calculus can NOT be obtained that way. Smithpith ( talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep Snowball close. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about a relatively minor battle. OpenSeven ( talk) 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ff m 12:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable or made up term, no google hits or sources Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
http://www.robertnyman.com/2008/04/04/favorite-terms-about-web-developers/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.112.68 ( talk) 00:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
If this deemed a necessary or useful description, then a category could be created. At the moment this list implies there is something wrong with the living people mentioned. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There is sufficient consensus here that this article consists primarily of original research. Sher eth 18:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This article have been submitted to deletion on fr.wikipedia September 1st and deleted September 7th (cf. fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Théologie des ordinateurs). The discussion have showe the goal of this article is to promote the book Computer Theology: Intelligent Design of the World Wide Web. This article author have also created the article Bertrand du Castel to enhance promotion. There is a great autopromotion suspiction. Furthermore, the references of the article aren't considered trustable. Dereckson ( talk) 16:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply