The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable compilation album. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Courcelles ( talk) 01:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This whole article, although perhaps well-intentioned, has become a repository for unsourced trivia of the worst kind. There is no encyclopedic treatment or commentary, it's just a list of mentions. At best, select and merge those worthy and sourceable sections to the main article, but meanwhile, this article does Wikipedia no credit. Rodhull andemu 22:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Article fails to meet notability requirements for Organisations, corporations, or products. One of the sources cited: " Who's the boss," by Liz Doup for the Sun Sentinel, has nothing to do with the company, Doron Ofir Casting, but it does have several two-sentence paragraphs about Doron Ofir working the door of a club in South Beach. While it may reasonably be argued that some of the projects it has helped cast listed in the 'Credits' section of the article may have achieved notability, according to WP guidleines, notability is not heritable. Further, it reads like an advert for the company, which is self-promotion, which is a violation of WP guidelines. Mtiffany71 ( talk) 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 08:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
It's a catalog of the rights of nursing home residents, a sort of 'bill of rights.' Important? Yes. Interesting? Very. Sourced? Yes. But... I'm not certain whether or not it's an encyclopedia article. What do you think, o wise community? FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I will take what was added by the good Colonel Warden, and add what the rights are in a more acceptable format -- should that be amenable to the administrator. I thank all of you for your helpful and insightful commentaries. Maxlivingston ( talk) 17:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
It was not copyrighted, so there was no such violation. However, I will add the information in a more encylopedically acceptable format. And, I thank all of you for your hard work and encouraging/ insightful/ and kind commentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.47.230.45 ( talk) 17:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply
BTW, the last comment was added by me. While I'm in a good mood, I want to especially thank the good Colonel Warden. Colonel, you have been wonderful. And, it's clear that you care about helping those in need of assistance. For that, and for your wonderful support, you are truly deserving of the highest praises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlivingston ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. extransit ( talk) 20:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Hoax. The article is made up from start to finish. There is no one by this name listed on the faculty of Reykjavik University. I can find no reference to an entity named "Fannarfell Thinktank", nor to a journal named the Journal of the Iceland Society of Neuroscience and Psychology. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I can assure you that all the claims made in the article are truthful and backed up by credible sources. I too could not find 'Einar Rikarðsson' listed in the faculty of Reykjavík University, but after calling the Office of the President, I found that he was recently laid off because of the economic despair in the Icelandic economy and thus the funding for the Icelandic higher educational system. He does, however still do research at the Fannarfell Thinktank in Reykjavík, Iceland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.128.212 ( talk) 19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) — 89.160.128.212 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I find it ridiculous that one of the editors found a random Einar Már Ríkarðsson on Facebook and holds that up to be proof that this article is invalid. IT IS A VERY COMMON NAME IN ICELANDIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.128.212 ( talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I found the website for the Icelandic Society of Neuroscience and Psychology: www.isnp.webs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.128.212 ( talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Why doesn´t someone try to contact the Icelandic Society for Neuroscience and Psychology?? Or the Fannarfell Thinktank for that matter? I´m not sure why the websites were not found on google... they are however listed in the references section of the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.128.212 ( talk) 10:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This page is not a hoax. I referenced all of my claims. I contacted numerous organizations mentioned in the article, including the Reykjavík University, Harvard University, The Fannarfell Thinktank, the Icelandic Society of Neuroscience and Psychology, the Icelandic Coast Guard, the Icelandic Ministry of Health, and the Offices of the Registrar of the following Universities mentioned in the article: Mansoura University, Abant Izzet Baysal University, University of Khartoum, University of Balamand. All institutions that were contacted confirmed the claims made in the article. I await patiently a legitimate explanation for why this article constitutes "a hoax" and why it has been nominated for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertbrennemann ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete. A discussion on whether to merge is of course possible on the article talk page. Stifle ( talk) 08:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Article is full of wp:synth and wp:or This is - and always will be - an indiscriminate collection of information; and is not for Wikipedia. Suggest merger to Democratic peace theory as a subsection mark nutley ( talk) 20:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I think that this is pretty interesting, and should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosepicou ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC) — Rosepicou ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory. In addition, this could be construed as a copyright violation of Macropaedia's intellectual property. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 20:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article lacks notability and sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeefan233 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory. In addition, this "article" has been here for three years without having gotten past the "A"s. And this could be construed as a copyright violation of Macropaedia's intellectual property. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep with rationale. Thank you for bringing these articles to AfD, since such articles should be considered scrupulously, especially when there is a hint of WP:NOR and copyvio. However, I feel that deletion is not justified, for the following reasons:
- The contents of the Macropædia provide insight into the topics that the Encyclopædia Britannica considers to be the hallmark topics of science, history and culture. Several Wikipedians have praised the utility of these lists; see for example the latest entry on Talk:List of 2007 Macropædia articles.
- WP:NOT#IINFO does not apply here, since it does not mention this category of information. Moreover, these articles are not merely database dumps, but place the information in context, with links to other, more explanatory articles.
- These article are not original research, unless looking up the number of pages or the year of references is. If that were deletion-worthy, a vast number of other WP articles would have to be changed; how often do we read something like, "X published a 370-page book in 1976"? If the consensus is that page numbers and year references are OR, I could delete the offending columns from the tables.
- These articles are not copyvio, per this memo. Facts cannot be copyrighted, a principle that allows Tables of Contents to be copied, as we often see on amazon.com and elsewhere. The titles of these articles are drawn only from the Macropædia's Tables of Contents.
- I hope that these answers address all of your concerns. Thank you for your carefulness in maintaining Wikipedia's quality, Willow 08:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Promotion for non-notable company. No references to independent coverage given, and I have been unable to find any. Haakon ( talk) 12:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I just restored this after I deleted it as A7. Further info given on my talk page is enough to get it through A7 I think, so restored and brought here for wider consideration Ged UK 20:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
*Delete Non-notable and fringe. The two sources listed were to the group's webpages. It needs references to independant, reliable, thirdy party non-fringe sources to establish notability. Even so, it still is fringe.
Prsaucer1958 (
talk)
20:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy keep. Nomination effectively withdrawn with no arguments to delete. ( non-admin closure) Mkativerata ( talk) 02:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Per WP:CRYSTAL. The author argued that it might be notable given the short time away from the election, but I'm not too sure, so I removed the PROD I originally put on the article to list it here for larger discussion. elektrik SHOOS 19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, removed by anon IP. Non notable company. Despite the article's claims, I can find no reliable sources that confirm any of the text here. Fails WP:COMPANY. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. This article was previously started by a COI editor and speedily deleted as spam. A COI editor then recreated the identical article. I have spent quite a bit of time fixing the article, removing spam language and referencing it, but have been hampered by a lack of third party references, despite the article creator looking for them and extensive searches myself. Currently it has only two non-company/non-press release refs and both are very weak for establishing notability. One is a National Science Foundation grant listing and the other looks like a press release interview. I invited an assessment of the article for notability by a non-involved admin who rendered the opinion that the company is non-notable and that the article should be taken to AFD for wider input. Ahunt ( talk) 19:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
It's not clear what this is, and it may fall under deletion guidelines for no context, but it certainly doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. If there is no copyright concern, it may well belong at Wikimedia Commons. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication of WP:Notability. Limited coverage on google of a university program. noq ( talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Zoogyzugelder ( talk) 12:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I would like to counter the limited coverage on Google claim & notability. Here are some examples of coverage via media. reply
All of these sites were found via Google & the program is very well known and relevant in university. I will add these links to the article to help prove its Notability.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by author. This article is about an unsigned band who have yet to release a record. They have very minor press coverage, mostly for using some notable session musicians than for the band themselves. I do not feel that the notability criteria in WP:BAND has been met. There are a lot of reference links listed but it is hard to see how some of them support the content of the article. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete/Merge
This incident is not notable enough to have it's own article, and at present is a terrible non-neutral piece. What can be salvaged should be merged back into the Vatican Radio article and this article deleted. - Royalguard11( T) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Artist's website at [3] says the album is coming in Summer 2011 and nothing else, so it's way too early for a WP album article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshmellow Playground. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, this is simply a small village church about a decade old. Nothing about its architecture or history indicates any particular notability. Plus, the content is entirely unreferenced. Biruitorul Talk 17:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a notable mma organization, sporadic editing, no linking pages Osubuckeyeguy ( talk) 17:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This BLP gives no evidence of why subject is notable. Claim of being one of the world's best kickboxers in the 1980s isn't supported by any sources. Article has been tagged for 18 months, so it's had time to be improved. Astudent0 ( talk) 17:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Completing procedural steps on behalf of User:A. That person's reason: "Well ... basically what the IP edited the page to say. There's no confirmation of this album. It's just blank." DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG, non notable local politician Nuttah ( talk) 17:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator Courcelles ( talk) 01:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable indie film; only references provided are transcripts of lawsuits (!). User who created this article, Fourdee, has been banned permanently by Jimbo Wales himself. Stonemason89 ( talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I am closing this as delete, because many of the keep !votes are in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Additionally, the re-release of the press release does not count as non-trivial independent coverage. There is no bias against recreation, but consensus says that there just isn't adequate coverage at this time. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 02:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This does not appear to be a notable product, and no indication of significance or importance is given. — Timneu22 · talk 16:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was delete. While this is quite obviously
WP:POINT, the main AfD based reason for deleting, as articulated by many of the editors commenting here, is that it is
WP:SYNTH.
Jayjg
(talk)
02:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
Created to make a wp:point no sources to support title, all ref`s currently are about communism. mark nutley ( talk) 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment I can't help remarking that this is a classic instance in which aggressively early AFD nomination (hours after creation) is disruptive. The article has evolved a bit, and has the beginnings of sourcing - now 2 books and a peer reviewed article, plus a quote from Marx which indicates a clear direction for developing the article. Which makes the early Delete - no sources !votes now irrelevant. It becomes increasingly clear even at this early stage that there is such a thesis worth documenting appropriately, in which case any issues should be resolved by editing, not deletion. Rd232 talk 18:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep Since the nominator has re-named the article Mass Killings caused by Capitalism, the nomination is moot. The nominator has stated that under this new name "there will be less chance of wp:or and wp:synth". I asked him to move the article back until the AfD was completed, but he has chosen not to do this. Also, the reason given for nominating the article was WP:POINT, which is not a reason for deletion. While the nominator correctly pointed out on the article's talk page that the article should have been better developed before it was created, it would have been more helpful to see whether these issues could be addressed before nominating for deletion. There is currently conversation on the article talk page about sources, and I think it would be more helpful to close the AfD and see if the discussion is productive. TFD ( talk) 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Princess Mononoke after creator blanked the page in good faith. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC) (non-admin closure) reply
Non-notable character from movie, not notable enough for separate article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. After weighing the arguments, the policy based reasoning is entirely on the delete side. Courcelles ( talk) 01:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. Halevy is a fitness trainer who is occasionally quoted by the media in fitness articles. Ronz ( talk) 16:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Erroneous. Halevy regularly appears on national media, authors articles, and according to a recent blog, has landed a recurring segement on The TODAY Show. Ronz was hell bent on deleting this way back when and it successfully was defended here. There is no reason to re-open this in AfD. 72.248.3.102 ( talk) 18:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Try doing a google search before you so hastily delete 72.248.3.102 ( talk) 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
There have been arguments made here that Halevy is just 'another in the field' to which I counter, as has been stated before in this debate, walk into any neighborhood gym and ask by show of hands how many of the trainers there are also "notable" in such a way. I would be shocked, just as your better judgment, or any sensible person reading this, if there was even a single hand raised.
On these grounds notability has been fully satisfied.
So, once again, whether the source here is questionable by you, Ronz, e.g. in the BVI News reference, it still legitimizes the noteworthiness of its subject. Such is the same for the others where Halevy may have been a contributor to, or the expert opinion of, any given piece.
That being said, Ronz, I do agree that this entry needs editorial revision, as someone has already offered to do. But to so forcefully push for the chopping block as you have here, and did before, is unreasonable and ruins the sense of a community that should be aimed at inclusion, development, and refinement of collected data.
This alone is a defense in toto of the WP:BIO notability requirements. There shouldn't be any further destructive pseudo-debate from this point onwards, but rather an effort to refine the entry and move onward. I have been fair and sensible in this matter and appreciate that courtesy in return. -Shawn Hayes ([email protected]) 69.127.117.243 ( talk) 21:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Shayes1175 ( talk) 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply
72.248.3.102 ( talk) 21:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply
72.248.3.102 ( talk) 21:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Princess Mononoke after creator blanked the page in good faith. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC) (non-admin closure) reply
Non-notable character from movie, not notable enough for separate article Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. recreatioon of the original and a rewritten article encouraged Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable character from movie, not notable enough for separate article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Animal-borne bomb attacks. There is no consensus to delete but editorially a merge appears more appropriate Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
What is the point of this? Is this really an appropriate article to have in a serious encyclopedia? Doesn't satisfy WP: SYNTH or WP: INDISCRIMINATE. Stonemason89 ( talk) 15:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. extransit ( talk) 20:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Although this individual sounds notable, I cannot find a single reliable source to verify the article content. There is no verifiable content that would allow confirmation that he meets general notability or WP:ENT. Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 15:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Spotted this on patrols this morning. It's not explicitely spam, but sure feels a little spammy due to the peacockishness of this. (Hemorrhoids are the most feared? I'd be more worried about rectal cancer!) It boils down to that this appears to be an essay explaining this technique in removing hemorrhoids - and beyond promotional tone, not a lot more than that. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 15:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I would like to append the nomination with the related article:
I came across the second article while checking if the text was copied from elsewhere. The presence of a second article supports the spam hypothesis. Novangelis ( talk) 02:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Gamer. Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I really don't see the point of this article. If this was a way to force a merger, it failed. The author copy pasted the original articles, added very little, and posted some merger notes without actually starting a discussion. Each of the subjects is notable, and there is an article on each. The most this page can do is point to main pages. The material in a very close format is available in gamer. Muhandes ( talk) 15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Muhandes ( talk) 15:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
While there is reason to believe that the game could be notable, all there is is an infobox, a short statement about what it is, and how you play it. And... when I did a Yahoo search I got lots of different things, such as a website with game strategies, a dictionary entry that says it's a slang word for nose, and tons of other miscellaneous stuff... Kayau Voting IS evil 14:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable. My I-don't-have-to-run day ( talk) 14:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. extransit ( talk) 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply
It's way too soon to create this article. Casting is not even complete yet nor has the show started filming. All that is known is the title of the first episode. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and can always be recreated when more is known. Redfarmer ( talk) 12:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual branch of what is clearly a notable organisation, however as per WP:CLUB these Individual branches are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article.
I can't find any indication that this is one of those examples. Exactly zero Gnews hits, as for G Hits nothing of any substance, of the top 10 (of the 31 hits) 3 are from it's own site or blog, another 3 are from either linkedin or facebook, of the remaining 4, one appears to be a search engine (DuckDuckgo), another has no ref to it on the page (fatherhoodschool.com), another is www.1stock-trading.com and the last one is a Blog (www.rousemedia.co.uk/). Codf1977 ( talk) 12:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Personal article, not notable. Joleran ( talk) 09:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails general notability guideline and WP:ENT. Reconsider ! 12:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a pro league. bneidror ( talk) 10:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:A7 by JamesBWatson ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Anturiaethwr Talk 12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, with no reasons for importance given. CSD A7 was removed by non-author. I can find no sources other than self-published. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
A speedy deletion WP:CSD#A7 based on no reasonable assertion of notability was previously declined (not by me). I have declined speedy deletion based on this being overly promotional. I think this rests on whether the individual meets WP:BIO so an AfD should sort this out. Polargeo ( talk) 10:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; no arguments for deletion remain. ( non-admin closure) -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk) 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
American farmer who does not appear to be notable (
WP:BIO) in any way. He was the father of a 19th century US president; however, notability is not inheritable and there does not seem to be anything else of interest to write about Nathaniel Fillmore himself.
Sandstein 09:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn in view of the coverage found by Nsk92, thanks! (I'll remember to look on Google Books too, next time.)
Sandstein
12:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears not to meet WP:POLITICIAN, makes no claim of notability except candidature for a party which has never held a major political office. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 07:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a soap box. This non- notable individual is seeking political nomination in Rhode Island and this article reads like her election pamphlet: "created jobs in Rhode Island", "launching a new shelter for women" etc, and the External Links take you to her campaign website. Created by a WP:SPA then contributed by SPAs, including one blocked indefinitely for promoting political candidates on Rhode Island. Speedy delete. I42 ( talk) 07:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 01:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability, and not very well written. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
WP is not a crystal ball. There is no evidence of notability yet; it should wait till it is released and becomes notable etc. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. and cleanup Courcelles ( talk) 01:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable earthquake, no damages or casualties reported. WP:NOTNEWS Diego Grez ¿qui pa'? 03:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Easily fails WP:ACADEMIC, Open-and-shut case, if not quite a speedy. She needs to write a book or give some interviews or get an award or something if she wants an article. Herostratus ( talk) 02:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC) reply
A gadfly club which made a brief nuisance protest that, on its own terms, would violate
WP:NOTNEWS. Not an encyclopedic article, by any stretch -- and the whole "Aims" section seems to have been lifted from another source.
Regent of the Seatopians (
talk) 02:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn nomination Looks like I made a blunder with this one. Sorry about that. Can some nice person please close this thing?
Regent of the Seatopians (
talk)
01:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect to Selena Gomez & the Scene discography. Move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Year Without Rain, and redirect title to Selena Gomez & the Scene discography SilkTork * YES! 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Still no tracklist, so WP:HAMMER applies. All the contents are the article are copies of the material already contained at Selena Gomez & the Scene or Round and Round (Selena Gomez & the Scene song). Efforts to redirect the article, as indicated by WP:MUSIC, have been thwarted by anonymous editors that continually resurrect it. — Kww( talk) 00:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Move to Recycling codes. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 03:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be almost entirely original research. There are no international recycling standards; some areas, such as the European Union, have standards that apply to all their member countries, but there are no "universal" standards. This article seems to be synthesized from the SPI resin identification coding system and some existing European standards that give identification numbers to certain materials (see article talk page). — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Also note that these are, indeed recycling codes, not solely resin codes. As you can see from the list, materials such as cork, glass, and paper are included in the relevant European, Japanese, and other standards. This article is, in fact, just a beginning of a treatment of this subject. The English Wikipedia has given it a somewhat parochial treatment thus far (more parochial than, as noted, in other language Wikipedias). This is a good step along the road to rectifying that, and globalizing our treatment of the subject. (The article is also better named in the German, Czech, and Danish Wikipedias, to boot.)
Oh, and the "ISO" in EN ISO 1043 means that it's an international standard, by the way. Uncle G ( talk) 01:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes, there's a list of plastic codes. So that much of the article is correct. But what of the rest? The talk page for that German article does not actually say that "the overall list comes from EN ISO 1043". What it says is that ISO 1043 doesn't mention the triangular recycling symbols, just the letter codes. And ISO 1043, that's the international standard, covers plastics, not glass or metal. So what I can extract from your rather patronizing comment above is that we should have a globalized plastics codes identification article. That's all well and good. However, it still doesn't demonstrate that most of the content of this article is anything but wishful thinking. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of The Transformers characters. The Transformers Wikia already has an article on this character, and this does appear, as people have said, a more appropriate place for such a detailed article on a minor character. There is also a mention in List of The Transformers characters , which appears to be an appropriate redirect. Reliable secondary sources are always helpful, and both this article and the list would require appropriate sourcing. Fan websites are not generally considered reliable sources. SilkTork * YES! 10:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article about a character that appeared in a single episode of The Transformers (TV series), suggest merging to a character list. Rm994 ( talk) 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG, WP:V. No secondary coverage in books/news, no reliable secondary coverage via web searches. A potential hole in this search is the lack of possible Etheopean-language sources available on-line. Marked as unsourced for roughly three years. j⚛e decker talk 17:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician. All sources in the article are either very poor quality (i.e. Myspace), have trivial or no mentions of the subject, or are primary sources. A google search does not yield any higher quality sources. SnottyWong spout 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to AnyJunk. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't believe that founding one company makes you notable. The company itself might be notable, but the founder does not inherit notability from that. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
no evidence of notability, Wikipedia is not a memorial Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 10:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Avoided Deforestation Partners. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 03:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. This article was tagged a G4 speedy (repost of previously deleted material), however, this incarnation uses this source, which mentions Horowitz in a non-trivial manner and did not exist at the time of the previous AfD. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 02:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 02:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Charity without any claim to notability, only operates in one county of UK. No references, only ref listed does not mention them. Seems like blatant self-promotion, 2 contributors only additions are for this and related articles. Dmol ( talk) 06:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC as there are not multiple, independent sources. We have discussed something like this a year ago. TM 16:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to Clock Tower (series)#Film adaptation where the subject already has which has more information than this article. Since the mominator has withdrawn the nomination and redirected the article, and since I have voiced no other opinon other that suggesting the closure, and per suggestion made on my talk page, I am closing this discussion as moot. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Not clear how this might ever meet
WP:NFILM.Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Challenged prod. Created and largely edited by a user with a history of copyvio and vandalism.
RadioFan (
talk)
17:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply
vanity nn bio, not a single improvement in two years since last no-consensus AFD Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 19:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Rapper of questionable notability. All provided references are to primary sources (personal websites, YouTube, Myspace), with no significant coverage from independent third party sources. No independent confirmation found for claims to have been "featured on MTV's Road Rules and The Real World". TheRealFennShysa ( talk) 19:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Over two years with no sources added. Aside from a few fansites, forums and lots of torrents, I find no reliable sources that prove this has achieved any significant notability magnius ( talk) 20:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply
I would have prodded this article were it not for the fact it was created in 2003 and has a substantial number of third-party edits by established editors. Software whose notability is not supported by a Google search. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep I concur with Karnesky. I disagree that for this category of article that Google hit count is relevant. An open source project that had had several releases and have been mentioned in third party sources is sufficient for inclusion on those merits alone. I would also endorse Uncle G's solution if implemented. patsw ( talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to NTLDR. NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 03:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
This article has been in existence for six years and has never had any references. A search for refs turned up forums and blogs. The article was previously nominated for AFD four an a half years ago, in 2006 and was kept but noted as needing improvement. The article is no better now than when it was created and the lack of refs prevents serious improvements. Does not meet Wikipedia notability requirements, non-encyclopedic topic. Ahunt ( talk) 22:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC) reply