< November 3 | November 5 > |
---|
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Neil ☎ 14:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has been speedily deleted, has been reposted, was speedy tagged, had the speedy tag removed, was prodded, had that removed, and is still not notable. It receives no Google hits and does not express notability in the article; it has no reliable sources to indicate that it can meet notability guidelines whatsoever. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Article is not a POV fork but a split off per WP:SUMMARY. -- Polaron | Talk 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This spin-off/fork article is part of an effort to redo Reform Judaism, a core Judaism article from which most current content was copied. Another one is German Reform movement (Judaism). The creators, Egfrank (and Jheald), have been involved in discussing a POV dispute: should Wikipedia use "Progressive" or "Reform" Judaism terminology? Ongoing discussions are at WP:JUDAISM and Progressive Judaism, where concerns with POV forks and spin-offs are being discussed. This page appears to be an attempt to resolve this POV dispute without reaching consensus. Besides wanting to avoid a possible POV fork, the pro-"Progressive" creators seem to be implementing a switch from Reform Judaism as the main article to Progressive Judaism. Since the switch isn't being implemented explicitly, these spin-offs (or POV forks?) may be seen as an end-run around consensus-building over a major branch of Judaism. Meanwhile, these moves are creating articles with overlapping topics and content. HG | Talk 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. I made a mistake. I agree that the article, title and content meet WP criteria. My concern is with (1) parallel articles for Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism covering the same ground for a single article, and (2) how I perceived the spin-offs as created to tilt the table toward a specific choice between the two parallel articles. However, an AfD was the wrong way for addressing either the two parent articles or my concerns over how/why the spin-offs were implemented. I'm sorry. Instead of focusing on the spin-offs, a decision is needed about merging the parallel parent articles (Progressive and Reform) into a single article. Given that I erred here and do not want to create further ill will, perhaps somebody else would be willing to move us toward resolution about a merge? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep- Comment I think that Reform, Progressive, Liberal clearly need divisions and it is not POV fork, but I wish there were a greater number of knowledgeable people working on the Progressive Judaisms to talk through the merits of divisions based on geography, ideology, chronology, or even Rabbinical seminaries. There is not enough clarity about names of entries or even links to important progressive rabbis and schools.-- Jayrav 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough. jj137 ( Talk) 23:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. Ghits are not a reliable indicia for notability of ancient figures, and the fact that substantial information exists regarding this person some 2000 years after he lived is in itself evidence of notability. I recognize that the early closing of this nomination may be controversial, and any editor may revert the closing if the nominating party so requests, but I do not believe that a 5-day debate concerning the proposed deletion of this particular article is necessary. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Possibly not notable enough. Registered only 161 Ghits. jj137 ( Talk) 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
A young political activist who has made some appearances on television, and claims to have broken what looks like a non-story about Hillary Clinton's thesis. I do not see a claim to notability. Plus I've speedily deleted it twice for non-notability and another admin has done it once, and it keeps getting recreated. Sam Blacketer 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Some apperances on television happens to be over 2 years and 100 episodes of work which is documented on mtv.com and on IMDB.com. I do not see the problem in letting him have a Wikipedia, since many who have done less work than him are allowed to be saved and kept. Thankyou. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dontbedaftjammy (
talk •
contribs)
23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
No assertion of importance? As such as any other actor or actress on here that has done something SO important. I personally did not know there was a certain rule of 'importance' that I had to go by. And may I ask what these good reasons are? Or was that just being stated without knowledge. I am working and updating this page now, so may I please have a moment before you continue to consider deletion.- Dontbedaftjammy 03:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
First off, I would like to point out that if you are asking for deletion if you would please give a reason why you would want it deleted. I find it to be extremely unfair for someone to just say deleted if they have no information to back it up. Secondly, I would like to ask, if there is proof of his appearences on television why continue the delete? After admittedly being wrong. There is lack of coverage at the moment because I am in the middle of editing, and I believe I have a fair chance to get more facts and links if you would not constantly delete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbedaftjammy ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete- simply a non-notable one-time joke. -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Article tagged for OR, notability, and sources since April 2007. Article on a clever idea, but it seems to be only the topic of a video clip presented at a design conference. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Created by single-purpose account, tagged for notability since March 2007. Person from Paris who's been in many bands and links to many myspace pages. Asserting non-notable and vanispam, as well as failing WP:RS and WP:V. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
A funk-dance-lounge-electro project which released their CD on CDBaby. Created by single-purpose account. A speedy was requested and cencelled by one person in April 2007, who then tagged the article for notability. Smells like spam to me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pigman what?/ trail 01:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Small article on a weekly 5-minute science podcast from Australia. Podcast itself seems to have stopped earlier this year. Article tagged for notability since April 2007. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was (Non-admin close) No Consensus, too many articles listed at once. Woodym555 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Subject fails notability criteria laid down for sportspersons as laid down at WP:BIO, and also fails new criteria being discussed at WP:FOOTY. PeeJay 22:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
PeeJay 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a non notable city program. Also this article is lack of sources. Chris! c t 22:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Prodego talk 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The article provides no real world content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the role playing game from which it is derived. Gavin Collins 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Tagged for notability since April 2007. Art collective started in Los Angeles by Ken Christianson. Author of article is Ken Christianson. Thus WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:OR, no original sources, vanispam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. While there are only two secondary sources that can be considered independent and reliable in the article, I would consider this as sufficient for passing the general notability guidelines. It would be silly to go into the degree of notability, i.e. are two sources enough to establish notability, or do we need three? Besides notability is not the main criterion for having an article but rather verfiability, neutrality, and no original research. This article passes all those requirements. I'm not an admin so feel free to undo this if this is way off base. -- Polaron | Talk 23:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
A well referenced article, however referenced only from the website of the subject. We need third-party verification for information, we can't just take everything from the guy's blog. bogdan 22:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
*Hangon I don't agree that it is well referenced. It is everything but. This seems to be a good article, but has no third party references that I can see. A topic's website should only be used for filler info, not the prime source. This is in essence an autobiography. However, I have found that subject such as Mitch probably have knowledge of good verifiable sources which we can use to support much of the article and also demonstrate notability. I've written to Mitch asking for his assistance. After perusing Google, I feel that there will be sufficient material to support notability if we put in the hard work. Thanks. --
Kevin Murray
00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
There has been a question raised here regarding the correct use of self published autobiographical materials used in this article. Please see WP:SELFPUB an excerpt from that guideline below. I have mixed feeling on how much of an article should be self refeenced, but I don't at this point see a prohibition. IS there another controlling policy page? -- Kevin Murray 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
At the time of the original nomination, this article failed the last line-item, and it remains questionable what percentage of the "facts" are supported by the independent sources, but what does primarily mean? 90%? 51%? Clearly we have differing opinions among our evaluators. -- Kevin Murray 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
One-paragraph article on an American model of Filipino descent from the Valley, California. Only external link is her "official website" - but the article doesn't seem to have been written by an SPA at all. Article asserts she has posed both nude and naked on various websites.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article on the alias of a fellow associated with a Radiohead DVD. No notability outside of this DVD. Can be merged to The Most Gigantic Lying Mouth of All Time, except there is pretty much no content to merge. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge as suggested. Prodego talk 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional group. Article is entirely plot summary of the group with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Huntsmen of Annuvin' -wikipedia" on Google returns mainly non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedied by yours truly. Mike (Kicking222) 02:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Article asserts they're a small production company comprising 2 fifth-graders, and one of the most popular groups on LiveVideo. I'll assert they're non-notable and the article has no sources, and see where the discussion goes from there. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT to Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland. - Splash - tk 18:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional character. Article is almost entirely plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Nightmare King' 'Little Nemo' -wikipedia" on Google returns only trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 22:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. L337 kybldmstr 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted, no assertion of notability, blatant ad. Neil ☎ 14:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Tagged for sources, notability and adspam since Mar/Apr 2007. Page for a visual arts & design studio. Violates WP:OR and WP:V as no sources are given except... wait, they don't even give their own webpage. Page was created by an account which has edited no other articles on Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT to Kings of Quendor. Merge from the history if desired. - Splash - tk 18:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional character. Article is entirely plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Entharion the Wise' -wikipedia" on Google returns 140 hits, mainly from non-reliable fansites and forums. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn the nom voted for keep and strike through the deletion rationale.-- JForget 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Very short article and non-encyclopedic content
UserDoe
21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
--> Well Duh! only Ireland uses GLUMP and eircom is the Monopoly encumbent. Comreg & eircom came up with it. I'm amazed -eircom finds any GLUMP reference. Hence the value of explaining it. Wattyirl 23:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The article cites one of the only two possible sources. This article contains no research.
Please do not delete. A reference to GLUMP is needed to understand developments in LLU in Ireland, Magnet DSL and eircom. Any suggestions or improvements would be a better path user:Wattyirl
The result was Delete, page is covered elsewhere, any content is not covered there can be added. Prodego talk 17:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
*comment 1 - this AfD nom is incomplete, but I'm too dumb to know how to fix it.
AllGloryToTheHypnotoad
22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
Delete. Not worth a separate article. Besides, they didn't even mention phrenology. :) Bombycil 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, and expand whatever Creature type gets renamed to. Prodego talk 17:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has no content, real world context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this fictional vegetable material outside the game settings it is derived from. Gavin Collins 21:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable prize in a high school football rivalry. 75 Google hits for a number Erie Bells. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted as nonsense with no real content. Neil ☎ 14:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable neologism (or would it be protolgism?). And nn celebration. 2 Google hits for Wikipedia. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with Wing Commander (franchise). Prodego talk 17:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This fictional timeline has no reliable primary sources and reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game from which it is derived. Gavin Collins 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. - Splash - tk 18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This one-line stub contains the reason for deletion right in it: "... it was never formed." There's nothing to say about it because it never existed. Furthermore, it would seem that the Internet at large agrees that there's nothing to say about it, making it unverifiable. This could never grow beyond a few sentences without vastly duplicating information already present in other articles. - Revolving Bugbear 20:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
*Keep & Expand I don't agree that this is not significant. The planning and reasoning behind such a plan may be facinating. This is certainly notable if it reached the point of receiving an official designation. Lack of text and lack of research does not by itself demonstrate a non-notable topic. --
Kevin Murray
00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was MERGE to Top Cat. However, I do not think the material in this article is worth merging, so I'm just going to redirect and someone can fish out the stuff they like if they want to.- Splash - tk 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
As fancruft. No external notability. Martijn Hoekstra 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedied, blatant promotional piece that has been deleted many times. Neil ☎ 14:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
A page for this musical group was speedied eight times (as Revolution Mother); I protected it briefly, only to see it pop up here under a different spelling. It has asserted a modicum of notability and I bring it here for a more permanent solution; if it's agreed to delete it, I recommend salting it also due to it having been so persistently recreated, but I take no position here. Accounting4Taste 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WjB scribe 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. There is no article to merge to. If someone wants to do this, please request the content at WP:DRV. - Splash - tk 18:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an article about the fictional race from the EverQuest games. While I would perhaps support a general article discussing all the races of Norrath, it appears that the Iksar are the only one of the races to have their own article. The article is unsourced, and I don't think this single race is notable enough for inclusion. Powers T 12:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 15:39, 11/5/2007
Subject lacks real world notability, does not meet WP:V, WP:N and probably can't be sourced with secondary sources to meet WP:FICT Pilotbob 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Subjects are actually too disparate for a useful category to be created out of them - making the list even more redundant. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikpedia is not a directory. Contested PROD. Corvus cornix 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. PeaceNT 10:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I have no doubt that this article was created in good faith, but NOT#A collection of indiscriminate information comes to mind... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD for this article in 2005 resulted in "keep". This is a 1-paragraph article on a superhero-group comic book, of which as far as I can tell only one issue was ever produced. Most ghits only seem to be small comic book sales websites and review websites. Author was argued to be notable in previous AfD, though notability is not inherited. I'll argue that this article fails WP:N and see how it goes from there.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- JForget 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Local band from Boston MA. One-sentence stub article tagged for notability since June 2007, unlikely to meet notability guidelines. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. It sounds like some deeper thought is required regarding a set of interrelated articles here, after which a deletion debate may be more usefully held if it is still wanted. - Splash - tk 18:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is the beginning of a POV fork from Reform Judaism, from which all current content was copied. Furthermore, the copy was made without carrying over the edit histories. The editor has been involved in discussing whether WP should use "Progressive" or "Reform" Judaism terminology. While well-intentioned, this page is disruptive and the involved parties should proceed with discussion and ordinary channels (e.g., merge, move or AfD) to advance their side of the dispute. HG | Talk 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment. I made a mistake and I’m sorry. I agree that the article meets key WP criteria; the title and content are acceptable. My concern is with (1) parallel articles for Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism covering the same ground for a single article. As Egfrank says, “Reform/liberal/progressive judaism has a 200+ year history spanning 42 countries. That is a lot of history to cram into a single article.” (2) How I perceived the spin-offs as created to tilt the table toward a specific choice between the two parallel articles. However, an AfD was the wrong way for addressing either the two parent articles or my concerns over how/why the spin-offs were implemented. I was wrong and I’ll try not to do it again. Instead of focusing on the spin-offs, Jheald is right – if I’m interpreting the comment above correctly – that a decision is needed about merging the parallel parent articles (Progressive and Reform) into a single article. Given that I erred here and do not want to create further ill will, perhaps somebody else would be willing to slap on that merge tag? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep- Comment I think that Reform, Progressive, Liberal clearly need divisions and it is not POV fork, but I wish there were a greater number of knowledgeable people working on the Progressive Judaisms to talk through the merits of divisions based on geography, ideology, chronology, or even Rabbinical seminaries. There is not enough clarity about names of entries or even links to important progressive rabbis and schools.-- Jayrav 20:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- JForget 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
An indiscriminate list of information just waiting to happen... "Songs that may remind a listener of basketball"? Don't see how this could possibly ever be encyclopaedic — iride scent 18:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Article meets criteria for speedy deletion, no assertion of notability.. Mercury 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This is not notable, and no current assertion. I would have speedy'ed it, and if there is an overwhelming suggestion to do so, I still will. However, it was on VFD 2 years ago, so I'll send it here. Mercury 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- JForget 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete. Non-notable bio. -- Dfait 17:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software product. -- RHaworth 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia United States Senate election, 2010. All of the same deletion reasons apply to this article, specifically WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing is known about the election other than it will happen and a date. There are not even any declared candidates. A separate article is not warranted. Otto4711 17:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia United States Senate election, 2010. All of the same deletion reasons apply to this article, specifically WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing is known about the election other than it will happen and a date. There are not even any declared candidates. A separate article is not warranted. Otto4711 17:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia United States Senate election, 2010. All of the same deletion reasons apply to this article, specifically WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing is known about the election other than it will happen and a date. There are not even any declared candidates. A separate article is not warranted. Otto4711 17:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia United States Senate election, 2010. All of the same deletion reasons apply to this article, specifically WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing is known about the election other than it will happen and a date. There are not even any declared candidates. A separate article is not warranted. Otto4711 17:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was TRANSWIKI to wikt:. - Splash - tk 18:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Classic dictionary definition. It's even in Category:Etymology as further evidence. Powers T 16:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Davewild 10:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. It's even in Category:Etymology. Powers T 16:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. It's not clear whether this should be kept outright or merged to a rather vague somewhere. Evidently not being deleted at the present time, though. - Splash - tk 18:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Due credit for a creative article title, but note on the talk page that other considered titles included "Etymology of the word Oregon". Etymologies, of course, belong in Wiktionary. Powers T 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- JForget 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This list conflates importance with GDP PPP of the country, and doesn't have any more information (other than names of capitals) than the rightmost table in List of countries by GDP (PPP). ArglebargleIV 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't mind people editing my article to make it better and clearer but it doesn't need to be deleted. i see it as a quick way of finding out the most important (economically) in each area of the world and the top 25. I feel that it would be useful. I obviously realise that it could be improved, but there is no specific need to delete it. Thank you ( Hamilton365 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)) reply
To be honest, i don't care. Delete it. I thought it was a good idea, but obviously not. Nancy, i called it 'my' article only because i created it and i said that i DO want it to be edited to make it better. Mandsford, what made you think that i thought this article is superior to the other article??. I just thought it would be useful, so sorry, but you don't have to accuse me of all sorts of things that i haven't done. Ok? so delete it! I will just stick to reading articles instead of creating them, because it's not worth the hassle. I thought i was being helpful, but obviously i was wrong. ( Hamilton365 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Subject of the page is not important enough to warrant a separate page. Its just a school, and not a well-known one either. Additionally, there isn't enough subject matter.. its only 3 lines. Sniperz11 talk| edits 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT to Back to the Future. - Splash - tk 18:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional character. Article is almost entirely plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Jules Brown' -wikipedia" on Google returns almost entirely hits about an unrelated author who appears to write travel guides. "'Jules Brown' 'Back to the Future' -wikipedia" on Google returns episode guides with trivial mention and non-reliable fansites and forums. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into History. Prodego talk 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Etymologies belong in Wiktionary. The article title is a dead giveaway. Powers T 16:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep with no prejudice against further editorial solutions. Tikiwont 12:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary; etymologies belong in Wiktionary (note that the article's only category is Category:Etymology, and that the article title is an adjective, not a noun). Powers T 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3. Stifle ( talk) 19:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary; etymologies belong in Wiktionary. Second, this particular etymology strikes me as dubious to say the least; in any case, it's completely unreferenced. Powers T 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Addhoc 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
A hypothesized chemical compound which might be harder than diamond. It might more likely be spontaneously explosive. The article has been contended to be a hoax; I don't have access to the journals cited as references right now. I have refused a speedy deletion as patent nonsense but brought it here. Sam Blacketer 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. The article is an essay about a recently invented type of auction, probably taken from promotional material produced by http://www.swedeauction.se (for example see here). The only active use of this type of auction appears to be via swedeauction.se. POV. Unreferenced. andy 15:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
procedural nomination Article found in the WP:PROD workstream despite (at least) two prior trips to AFD and one DRV action. PROD-nominator states: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. This event is covered. The person need not be. There is relevant info on 79th Scripps National Spelling Bee 2006" User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 14:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- JForget 00:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Jejune OR essay on material that is far better covered at American Revolution and elsewhere. (Perhaps written for a school assignment?) Doesn't fall under any speedy criteria, unless it's a copyvio of something behind the subscription wall at the cited source. Deor 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
No effort made to establish Notability. Very few ghits. Who practices it, where? Peter Rehse 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 15:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
"Flow-driven programming" as a term doesn't appear to exist outside of its Wikipedia page. May be a synonym of imperative programming or procedural programming. WalterGR 14:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Tikiwont 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a COI page which seems to have incorporated sources that don't even mention the subject to fake notability. Non-notable author, self-written autobio. IvoShandor 14:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
- ::* OK - let's get specific and focus on facts, not opinions. (1) The very first comment says "seems" - that was error, to suggest that external links "faked" notability. It was simply wrong. (2) The third comment confuses "sources" with "external links." The references will be supplemented to make every fact stated even more iron-clad. (3) "Self-written autobio" is false, as per the reply. Just because entries come via one user site doesn't mean that that site was the author of the assertions. The test is truth & verification. (4) "self-promoted on Illinois project" - guilty as charged, apologize profusely, didn't appreciate how Wikipedia plays out in these project tags, stupid, sorry, won't happen again. (5) "blogs" - now removed, although blogs can be ok. (6) Dufour Editions "seems" to be non-notable. This is a slur, and not in keeping with the spirit of these discussions. Dufour is a fine established publisher. (7) Some external links don't mention the author. So what? They can be removed, if need be, but if we apply that standard throughout Wikipedia, we've got a lot of work to do. (8) "The sources are crap." Another slur, not what Wikipedia's standards expect. The sources are all legitimate, and a hundred more will be provided if that's what Wikipedia wants. (9) "The Illinois Bar Association is promoting the book" - simply false and malicious. It's just untrue. It was a review of the book by a totally objective person unknown to the author. (10) "Let a third party create the article." Basically, that was done already with this one, but we can remove "forrestergaz" from the mix if that is desireable. The point is to focus on the merits of the article - truth and verifiability. (11) "Delete per all in favour" - what kind of discussion is that? (12) "Article is based on SPS" - totally false. See ISBN Numbers, Random House, Record Companies, publishers. (13) "Delete" by Ruhrfisch - what kind of discussion is that? (14) "bad etiquette" is actually the refusal to follow Wikipedia guidelines for discussion pertaining to deletion, piling up a series of "deletes" without reasoning to further an agenda to delete an article that merits being kept under Wikipedia standards. (15) "a few sources of questionable reliability" - now we are getting somewhere - the argument for delete is reduced to "a few sources" and "external links that support the text." This we can fix, but this is a far far cry from deletion. This is a good thing that has come from the discussion - narrowing the original comment to "a few" (still undesignated). (16) "unsalvageable mess" - not only is this inappropriate name-calling unsupported by reasoned analysis, it is objectively and manifestly untrue. Anyone who is fair-minded would agree that the article is well-written, and nobody has yet disputed a fact in it, because every fact is true.-- Forrestergaz 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
"I think the article is headed for deletion. I would suggest that you did not fight it any further this round. Tempers are flared, and the best way to cool the debate is to concede. However, you will be glad to know deletion is not a permanent process, and that many articles are deleted only to be re-created in much better and stronger stead. I assume from what you say that you will be able to create an article with sufficient sources to justify its place in wikipedia, particularly per WP:BIO and its subsets WP:MUSICIAN and WP:PROF. It would be a shame, but for the short duration which you would require to put together the relevant proof, the absence of the article will be justified, I am sure." Cheers, Ohconfucius 04:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC) "Another suggestion is that you should consider encouraging the other contributing editors of the Gary Forrester article to create Users here, and work on the article under their own names. It would certainly give the 'more accurate' impression by your account that this was a collaborative effort, and avoid the WP:COI breach which caused much of the distrust in the first place." Ohconfucius 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC) -- Forrestergaz 04:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Unrequited
God of my beginnings, gates, and doorways,/ even then you ciphered right from wrong,/ and you were legion. You saw that/ I was good. You saw that I was good./
I lay with you in intimate communion till you rested./ Male and female, I lay with you in intimate communion./ On second coming, you breathed the only life you knew/ into my waiting face./
In lucid intervals, you spoke incongruously of trees,/ trees forbidden, learning trees,/ shattering your underworlds./
My lover, flesh of miscreated flesh,/ slipped a secret seed into her secret self./ I dreamt that she and I would be as gods/ and never die. We clothed ourselves/
in coats of fur, my love and I – / you cursed the ground we walked upon./ And I, still perfect in your images,/ returned to you your mystic love. -- Forrestergaz 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability is not made clear in article. Lots of ghits but not effort made to address issues over the last 8 months. Single entry by author. Peter Rehse 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Completely unreferenced, appears to be a neologism, and without assertion of notability. Speedy delete tag removed by third party. Nyttend 13:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This radio, the sears-roebuck dashmate is indeed a real life am/fm/cb radio as described in the pictures included in the article. I believe that since it is in fact a real radio that was made in 1965 and this page would be the only living page that talks about this piece of memorabilia, it should be added to the Wikipedia and not deleted. It would be a part of American history as this is the only surviving radio of it's kind(it's the first and only to the best of my personal knowledge for an am/fm radio to have a cb feature for 1965, and the fact that it was made by sears-roebuck in the USA and Simpsons-Sears in Canada, makes it that much more rarer). I have pleaded my case. [27]
I still believe the notability of this article is questionable, though I would no longer go as far as requesting speedy deletion. I want the notability discussed here. -- Blanchardb 12:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Disputed PROD. Article is true, but does not reach notability requirements. Better off as a merge, I think? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The article is quite poorly written, but it does contain valid assertions of importance. However, as the consensus below clearly believes, the subject does not have sufficient notability to warrant an article. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Subject is not notable Wildhartlivie 12:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Inadequate assertion of notability doesn't make the grade and, as te nom correctly identifies, the bulk of the cites in the article are primary sources. - Splash - tk 18:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet notability standards stipulated by WP:ORG in the absence of non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources. while the article employs a lot of citations, most of these are self-cites, or to sources which don't provide the required non-trivial coverage. concerns surrounding the issue of notability and lack of third party coverage were highlighted in Jan 07 on the talk page ( Talk:World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities#Notable), but no sufficient measures have been taken to resolve them since then. ITAQALLAH 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, non-notable. Prodego talk 17:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
procedural nomination Found in the WP:PROD workstream despite having been to AFD twice before. The statement from the PROD-nominator reads: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. This event is covered. The person need not be. There is relevant info on 79th Scripps National Spelling Bee 2006" User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 11:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 15:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Nominated with merging this page in mind, I have attempted to merge this page but it ended up being reverted without a reason. My reason is does not assert notability other then the Gumball 3000 event which he is solely known for. Moosato Cowabata 11:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was split off from the main Friends article a couple of years ago. The original version was a list of recurring elements and plot points related to the main characters that bordered on original research. The list has now grown to an indiscriminate collection of just about every single character trait and gag in the series, regardless of whether it is recurring or not. All of the major points already appear in the individual character articles or the parent article and following the deletion of Running gags in Seinfeld for the same reasons I'd suggest that this article goes too. Brad 11:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 15:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable charitable organization. There were a few bits and pieces in the 72 unique ghits but nothing to verify the article. MER-C 11:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'll userfy if anyone thinks there's some information worth merging to Zork W.marsh 15:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This fictional timeline has no reliable primary sources and reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability.-- Gavin Collins 22:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. — Moondyne 08:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable cricket "tournament" invented by a few families on holiday after 8 beers. Prod removed by creator with the comment "Because the November Ashes is not non notable and contains no false information and no copyrighted material is used" but the article still has no indication whatsoever of why this is important, and is unreferenced. Iain99 Balderdash and piffle 08:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, the keep arguements didn't give a policy based reason for keeping. This is a Secret account 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This list is better suited for IMDb. the_undertow talk 08:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Completely orphaned article with no indication of notability. Can't find any references via google or news searches (lots of "John Parry"s so also alternated various phrases from the article, but came up with nothing). Sesameball Talk 08:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7, band with no assertion of notability, just a few self-releases and a Myspace page. -- Stormie 08:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group that fails WP:MUSIC. No sources provided. Glass Cobra 08:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion:
Note to closing admin: If this AfD results in a delete vote, please remove all references in articles like Elysia and so on. Glass Cobra 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
"As of early 2007, OuterWeb has shut down because of lack of user interest and support." Non-notable irc network. I could have speedied it, but it's been around for some two years. 679 ghits. MER-C 07:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as empty. No attempt to assert notability. If kept, this space needs to be a dab page and the article content moved. Vegaswikian 07:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 21:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as empty. No attempt to assert notability. Vegaswikian 07:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
There's already an article for the album ( Minutes to Midnight (album)), which has a list of the songs on the album, and many of the songs seem to have their own articles as well. This article is quite redundant. ArglebargleIV 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
-- DaFazzle 18:30, 4 November 2007 (my local time)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is made out of large load of original research. Also the name seems to be a neologism. Lack of references, but the creator deliberately put links from wikipedia or websites that don't contain the SOF Mafia to make the article looks well put together. Chris! c t 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable publication. Was not widely released and was only a 4 issue comic released in 1997. Search on Altavista, Google and Yahoo only turns up hits results for the now defunct WCW wrestling team Filthy Animals and less then 10 results for the comic book. Feldman's Ghost 06:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 15:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The article has not managed to establish notability since the last 'No Consensus' decision. Mais oui! 06:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable middle school. Unless you consider a list of teachers as notable. Vegaswikian 06:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Mr. Lamb, while being indeed a local politician, is also a pioneer in Historic Preservation methodology, technique and technology, has been President and a Founding Board member of the Society of Organic Architects a international membership and advocacy group of Architects and Designers that has helped pass green building legislation in several contries, and is presently involved in numerous not for profit corporation efforts to bring industry to Liberia.
He is hardly just a local insignificant politician. Jagallo ( talk) 01:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable local politician. fails WP:BIO Secretlondon 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all -- JForget 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This will be a group nomination of a walled garden surrounding the subject of this article, Vincent Demitri. Mr. Demitri's article presents little in the way of notability to start with. Google searches for his book get zero hits; he himself gets 19 hits; his band Visara, searched as '"Visara" band', gets two hits... essentially, there are zero reliable sources outside of the Myspace refs given. Mr. Demitri himself fails WP:BIO, and his bands both fail WP:MUSIC, in my opinion. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 06:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Are you seriously considering deleting this? Obviously you haven't heard his music, seen his visual workings, or anything related because if you did you'd understand the importance he has as an artist in this culturally-deprived world despite being relatively unknown; I say "relatively" unknown because if you speak to any gallery owner on the west coast the name is very familiar not to mention with the colleges mentioned in the bio about him although he isn't "mainstream" as other multi-media artists that may come to your mind are. The novel is a bitch to find but DOES exist (I know because I own a hardbound copy), and (to bring up the west coast again) Visara is more than "little-known" in the Electro-Industrial scene, as well as the album Ember Iris. Rethink your motioning for deletion, just because you haven't heard of Vincent Demitri, Tony Fox, doesn't mean the rest of the world hasn't. Regardless of what you've found in your so-called "searching" the fact remains that Demitri is a brilliant painter, photographer, musician, and film director. I know this personally because I was a live technician on the Ember Iris tour in 2005 and WAS THERE to learn much about this character. You need to dig a bit deeper if you want to discredit Demitri, such as by calling said universities or even the clubs listed on the Visara page, although that would only due the opposite of what you're trying to do by verifying what you claim doesn't exist. Mixedinternal 07:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixedinternal ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Mixedinternal ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Whatever, delete the pages if you want; you're just going to see them again in the middle of 2008 when The Stoic Club releases Redwomb and all these pages are put back up again. Congrats on just wasting time, but for the record the Visara MySpace page has a logged (and visible to all) 100,000 + views, and The Stoic Club already has over 15,000 views despite being announced in October of 2007. Apparently even though the three or so admins for Wikipedia can't appreciate Demitri's works plenty of other people can. Mixedinternal 12:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
JuJube, if you can read you would've already seen that I'm a stage technician by trade and worked with Visara in 2004, something already stated--regardless, delete it if you will, the guidelines are pretty strict on what is Wiki-able and as someone who's semi-successful (underground) and not prominently successful he just doesn't fit those guidelines after all. Like I said, give him half a year and the pages will have to be put back up. Mixedinternal 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC) 20:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
OK. Let's clear some things up. I am Vincent Demitri, Mixedinternal is a bothersome character with whom I have the misfortune of living in the same community of. I'll be honest, I am NOT famous, just another artist, so personally I don't feel myself reputable enough for a Wiki entry. I was informed that my Wikipedia page was being deleted and with me not ever creating one I was a bit confused; when it was cleared up that the entry was about ME and I gave no authorization for it to be created in the first place (I would prefer my privacy) I not only became irate, I personally decided to join this "debate." Mixedinternal, stop the bullshit and leave your fangirlism out of this, I DO NOT want an entry about me--please go as far as to delete all information related to myself, Visara, and The Stoic Club unless they fit the Wikipedia guidelines to a tee for the sake of this website's rules and the sake of my privacy. Wikipedia, please delete this entry, and if you can let's keep it this way. I am just another shut-in now, and I want my life to be as is in private unless I say so...at this time, I do not say so. Final note: all the the information about myself and my music was true, but as it does stand unverified it isn't relevant, but more to-the-point is that there are huge gaps of my own personal life left untouched. It's not like I was born, there was light, and then there was art. I actually DO things other than art, but I digress. Delete all these pages (the one about me, Visara, TSC), please, and when you can cite some sources then you can do as you wish on Wikipedia. I've done a good job at remaining relatively unknown on purpose, can we please keep it that way? Emberiris 02:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC) — Emberiris ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD; in the PROD summary, I wrote that the subject's main claims to notability seem to be that he entered college at a young age and is now a computer science professor. WP:PROF is not satisfied. Another editor added some material about ITK-SNAP, a software project he was involved with, in an attempt to demonstrate notability, but the notability of that project is also in question. Delete. SparsityProblem 06:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Same reasoning as here. Another trivial list with no real-world notability. Crazy Legs KC 06:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect as there's an article at Elgin Area School District U46. W.marsh 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable elementary school. Vegaswikian 06:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable school. Vegaswikian 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 16:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I think this is an advertisement, I removed a section "Experts In Talk Radio Worldwide" [28] from the Talk radio page and noticed this lonely page Ewlyahoocom 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a completely unsourced article about radio stations playing disco music (and other genres) at night. It was translated from an article in the French Wikipedia which seems to be weakly sourced at best. I submitted the article for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability guidelines. This should probably be a redirect to God Didn't Give Me a Week's Notice, but I'd like the content to be deleted first, since it contains WP:BLP concerns. Chick Bowen 05:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Deletion nomination This is a game guide for Starcraft. Should not be here per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources given in the article. A quick google search [29] yields nothing to indicate any notoriety meshach 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability is difficult to ascertain. No WP:RS that I can find. G-hits for "Artcore Gallery" + Toronto = 577 but none appear to be significant secondary sources. I'm not sure what level is "notable" for a gallery. Pigman what?/ trail 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Rudget Contributions 18:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. It was previously tagged CSD, but does assert some notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/5/3/stanfordsCraigSetsCollegiaterecordIn10000Meters Ryoung122 04:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete "Effie White (character)"; Redirect all the others to Dreamgirls. Prodego talk 17:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages:
All are Dreamgirls characters. Articles entirely made up of original research in-universe material; articles for Effie White and Deena Jones were already merged through an earlier AFD (the author who created these articles should have seen or realized this and known better). Same reasoning still applies: any and all information about characters is already present in either the article for the Broadway musical or the feature film adaptation. And try though anyone might, you're not going to be able to write full, well referenced articles for the characters themselves: there's not much information you could offer.
I say to delete Effie White (character) and Deena Jones Taylor (and delete its redirect, Deena Jones (character)), as they are not logical search terms, but redirect James "Thunder" Early, C.C. White, and Michelle Morris to Dreamgirls (not Dreamgirls (film)) FuriousFreddy 01:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, per sourcing added to article. Another non-admin close. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be unknown outwith professional poker. Has written one book of unknown significance, article supported by 2 niche poker web sources. Prod contested as "ludicrous" by a user who edits solely on poker and could spend more time reading up on WP:BIO. Deiz talk 03:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Advertisement and possibly a case of conflict of interest. Shyamal 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as having no coherent ideas or useful encyclopedic content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This page is a set of brief answers to homework questions, not an encyclopedia article. John254 03:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to the school district's article. The school itself is non-notable, and there's no content worth keeping, but there's no reason to not point users somewhere on the (vast) outside chance they search for the school. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Eyu100( t| fr| Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with Issaquah School District. -- Polaron | Talk 22:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Eyu100( t| fr| Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 02:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This one was written in the 2006-07 school year and probably forgotten about. Another class will create a temporary Wikipedia article about Apollo Elementary someday. Mandsford 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of http://www.rumimaki.com/. Ginkgo100 talk 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Several reasons: first, blatant copyvio - it is word-for-word the text located at www.rumimaki.com, in the "about" section (although the website had "exceeded its data transfer limit" and was unavailable the last time I clicked on it.) Second, is probably non-notable. The history as detailed in the article (and website) attempts to make some connection with ancient martial practices of Peru, but equivocates regarding any direct historical connections. I think if you read between the lines you have Juan Ramon using the term "rumi maki," which apparently has some connection to a Peruvian mythical figure but not directly to any martial arts practice, to apply to his own history of martial training (we can give him the benefit of the doubt that his training involved historical Peruvian martial arts) and founding a new school or style. Due to lack of reliable references, recent creation, and what appears to be a single school, I think this is non-notable. Bradford44 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Article duplicates 4 other lists (specific game song lists) - due to amount of vandalism on individual pages, having an accumulation page doubles the work of tracking such vandalism. Discussion to merge into single article suggests no consensus to do such. MASEM 02:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete --
JForget
00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
No reliable sources provided and no reliable sources found. The only references to this neologism are Wiki mirrors. Prod deleted, neologism only present on Wiki mirrors and via navigational template links. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. GRBerry 12:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a future episode of SpongeBob SquarePants. I am appalled by the lack of context. The "plot summary" is two sentences. The trivia section is longer than the plot summary. There are no less than four five six seven eight templates on the page, including AfD and speedy. Basically, I propose to delete this article because it is nothing but trivia. It can be re-created when the episode airs, if ever.
NF24(
radio me!
Editor review)
02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Disputed Prod by IP who removed it twice without explanation and no changes made so the issue moves to AFD. Prod was issued for notability reasons - not meeting the criterias. I remain neutral on this case about a fictional character in the Forest Gump movie, though maybe a merge or something can be made JForget 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Likely neologism, probably unverifiable as a google search turns up LITERALLY no hits at all (the search to incognition alone turns up lots of false hits, and none gives this definition. There MAY be print references to this, but right now this looks like possible self-promotion of a single person's theories, and probably non-notable and unverifiable. Relevent guidelines WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR. Jayron32| talk| contribs 00:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Cruft, unnecessary article, much more appropriate at GenieWiki, so I've already transferred it there [38]. — H 2O — 00:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I made it and there is nothing close to this in the manual. When the manual was created all these scenarios didn't exist. Dunno how anyone could even suggest it looking like the manual. Nothing in the ariticle has been copied from anything. The article has been moved, so it will be saved even if it's deleted here. WOC_Perfect 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirects are cheap. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Prod contested by IP editor. This seems to be a non notable hoax religion. Beyond the mere fact that it was invented by progressive rock band Tool, it is not referenceable from independent sources. WjB scribe 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete and Salted as it is the 5th time it was deleted -- JForget 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Subject has not achieved anything worthy of an encyclopedia article Ground Zero | t 00:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
It seems this topic is covered already under Marsh_Arabs. I vote to cross check content and then delete it!
Alternatively, if Madan Or Ma'adan is what "Marsh Arabs" call themselves, perhaps rename "Marsh Arabs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfanslow ( talk • contribs) 2007/10/26 06:06:40
The result was speedy keep. Premiers of Canadian Provinces are fairly obviously notable. Sam Blacketer 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-article worthy item. Of little significance and as a result fails notability guidelines. User:jointoperations November 4, 2007 2:50 UTC.
The result was delete. Non-admin closure ( [39]) overturned. Neil 13:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
This paragraph (it is a stub really) is an obvious WP:POVFORK that can become a POV magnet as well. Its dangerous and provocative opening sentence starts with "Adolf Hitler claimed to defend Germany from Jewish subversion" in which case Hitler would be creating a neologism and it would be violating WP:NEO on Wikipedia. There is already a well-established Antisemitic canard article into which this can easily be incorporated. Wikipedia does not need separate articles about all the supposed antisemitic sayings of Hitler. IZAK 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Are you going to delete that too now? By the way, I can see that the AfD nominator is Jewish. This isn't a personal attack or anything, but I get the feeling that censorship is at hand due to an uncomfortable topic, and you have to remember, WP:NOTCENSORED. Jewish subversion is hardly a neologism, it is even used by the Jerusalem post: [41] And many other newspapers and scholarly books: Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Sorry, but this is an independent topic, and deleting this topic is censorship and nothing else. — EliasAlucard| Talk 12:53 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
*DELETE and MERGE relevant content into a broader anti-semitism article. I just don't see the point about retaining this as a separate article, nor EliasAlucard's passion for doing so. Are we to have Wikipedia articles such as Big Nosed Jews, Greedy Jews, etc.? Those are certainly derogatory statements that one could find secondary source for, as well, aren't they?
Shawn in Montreal
01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, possibly false info Esanchez( Talk 2 me or Sign here) 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply