The result was Keep. The US World Cup Team is a highest level of amateur sports.-- Balloonman ( talk) 21:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
A very short article which was originally autobiographical, and which contravenes WP:Crystal. The only references given are to her personal blog. Paul20070 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, WP:BOLLOCKS, why is it that all of these hoax bios have someone getting injured in an unlikely kind of accident? It's no longer funny (if it ever was). NawlinWiki 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Suspected hoax: No singles called "These Faces Are A Changing", "Poodle Walk Blues" or "Molehill Riots"; no band called "The Iron Masons" — BillC talk 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted by User:Bjelleklang. NawlinWiki 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparent promotional of a device the article's creator has invented himself, and which "ha[s] not been validated" (i.e. it has never been shown that it actually works) [1]. Speedily deleted twice; the last revision may not be that blatant spam, but still delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. I think this would have been closed sooner if the creator of the page wasn't as vocal as he was. But even so, this is a clear case of something to be deleted. -- Balloonman ( talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Page created exclusively to place the editor's father's account of the sinking (not WP:RS) into wiki after it had been removed from the main article Mayalld 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Please explain your qualification to edit this page, what evidence do you have to say this is not accurate or sourced correctly?
I think you are biased and don't care for the truth. Since when is personal testimony not a valid resource and reference? I think you are against the spirit of Wiki by applying technical consideriations over truth and human experience. You promote the impression that you insult the memory of the men and women who gave their lives in war time. And this is Rememberance Day, or veterans day. It seems edit for the sake of editing and deleting content that you don't know anything about. Do you have any experience about the SS Conte Rosso? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
You are arrogantly saying it is hearsay. Where is the actual text where that says this policy? show me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
But I have verifiable and reliable sources. Is that not OK? What is your definition of Reliable Source and Verification?
None of you have answered my specific and exact questions. You are are only responding with a cultural view of values. Policy based on interpretation. Where is the exact line of text that defines Verification, Sourcing?
In answer to booby1011, Yes I have previously published materials. People can verify it. However it's not online at this moment. If you wikibots want to check maybe you'll have to wait. Is that enough to stay the execution of the delete page order? Or how long do it need to be placed online before the automatic wikibot rush to deletion? What if I put in some references? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.151.101.243 (
talk)
23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
How's the list of references now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
You can check them if you do the research. Just go to the naval history department in the Arsenal in Venice Italy, or look at the pension or discharge papers the next time you visit Napoli. However I've done some "fact" checking already. I've got some documents but scanning and uploading will take some time. Previous question still applies.. how long till autowikibots rule and delete this world without online references? (Every time I open this page this browser logs me out- stupid safari and windows xp...
Gianni
00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
"Wikipedia non è il posto adatto per pubblicare ricerche originali (come, ad esempio, teorie ed idee formulate ex novo, o punti di vista/fatti sostenuti da una minoranza limitata o estremamente piccola), Wikipedia, infatti, non è una fonte primaria." Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, for example, new theories and ideas, or viewpoints or factual statements supported by, or known by, an extremely small number of people. Wikipedia is not a primary source. With all respect to the memory of Mr. Raineri and his service in the military, the details that he recounted to you cannot be published for the first time on Wikipedia if they have not been published somewhere else. Mandsford 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
'Neutral'-In fact, i felt that the incident should be merged with a page with the ship's name or merge altogether but i knew that that would roar into another battle and i suggests that more formatting should be done to make the page more professional if the result was to BE KEEP.However, more references and eyewitness accounts should be placed into references and they must be verifiable.--
Quek157
06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was DELETE. -- Balloonman ( talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete for same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet technology of Command & Conquer. Pagra shtak 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep per reasoning in the other nominations. I should note that any applicable cleanup tags should be added to all of them, and further note that if a proper merge can't be found for the stuff, the next time it's up for AfD, I'll go with delete. Jtrainor 08:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Catchy phrase, but nn.-- Balloonman ( talk) 22:24, 16 November 2007 (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}} . |
Delete Seriously, are we going to catalogue every internet meme now? AlistairMcMillan 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The media coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources cited in When_I_was_your_age,_Pluto_was_a_Planet#References clearly establishes a presumption of the notability for this topic pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence. John254 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC) replyA topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The result was Merge. — Scien tizzle 22:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable college newspaper, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete As above. Shoessss | Chat 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 11:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
subjective POV list cruft ccwaters 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to Cheez-It. NawlinWiki 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability not asserted Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 21:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:BIO failiure for sports people -- JForget 00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Cotested speedy and prod. Non notable footballer, so far he has not played a competitive, professional match. The sole reference is to a youth team game over two years ago. Nuttah68 20:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Balloonman ( talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
non-notable. stub article that has been flagged without references for 10 months - seems unlikely to have notability be established or to be improved. Arthur 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. -- Balloonman ( talk) 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The article title does not correspond to the content of the article, and in any case the area referred to is not a Postcode area. The subject-matter mainly duplicates information in the Hastings article, and no useful purpose is served by making it a separate article. -- rossb 20:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. -- Balloonman ( talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I tagged this for merging on 25 October, in case someone was interested, but this entire article is filled with in-universe or game guide information and there isn't really much worth saving. Delete or transwiki, if someone is willing. Pagra shtak 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Balloonman ( talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I tagged this for merging on 25 October, in case someone was interested, but this entire article is filled with in-universe or game guide information and there isn't really much worth saving. Delete or transwiki, if someone is willing. Pagra shtak 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
delete same as the other one-- Phoenix-wiki ( talk · contribs) 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Unless you forgot to mention the Official Website ( http://www.ea.com/official/cc/redalert2/english/gameinfo.jsp), various game guides, IGN's own articles on the topic, etc. etc. --Eldarone 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. The stubby content is unsourced and mostly makes little sense, as do the first and last "keep" opinions below. Creating redirect to Criticisms of anarchism. Sandstein ( talk) 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This article seems to have no notable subject. A Google Scholar search for " anti-anarchism" yields three unimpressive results, one of which is fictional, the other two which concern imperialism and Yugoslavian history. The content of this article - if it can be cleaned up, verified and so on - belongs in the Anarchism, First International, Spanish Revolution and histories of fascism articles, if at all. Skomorokh incite 13:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable corporation, as far as I can make out. made in good faith, however! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
=== Parodies on South Park===xcgxcgvvnmhgf
Delete - indiscriminate collection of trivia as well as being a mass of original research. A list of every single thing that's ever been parodied in an episode of South Park, or everything that in the unsourced and unsubstantiated opinion of whatever random editor is parodied on South Park, is not encyclopedic. Otto4711 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
does not meet WP:BIO LeyteWolfer 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 21:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starkey International Institute for Household Management with very little discussion; consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8 was to relist. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as nn-club. Stifle ( talk) 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Absolutely non-notable, even the league they play in is a redlink. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Minor league baseball player who has not made it past the single-A level yet. Gsearch doesn't show evidence of notability. Speedy was denied, so I assume a prod will be contested. Fabrictramp 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. Davewild 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if this meets WP:MUSIC. Could we have some input from editors who have plenty of experience with the policy? The article was speedied before as a copyvio (it isn't one anymore), and the author keeps removing the 'notability' tag I've applied to it. I'm assuming that he'll also remove any PROD tags, so I'm bringing it here - a good-faith deletion discussion, if you will. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
does not meet WP:BIO LeyteWolfer 16:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. - Splash - tk 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
does not meet WP:BIO LeyteWolfer 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was A7. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe that this article is not notable. Per WP:BIO a person can't be notable because they have a relationship to someone notable. This person doesn't seem to be anything other than an aspiring entrepreneur. Icestorm815 15:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musical group with no third-party, reliable sources. There's not even an assertion of notability, so I tagged it for deletion for meeting criterion A7 of the WP:CSD, but an administrator declined it. I say delete. Agüeybaná 15:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
1. Do they have a hit single? no 2. Do they have a hit album? no 3. Are they known outside their hometown? no 4. Have they at least opened up for anyone who's well known? no This seems to be better suited on the Wikipedia of the language the group speaks rather than english Wikipedia Doc Strange 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted. ELIMINATORJR 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Exactly zero Google hits. grubber 15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, WP:SNOW, Wikipedia is not for words made up yesterday, WP:NEO. NawlinWiki 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a made-up neologism. Can't find any reference to this term anywhere. Both Google [9] and Yahoo [10] return no matches. ARendedWinter 15:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted as A7 - no assertion of notability, no references, wikilinks go nowhere, orphaned... etc. ELIMINATORJR 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional group. Nothing in the way of secondary sources or third-party analysis. {{ prod}} endorsed by User:Gavin.collins, then removed by User:LtPowers with the comment "valid stub". Mikeblas 15:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Dhartung makes a very good point; however consensus is not reached in this debate and I suspect that there is Wikipedic mileage in this article. - Splash - tk 20:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Original research. No verifiable sources that any of these license plates are historic. Nv8200p talk 15:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP, but observe the dire referencing state of the article. - Splash - tk 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Queryable speedy-delete-tagging for "not notable". They seem fairly notable to me. Anthony Appleyard 15:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard (G12). Non-admin closure. Deor 15:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
(1) Page Temperature sensor already exists. (2) Appears to be copied from commercial project page (3) promotional rather than encyclopedic Chemical Engineer 14:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. I will add the merge tags so experienced editors on this topic can do the merge properly. W.marsh 21:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Plot device from manga series. No explanation at notability, no references, written in-universe and is basically a plot summary. May be possible to merge a summary to a parent article? ELIMINATORJR 14:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus in both AFDs ( Shadow Realm (Yu-Gi-Oh!) and Shadow Game (game)), although a merge seems reasonable.. W.marsh 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
A location in a game. Might possibly be notable, but impossible to tell without sourcing or references. Also written completely in-universe and is basically a plot summary. Prod removed without explanation other than "notable". ELIMINATORJR 14:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete JForget 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy contested by original author of the article. A non notable PR firm established this year. Nothing to indicate, and no apparent sources of, how the firm meets WP:ORG. Nuttah68 13:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a non notable carton image - it even failed the contest that was its basis for being - not that winning would not have led to notability. Anyway, the author took off speedy, and took off the redirect to Fotki, so bringing here to get consensus. Obina 13:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. - Splash - tk 19:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Assertion of notability is that she was old, which is not a criterion in WP:BIO. The article contains no reliable sources, and the two that are there are not indpendent (one is to a yahoogroup run by the article's creator and main editor, and the other is to his employer), so there is no evidence that the subject has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep: Is Wikipedia running out of Webspace or why someone want to deleted a lot of articels? Only because some admin don't interessted in this theme says that it is unimportened. A lot of people are interessted in supercentarions.
Statistician
15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
Comment. I wish there was a way to put a group of articles under a common category for deletion, rather than just 1. Category: the oldest woman in France. See table below:
In other words, why add 1 particular article for deletion and not all? (Assuming these oldest women are only notable for their longevity and nothing else.) If you only add this article to deletion and not the others, then obviously I'm not inclined to vote just this 1 for deletion and not the others. So it should be asked whether all these articles should be deleted and not just 1 of the bucket.
My point? (Or in other words, my fallacy?) That if this junk must be deleted so should others. It could very well be that the plan is to afd each article 1 by 1 rather than all at once. But I don't know that.
And I can extend this idea of categorical deletion that: Florrie Baldwin, what about the oldest woman in England? She's only 111, and her article is not nominated for deletion.
It could very well be that I'm giving more ideas for more articles for deletion, and that will be fine as spoken. Neal 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC). reply
Comment. Okay, OtherCrapExists and WAX are about why this article should not be deleted because others aren't. I was reversing it, that if this article must be deleted, so should others. But that's nothing to do with this article.
Suppose we have the category: the oldest gender by country. Example: the oldest woman in France.
And hypothetically, every individual is about the oldest for about a year, from 200-2007. And everyone has their own article. But let's say that sometime, in like 2004, we have 1 woman, whom was only oldest about a week. And not much is known about her, she was never photographed, no media attention, nothing, so simply, she's just a first and last name, with date of birth and date of death. Therefore, she's noted exlusively for her longevity. Obviously, some admin may tag that for deletion.
Which brings to new articles for idea: the oldest gender by country, where in that article, there's a huge table, with the name, date of birth, death of death, an image, and possibly a short paragraph of biography. This idea results from the fact that not every oldest person by country is equally notable, so not all of them will fail AfD, especially when you go back down the decades.
I'm not Robert Young, so whether each oldest-person-by-country gets their own article or not won't make much difference to me, especially since I'm my own webmaster; I could easily make my own biographical pages. But I'd rather decide each person as a category then on the individual level. I'd be okay if every person had their own little article or were all listed in 1 article. So I would rather have all of them deleted, then to have 1 of them deleted. Vice versa. Neal 18:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC). reply
More comments, continued It should be noted that mass deletion of articles has been possible on Wikipedia. Some of you may know that recently, each and every pokémon has their own article. All 493 of them. Well, now they don't, they been broken up into a list of pokémon with each of them their own paragraph, rather than their own article. Did a Wikipedia admin go to each and every article, all 493 of them, and nominate them for merge or deletion? I hope not.
So an article like this will be satisfactory for me:
The oldest gender of country:
First name last name (born-died)
Paragraph, blah blah, photo.
Next person (born-died)
Etc.
Me and Robert debated whether the 10th oldest person in the world should get their own article, or the 5th oldest person in the world and above should get their own article. Then, someone noted arbitrary cut-off points are irrelevant. In reality, 3 skinny paragraphs in their own article can be merged into a fat paragraph. The problem is, within the next 25 years, we'll have too many articles, and most of them won't be long and in-depth. And Robert (whom I know will be reading this), you must admit you have each supercentenarian on watch. I know this because everytime I edit 1, he'll be there to point out my mistakes, and he told me so. So would it be easier if you had 1 list-article on watch, as opposed to each and every individual oldest man/woman by country? After we get this settled, we'll worry about the 2nd/3rd oldest person in country if they're in the top 100 later. Neal 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC). reply
The result was No consensus ( closed by non-admin) I'll probably get a clip round the ear for closing this, but as a neutral it seems to me to be an unambiguous case of no consensus. I've read and followed this afd with interest and despite all the changes to the article since nomination the keepers and deleters seem unable to come to an agreement. There seem to be misunderstandings, either deliberate or otherwise, on both sides of the argument. To delete would clearly be against consensus as would to label this afd a keep. No consensus may be an unsatisfactory outcome, but it does reflect the actuality of this afd. (If an admin wants to reopen this afd it really should be one NOT involved in the debate}-- RMHED ( talk) 19:14, 16 November 2007 (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}} . |
No evidence or assertion of notability, does not meet WP:PROF. The subject is an academic researcher, but there are no refs from independent reliable sources, and the article's main claim of Coles's significance appears to be as a co-founder of the Gerontology Research Group. The article was created by a member of the Gerontology Research Group, Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)/ User:Ryoung122. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D., is the Director of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and maintains lists of supercentenarians on the GRG website (www.grg.org; http://biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/6/B579 ). The GRG has become a recognized authority on validated supercentenarians due to the work of Dr. Coles and the careful research of Robert Douglas Young and Louis Epstein. In order to be certain of the legitimacy of claims to extreme age Young and Epstein require at least three documents that support the claim. These documents may include a birth certificate, a baptismal certificate, census records, and a marriage certificate to show a woman’s name change. I am personally acquainted with Dr. Coles, Robert Young, and Louis Epstein, and I can vouch for their dedication to present accurate data on supercentenarians. Many news stories cite the GRG as a reliable source of information about supercentenarians (e.g. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3071036; the Wall Street Journal of Feb. 25, 2005, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB110929999480364081.html; http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-11-oldest-person_x.htm; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20031006/ai_n14564771, citing an AP story in the Oakland Tribune of Oct. 6, 2003; http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1970532,00.html; http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-minagawa14aug14,1,4586720.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california ).
In addition to providing a reliable source of data on supercentenarians, Dr. Coles has participated in the autopsies of four supercentenarians ( http://www.grg.org/resources/GJohnsonAutopsy_files/frame.htm; http://www.grg.org/resources/Palermo_files/frame.htm ) and one quasi-supercentenarian (www.grg.org/resources/SENS3HTML.htm ). In three of these autopsies the cause of death was determined to be senile systemic amyloidosis, a remarkable finding if additional autopsies prove it to be statistically significant.
Dr. Coles’ accomplishments warrant retaining the brief article about him. StanPrimmer 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC) — StanPrimmer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Coles LS. Demographics of human supercentenarians and the implications for longevity medicine. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Jun;1019:490-5. Review. PMID 15247072
Coles LS. Demography of human supercentenarians. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004 Jun;59(6):B579-86. PMID 15215268
de Grey AD, Gavrilov L, Olshansky SJ, Coles LS, Cutler RG, Fossel M, Harman SM. Antiaging technology and pseudoscience. Science. 2002 Apr 26;296(5568):656. PMID 11985356
Now, am I going to be accused of being a sockpuppet? And by the way, you totally screwed up with Stan Primmer, who is a real person. And that's his real name, not Brown Haired Girl. So pot, kettle, black. Give it a rest, you hypocrits. S B H arris 02:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The question of "meatpuppets," itself by the way, deserves some discussion, but not here. I can only comment that I see no real difference between having your associates and friends come to Wikipedia to support your argument, vs. recruiting associates and friends to echo you, from among people who are already here, and post on your TALK pages. What's the big difference? Today's WP newbie is tomorrow's vet. S B H arris 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I suppose my real beef on "self-promotion" is that Wikipedia BLP inclusion criteria are hardly free of it, and most of it is for things which are pretty silly when it comes to importance. One way of promoting yourself is to join some organization whose purpose is to promote its members. That's why baseball Little Leaguers, professional wrestlers, and porn stars give each other endless trophies and awards. And these all qualify them for Wikipedia bios (look and see). Coles hasn't done that, although it would certainly be easy for him, since he's founded several organizations and help found at least one journal.
My other beef, as a Wikipedian, is how all these people have been treated HERE. If they were "famous" porn stars, it would have been better! Instead, we have Robert Young (a long and wide contributor with 7,000 edits) blocked indefinitely as part of the bruhaha. Another newbie, Stan Primmer, was accused of sockpuppetry by the same two admins who nailed Robert Young, and blocked indefinitely also. When it was pointed out that Primmer was a real person, the rejoinder was that, well, he was a meatpuppet. Which means that two administrators were admitting to not only biting, but mauling a newbie, AND doing nothing about correcting it. This stinks to high Heaven. So, as a long time contributor, what "appalls" me? Stuff like this. It's this behavior by administrators who should know better which hurts the encyclopedia, not a BIO of Steve Coles, for Godsake. Hope I've made myself clear now.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2006/12/supercentenarian-looks-back-over-112.html
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2006/12/19/gupta.supercentenarians.cnn
That's a lot more than the 'average' professor. It's also not a 'self-published' source. We also find popular citations with bloggers and the anti-aging communities:
http://pimm.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/sens3-stephen-coles-on-the-secrets-of-supercentenarians-slides/
Hmm, University of Cambridge, UK. 131.96.70.143 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I'll have more comments above, in relation to the "self promotion" question. If Coles was a real self promoter I supposed he'd be here doing that himself. But as it is, I'll have to do a bit of it for him. S B H arris 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
1. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 10 (3): 425-426 SEP 2007
2. Coles, LS; Living and all-time world longevity record-holders over the age of 110; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 10 (2): 243-244 JUN 2007
3. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 9 (3): 423-424 FAL 2006
4. Coles, LS; Living and all-time world longevity record-holders over the age of 110; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 9 (2): 367-368 SUM 2006
5. Coles, LS; Earliest validated supercentenarian by nation of birth; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 8 (3): 201-202 FAL 2005
6. Coles, LS; Validated supercentenarian cases aged 114 and above; REJUVENATION RESEARCH, 7 (4): 271-273 WIN 2004
--
Kletetschka
18:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
Keep (Continued). The Robert Young article has already been deleted, so that only weakens my vote for this 1. It should be noted that Stephen Coles's nobility for his GRG.org site is false (unless you think webmasters are notable). Sure, GRG.org has tables. But he isn't involved with making them. When the collaborators send Robert Young the data which he puts on MicroSoft Excel, Robert Young sends Stephen Coles the page, and Stephen Coles uploads it to his site! And that happens every week! In theory, Robert Young and friends could make their own website and upload their own tables, but that would mean being separate from the Gerontology Research Group, and I've suggested he become co-webmasters with grg.org and that hasn't happened. So I find Stephen Coles's nobility as a scientist then as a webmaster.
The Gerontology Research Group might also be a company, so I would find that notable (not GRG.org). I think the problem is the size of the small field of gerontology. Stephen Coles seems notable in the fact that his field is so small. I think he's as notable as my chemistry professor, but when you think of chemistry, you don't think of my professor (because there's so many chemistry professors), but when you think of gerontology, you think of him (since the field is so small). Therefore, having a Ph.D degree and doing numerous publications by default isn't notable on Wikipedia, whereas winning a Nobel prize is. But anyways, I'm voting for Stephen Coles mainly for the sake of gerontology (however small it is). That he may be #1 in gerontology but that isn't enough. But then, the people below him in the field are even less notable. In other words, I feel the notability for the field of gerontology isn't the same as with chemistry or physics. And I would like Wikipedia to have some articles on leading gerontologists. Neal 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC). reply
Statistician 15:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Straw man
Vote but not a vote This is a textual mess so lets summarize here, remember this is based on the current state of the article:
The article "is" notable and verifiable
The article "is not" notable and verifiable
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The diagrams ( Image:Hirstslawidea.jpg, Image:Hirstslawidea2.jpg, Image:Hirstslawidea2a.jpg, Image:Hirstslawidea3.jpg, Image:Triangle-1.jpg, Image:Triangle-2.jpg, Image:Trianlge-3.jpg, Image:Triangle-4.jpg, Image:Triangle-5.jpg and Image:Triangle-6.jpg), all of which should be deleted, give this "article" away as complete bollocks that the author made up one day. MER-C 12:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
" Let me define the grey Internet..." No evidence of widespread usage, about 185 unique ghits, most unrelated. MER-C 12:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company with no secondary sources in regards to its notability, speedy deletion contested by an IP. –– Lid( Talk) 11:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. The final comment listing many possible sources do seem to backup Shuki's claim of potential. I'm not comfortable deleting on the back of such a debat, therefore. I would suggest re-visiting this in the not-too-distant future and, if nothing has been or can be done, then it should be removed. - Splash - tk 19:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a WP:NN congregational rabbi who, while he may have done sterling service all his life, does not appear to have done anything that could be called "notable" to merit a WP:BIO -- speaking up for "Zionism and Israel" and harping on Elvis Presley, notwithstanding. IZAK 11:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as hoax/nonsense/pure vandalism. Pascal.Tesson 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability asserted by claims of newspaper appearances however can find no supporting data on the internet to support this. Possibly a hoax article with the image of being legitimate by attempting to assert notability. –– Lid( Talk) 10:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted. ELIMINATORJR 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable footballer. Has never played in a professional league, so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite 10:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected by author to Clow Cards. ELIMINATORJR 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Renominating; unnecessary in-universe mostly WP:OR article that is not notable on its own and fails WP:Plot#Not. This is an excessively detailed list of cards from the series that is already sufficiently (and in some ways better) covered by the Clow Cards article. Collectonian 08:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The appearances of each card are clearly demonstrated in the images. So that's not WP:OR. Their personalities and powers are clearly documented in the sources listed at the bottom of the page, so that's not WP:OR either, and stating which episodes each card appeared in exempt from WP:OR as a reference to an episode is self referencing (for example, "in episode 29, X happened" clearly references itself to a specific episode). WP:Plot#Not also does not apply as this page is dealing with characters in a show, not the show's plot.
Strong Keep It is fully understandable that you might be unaware of this franchise or the significance that the Clow cards have to it, so I will give you some details.
The clow cards are the linchpin device around which the Cardcaptor Sakura franchise is written, without them there is no franchise.
Each card is a recurring character in its own right. They have their own distinctive personality, powers and appearance which have been laid down in detail by their creators Clamp. These are all clearly laid down in Nakayoshi in which the Manga was originally serialized and in the Clamp fortune telling book. The authors have been interviewed multiple times and have included extra panels explaining details out of universe and have written numerous out of universe guides and publications (for example, art books I-III which are specifically named in the references).
The Clows Cards appeared as characters in 12 Manga volumes running across 2 story arc, they were then mirrored to an Anime that ran for 3 seasons with no breaks and stared in 2 movies. All of which have sold internationally. On top of this they have been the subject of computer games across 7 computer platforms. While they are not individually notable enough to have their own page, they are more than notable enough to have a collective page.
- perfectblue 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Original research, among others. Original authors gone. Most likely PR. Leranedo 08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional character. — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 08:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I have added Aballister Bonaduce. Marked for expand for 10 months, marked for cleanup for 11. This non-notable fictional character doesn't have adequate secondary sources to put together a meaningful article. [31] — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I have added Adalon. Non-notable fictional character. [32] — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 21:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep ( closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED 23:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply
While I have put a good deal of work into trying to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards, it seems that it cannot be done. At this point in time the majority of the article's sentences are tagged due to for citations being needed and most of the source material for the article is in Japanese and generally hard to come by outside of internet sources of dubious use. Furthermore, the whole subject matter doesn't seem to be on par with an encyclopedic article. Darkstar949 08:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Although if someone can verify this is a real place (a subdivision, most likely) a redirect might be in order, to a city or county article. W.marsh 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be at all a notable, defined location. Dougie WII 07:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online game without referencing, may be copyvio as well. Prod removed by author without explanation. JuJube 07:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus in both AFDs ( Shadow Realm (Yu-Gi-Oh!) and Shadow Game (game)), although a merge seems reasonable. W.marsh 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
No real-world notability and no references; there's nothing encyclopedic here that isn't already covered in the various articles on the Yu-Gi-Oh! anime. Prod removed by author without explanation. JuJube 07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 12:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable music label, so going against company or music notability guidelines, fails both. Tagged for notability since January of this year with no improvement. Optigan13 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because: President of nominated label, also has no assertion of notability per biography guidelines.:
The result was keep, since the current article is not the same as the version nominated for AFD. Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Randomness... — Coastergeekperson 04 ' s talk 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, no references from reliable third parties. Only news link appears to be from single editor website. Tagged for notability since January 2007, and prodded, with no improvement. Very few edits to article ever. - Optigan13 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT. She's already treated as much as anyone else in the main article.- Splash - tk 19:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Only notable for being the winning model of Project Runway 3. Nothing else is stated about her work. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 06:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
You'd think someone with this many accolades would have a verifiable article. But no, the 26 unique ghits seem more interested in someone caught up in the 2007 Subprime mortgage financial crisis. MER-C 06:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete G4 by User:Chuq. Non-admin closure. ~ Eliz 81 (C) 09:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is about an Australian soccer forum. It does not cite reliable sources indicating its importance and Google News and Google News Archives comes up with no references. Article contains little to interest people outside the forum Capitalistroadster 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted by Neranei. Pagra shtak 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Deletion Nomination Article is unreferenced, and is about a card game which was probably made up one day. No evidence of this card game being noted by independant sources, thus it is not verifiable in any way, and thus should be deleted. Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
nonnotable company [33] [34] Chris1321432 05:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
nonnotable company [35] Chris1321432 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g3 vandalism, cut and paste of Richard Leech. NawlinWiki 00:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is a duplicate of Richard Leech, right down to the link to Richard Leech's IMDB entry. User has created other articles with believable but very inaccurate information ( [36] [37]), leading me to believe this is a hoax article. Toohool 05:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a1, virtually no content; WP:CRYSTAL; no sources. NawlinWiki 00:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete wp:crystal Chris1321432 05:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT to Boulder Valley School District. Nothing apparent to merge given the treatment of other schools in that target article. - Splash - tk 19:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
non-notable four year old middle school Chris 04:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability not asserted or evident. Decoratrix 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close, AFD isn't for talk pages. Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 05:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Flaaaaaaaaaaaming! 04:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close, AFD isn't for talk pages. Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 05:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
removing pointless infos Flaaaaaaaaaaaming! 04:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT to Sawmills Studio following the merge. - Splash - tk 19:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Very short article that the PROD and speedy deletion were declined. Tasc0 04:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep henrik• talk 19:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. Expired prod but strikes me as as something worthy of a debate especially given the debate on the talk page. Pascal.Tesson 04:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was MERGE to Animaniacs. This has been done (thanks to Gak Blimby), so now I will turn this into a redirect to Animaniacs as is usually done following a merge to retain authorship attribution. - Splash - tk 19:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability requirements and can not stand alone outside of the main article. Much of it is trivia information or self-sourcing. Some info could possibly be merged into the main Animaniacs article. AfD seems to be necessary as others have tried to merge with redirect and been met with reverts. Collectonian 03:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sandstein ( talk) 17:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable professor. Fails professor notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics) on all line items. He's a professor with some scientific publications but this isn't anything distinguishing from the thousands of other professors. He is not significantly more notable than the average professor DHeyward 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete—No prejudice against re-creation in a state where an assertion(s) of notability is presented in a verifiable manner. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 16:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Mick Meredith isn't notable at all. He's just some random comedian, this article is also extremely badly written. It has had the notability tag since March, nothings been done. Thmcmahon 03:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete Robin Burger, Carla Kettner and Anna Fricke. Keep Susan Strickler, as, due to additional assertions of notability, no consensus established to delete. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
possible series of vanity articles LeyteWolfer 03:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I dbed it, but it was removed. It was then proded, so I decided to put it here. Thanks, Codelyoko193 ( T/ C) 03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete without prejudice - at the moemnt it reads liike an advert. Restore when the show actully airs.-- Lucy-marie 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Way too early, I havn't been able to find anything to support this except for a fan website. I think the only way this page should stay is that someone should come up with some links to prove that the show has at least been confirmed. Seth71 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep Falls into the same class as Survivor 16, which also has an article. The only thing speculative about this is when it will appear, not whether it will appear. -- Silverhand Talk 16:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. What's the date of the airing and recording of it, just to be curious? Critical info missing, obviously which it makes an automatic WP:CRYSTAL failure. JForget 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE ALL. It is very clear that these are considered over-granular and superfluous to their categories. (Note that cats+lists together are retained at times, but rarely at such a superfine granularity as this). Procedurally, it is a bit unfortunate that there was an expansion of the nomination partway through, but it has clearly not made any difference to those who came afterwards since everyone was very well aware that there was a long list of articles being considered at once whenever they personally arrived at they AfD. As such, the AfD could be viewed as being closed on the 'before' nomination and 'before' deletes and then the 'after' nomination and the 'after' deletes and the outcome would be the same. Otoh, we could just recognise a consensus when we see one... - Splash - tk 19:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
These were all mostly deprodded (seemingly in bad faith, but
WP:PROD says that ain't no excuse to revert). They're all perfect examples of
WP:LISTCRUFT, and are all redundant to corresponding categories.
Closedmouth
02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
The rest:
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Being a child who almost died from leukemia is (unfortunately) not notable, nor is being a magician notable. The intersection of these two life experiences is mildly interesting but not worth an article. Google gives about 600 hits for his name. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Addhoc 12:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT#DICTIONARY Captain panda 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Article doesn't meet WP:Notability standards. Hirolovesswords 01:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello. Thanks for deleting the page. However, I notice that large chunks of it have been moved to the Kersal page. Please remove those part because I did not give permission for that and intend using those parts elsewhere. Kersal Flats
The result was Speedy Deleted. IrishGuy talk 19:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
A problematic article in that it's a POV fork from the main Kersal article. It was originally written by an editor who appeared to be using the article as an extension of his own website which had the same subject matter of the article and to act as a mini photo gallery. When the link to his website was removed from the article he took umbrage and appears not to have returned. The article isn't referenced at all and appears to be original research with nothing to back it up. Talk page comments have suggested a merge to Kersal, but a response was that as nothing is referenced there's nothing to merge. I've never seen an article with so many maintenance tags (11). Although the area isn't totally non-notable this article on its own is not the way to go and ideally should be a part of the main Kersal article. As a result this article should be sent to dev/null because there's simply no need for it. -- WebHamster 01:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I have tried to delete the page several time. I would add that the subject matter is of some social, economic and political importance. It feeds into a debate on housing solutions in the 1950s and 1960s and the similarities with the same issues today. From a narrow perspective the demolitions of these flats was the largest controlled demolition in the world. In addition the comments regarding the photographs are wrong. They are mine and are not taken from another site. Thus feel free to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kersalflats ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Despite much persuasive effort, there is evidence of successful persuasion. - Splash - tk 19:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Being a member of an NN pop duo is not notability. Passing mention in soundtracks or album comps is not notability. Working with a bunch of notable people does not make this person notable. Scoring commercials does not make a person notable. A followup from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Covello(musician) --- tqbf 01:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I actually have several newspaper articles (paper form) documenting the sales of her song "Oneday" which raised 5 million for HIV/AIDS. It is a well documented fact in the media. The PSA ran with Fawn and Joan Rivers. I saw it a few years ago.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.233.64 ( talk • contribs) — 76.175.233.64 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment--hey tqbf--just got your message on my page--thank you. I'm new to this, and am appalled at the general immature treament from select wikipedia users here on this page. At least you took time to advise me. Donnamusic.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete biography of a school trustee. He was a candidate in municipal and provincial elections, but was never elected. Fails WP:BIO. Mind matrix 00:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bio. No references outside of a non-notable film link, and a passing mention in newspaper article. Initially prodded, but that was removed, so putting up for deletion discussion. - Optigan13 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable corporation no references going beyond trivial coverage. Tagged for notability since January. Initially prodded, but that was removed. No significant edits coming from anyone aside from a single purpose author or the company's IP. - Optigan13 00:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Not-notable software. Most contributions have been nonsense on the talk page. DurinsBane87 02:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was TRANSWIKI and DELETE. Having considered my options here, I observe that the transiwki recommendation reads to me as a delete afterwards; that the 'rework' recommendation is out-of-scope to an AfD outcome since that short amount of writing into the series article can be done without this article and also without the list on the artists page. I conclude then that whilst phrased as a 'merge' it isn't really, and that there is only one person who would genuinely have this merged and then to a target from where the content has already been expunged. Some content just has no home on Wikipedia. I shall therefore transwiki this to wikia:marveldatabase and delete it from here. - Splash - tk 18:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is little more than a stub. Its listing information that if it isn't important enough to be put into the Marvel Zombies article, certainly isn't important enough to be put into its own article. Stephen Day 07:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. There has been no effort on the article since nomination, and the problems remain despite the warning of having had it deleted once already. - Splash - tk 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability guidelines for companies, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Especially the company has not been the subject of substantial coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Incidentally, the name of the main contributor hints at a conflict of interest. (The article was speedied, then recreated). Delete. Edcolins 10:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability guidelines for people, Wikipedia:Notability (people). Especially this UN civil servant has not been the subject of substantial coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Being spokesperson for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is not sufficient. (The article was speedied, then recreated). Delete. Edcolins 10:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem notible Chris DHDR 11:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Sandstein ( talk) 12:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Also includes
Per this deletion review this AFD and those for terminals 2 and 3 have been relisted after an improper close. Previous AFDs shown below. We will stick to one discussion for all 3 lists As this is an administrative nomination no opinion on the outcome is offered Spartaz Humbug! 18:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
NOTE - Just so editors fully understand what transpired. These articles were created less than 2 weeks ago. Up to two weeks ago, all the Manchester Airport destination lists were included in the Manchester Airport article, just like all commercial airport articles (the destination list was included since December, 2004). A peer review of that article suggested separating the destination lists into these "daughter articles" for length purposes. That's what this AfD is for, only these new "daughter articles", not the content in the Manchester Airport article. -- Oakshade 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep ( closed by non-admin) per consensus and WP:SNOW RMHED 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a TV guide. The actual factual accuracy of this article is debatable as long as the WGA strike lasts. Will ( talk) 19:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This Is Bogus. It has already beaten deletion once. This is my favorite article. Without this article I would be on wikipedia a heck of a lot less. EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP User:Ppoi307 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.163.39 ( talk) 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD: proposed for deletion due to lack of notability. Stormie 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply
One guy's made up word. Clubmarx 23:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply