The result was delete. Singu larity 02:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not pass the threshold of notability. Subject of article was a local television journalist, who apparently was a fine person, and whose tragic death was a loss to the community. Local celebrities are not necessarily notable. His principal claims to notability seem to be that he is the subject of a 39-page book written (and apparently self-published) by his brother and that a section of a Kentucky road was named in his honor, but those do not add up to WP:N. Several of the external links in the article no longer point to content about him, and I had to delete the link to the blurb for his brother's book in order to add the AfD template because the book link is on a blacklisted domain. Orlady ( talk) 04:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO due to lack of substantial coverage. It seems that he is often "mentioned", "namedropped" or whatever in the context of Brian Jones' death. The article does not cite sources. Google does give some hits which mention the name (such as [1]), but there seems to be no substantial biographical coverage. A film mentions the story [2]. Now is this real? a legend? merely fictional? In any case, I do not think we should have a biography of a (probably) living person based on these thin sources. B. Wolterding ( talk) 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Pastordavid ( talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod was contested. Reason was: mixtapes are not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Tasc0 It's a zero! 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 03:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Upcoming album by the Smoking Popes. Album completely fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable, and the only source is that album was allegedly played at some bar. Admc2006 ( talk) 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Pastordavid ( talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable, as per WP:MADEUP and WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. A card game of which no record exists in the real world. Grandfather Clock ( talk) 05:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I propose deletion for this reason: it is too difficult to define "high-end" or "high fidelity" with respect to specific products or specific manufacturers. Different observers draw the line in various places. Additionally, the page has become an across-the-board linkfarm with very little utility for the reader. Binksternet ( talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted as G7 by Tiptoety ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Article is autiobiographical and appears to be written by the band themselves. CyberGhostface ( talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is undersourced for the claims it makes.
The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A lacrosse team with questionable notability. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
"Comment "Junior" lacrosse? Is that adolescent lacrosse? Just wondering. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted as G12 by Orangemike ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Either its a copyright violation or it should be moved to Wikisource. WP doesn't do full-text reproductions of treaties. -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has been tagged unreferenced since 2006. Google search found only one decent possible reference: [4]. The reference only makes passing mention of "lolita porn." And there is already an article "Lolita--term" in which Lolita porn is mentioned: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(term)]. I think mention of "Lolita porn" in "Lolita-term" is more than enough, and we do not need a whole article on this. - PetraSchelm ( talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is about a living person, makes controversial claims and is entirely unsourced. Recommend Quick Deletion as per Jimbo Wales guidelines on such matters. Lemmey ( talk) 21:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a unnotable actress that only played a small role in one film. Looking at the film's Wiki page, she isn't even mentioned in it. Tavix ( talk) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 03:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. Nakon 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Despite claims to the contrary, no reliable, third party sources to prove notability were brought to the discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to James J. Flaherty. Was speedied under WP:CSD#G11. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 ( talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 03:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete and possibly salt Non-notable actor. Article has been deleted twice now for notability reasons, but the creator of the article, who is presumably the subject, has recreated both times. Also, google searches for "Petar Stojkovik" Macedonia and "Petar Stojkovik" actor all show minimal sources.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) The consensus below is that the deputy mayor of Delhi is inherently notable despite WP:BIO1E concerns. Darkspots ( talk) 02:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable. He is listed here solely for the unusual single incident that precipitated his death, not for any notable contributions to Indian politics or legislative policy. Ecoleetage ( talk) 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was userfied by author. Veinor ( talk · contribs) has deleted the remaining redirect. Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No real sources given; only potential source of notability appears to be one newspaper article. Fails the notability criteria. Veinor (talk to me) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have appeared on Sky News, and BBC news regarding the selling of the Tesco Carrier bag. Surely the fact that I was in a national newspaper (The Daily Mail) would substantiate that the page could be kept?? The picture that I uploaded on the page is genuine. Can I have a specific reason why i cannot keep the page, and what i can do to ensure that I can keep it? - Jamiecg74 21/4/2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiecg74 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable, except for the single event freak accident death. Mr. Burrus was not a professional magician; he was an amateur entertainer performing his first (and last) magic act. Ecoleetage ( talk) 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 02:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsalvageably incoherent plot summary of non-notable single TV episode. No other Three's Company episodes have articles Dawn Bard ( talk) 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Pedro ( talk · contribs) as G12. Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable cruft Ziggy Saw dust 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Trivia, violates several points of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (especially the points about it not being a dictionary, manual, and an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not the place for what claims to be a bloody list of jargon for anroak train spotters! Things such of this have no reason for even existing on Wikipedia since they are a barmy list of slang. This is not the forum for lists of slang and jargon. It should be expunged. Bolly Nickers ( talk) 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Trivia, violates several points of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (especially the points about it not being a dictionary, manual, and an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not the place for what claims to be a bloody list of jargon for anroak train spotters! Things such of this have no reason for even existing on Wikipedia since they are a barmy list of slang. This is not the forum for lists of slang and jargon. It should be expunged. Bolly Nickers ( talk) 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Note This is the 2nd nomination of this article. Mjroots ( talk) 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pigman ☿ 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced - violates WP:BLP almost to the point of being an attack page. Removing unsourced accusations woule leave insufficient notability. dramatic ( talk) 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability is not established and the article is written more like a publicity release. Of the sources, one is subject's own company, and I doubt the US Patents in themselves confer notability. Author may have WP:COI because inserts references to the subject in other articles. At best, needs reliable third-party sources. Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep, edits will be made soon to comply with guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C6VETTE ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Playhouse with no evidence of notability. Pastordavid ( talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD G11, advertising. Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced advertising spam garbage Ziggy Saw dust 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There was unanimity that the article fails to meet WP:MUSIC. In addition it is wholly unsourced. TerriersFan ( talk) 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, unreferenced Ziggy Saw dust 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Failed recent CSD, I was advised by the declining editor to list it here to see if I could establish consensus for deletion. The article does not appear to assert notability and is badly written (although the latter is not actually a deletion criterion). George D. Watson (Dendodge). Talk Help 08:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Potential bad faith nomination. Give articles a chance before nominating them so soon after creation. WilliamH ( talk) 15:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced, non-notable Ziggy Saw dust 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cbrown1023 talk 18:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
nn Ziggy Saw dust 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses and obvious invalidity of dissenting opinion (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, unreferenced. Kill with fire. Ziggy Saw dust 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cbrown1023 talk 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Ziggy Saw dust 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi,
this lobby firm is notable for its connections with a Scottish Parliament supported charitable venture; because it has employed former MSPs including a disgraced member of the House of Lords; because the organisation it is connected with was investigated by the Scottish Parliament and because it also includes a former Pfizer lobbyist also associated with the 'non lobbying' SPBE. This has been a matter of political controversy in scotland and has featured in the press regulatrly. I will add some more sources.
-- Davidmillerglasgow ( talk) 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep - Well-referenced article, not deserving of deletion. Ecoleetage ( talk) 12:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Clearly non-notable band Ziggy Saw dust 19:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cbrown1023 talk 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, unreferenced Ziggy Saw dust 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Coccyx Bloccyx ( talk) 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
CRYSTAL BALLING Ziggy Saw dust 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted via PROD. Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Garbage Ziggy Saw dust 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per absence of delete preferences and retraction by nominator (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Vanity page, notability not shown with third party reliable sources Scarpy ( talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong keep!!! Why on earth would this be deleted? Isn't inclusion a HUGE part of the very spirit of wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.6.123 ( talk) 06:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Invalid/inappropriate deletion rationale. Consensus forms that the subject meets notability through reliable sources. WilliamH ( talk) 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
What the hell? Ziggy Saw dust 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that the subject is notable and also comments on the absence of a deletion rationale. WilliamH ( talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Self-explanatory Ziggy Saw dust 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 11:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence given that Ms. Trudeau satisfies the notability guidelines; the only thing that strikes me as possibly qualifying would be the Hopwood Awards; on the other hand, these are like University of Michigan scholarships as opposed to something like a Pulitzer Prize or a Nebula Award. Veinor (talk to me) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
An entry reflecting a Native American woman author's emerging work is inherently unnotable, offering nothing of value to Wikipedia? Is that the argument? -- Jennifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrudeau ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 18:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Following a complaint at OTRS I have removed a BLP violation [19]. This article is clearly written by the rpoducer of the album and relates to an unreleased product and is devoid of sources. It therefore fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL - It is also clearly original research. Needs to be deleted and only restored after release and when multiple independent sources can be demonstrated to show notability. Spartaz Humbug! 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced original research about packaging used by Märklin. Laudak ( talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Karst (surname), a disambig page Laudak ( talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete no indication that this name is notable; WP is not the Dutch or Eastern European phone directory. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Delete, would be better incoporated into another article as it does not really have much use on its own. -- FGWQPR ( talk) 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 18:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
nn episode of tv series Ziggy Saw dust 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD G11 advertising. Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced advertising Ziggy Saw dust 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deletion for blatant copyright violation - JodyB talk 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Clearly non-notable, unsourced, wall o'text, textbook example of advertisement Ziggy Saw dust 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Consensus forms unanimously on the inherent notability of school districts and comments on the deletion rationale. WilliamH ( talk) 22:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable as all Hell Ziggy Saw dust 18:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The page makes no claims for notability of the subject, and I don't think he is. Moreover, there are no reliable sources for just about everything on the page. I tried to add some cn's for the more obvious lacks [20], but they didn't last. There are no sources for his dob, place, that he was a judge (I happen to know that he was indeed an astrologer and wrote at least one published paper on climatology), for his claims about 2030, for the existence of his institure, for his awards, etc etc. The only real source [21] doesn't even support most of this stuff and is anyway unreliable William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Launched today, thus nothing of note yet is really possible and WP:CRYSTAL applies, with no assertation of notability also. Seems to fail both 1, 2 and 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (web) SGGH speak! 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) SGGH speak! 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
NOTE:An IP removed the AfD tag; I replaced it and warned the IP. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted as G2 (test page) by Orangemike ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Clearly unsalvageable OR, essay, personal reflection ukexpat ( talk) 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
NOTE:The article is also tagged to be speedy deleted, CSD G2 (test page). JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs)
The result was keep. John254 02:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This high school does not meet the notability requirements for schools. ErikHaugen ( talk) 17:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No reputable sources given to estabilish notability of these results, or for verifiability, or to establish that it is not original research. (The only sources listed are a Spanish Usenet discussion, and a paper by Weber and Keckeisen that does not actually describe the subject of this article. When sources were requested on the Talk page, the author ( User:Zahlentheorie) stated that the mathematical correctness of the article was sufficient.) —Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
He's done a lot for his community, but he's got absolutely nothing per WP:BIO. No coverage in reliable sources or anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:BIO. His leadership of Scouting Association of the Republic is questionable (no Google hits [31] [32] [33], no third-party source, and no informations at Gazeta.pl Płock biography [34]). The rest of biography doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines. Visor ( talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as entirely non-notable; no notable refs found; highly unlikely to become notable; application of WP:SNOW.- CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable play - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
total non-notability, essentially a genealogy blog Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 15:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Disregarding any possible 'delete' !votes, third-party sources were provided which buoy claims of notability. The article does, however, need to be cleaned up and rewritten to stay in line with what the sources actually say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This looks like an attempt by POV chiropractors to fork away from the main chiropractic article where finally some science based editors are now active. Mccready ( talk) 15:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cbrown1023 talk 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Despite two prior nominations nothing has been done to establish the notability of the subject in the article, and the article still contains no reliable sources -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Lovers' Requiem. Cbrown1023 talk 18:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:MUSIC, albums and singles of notable performers must still possess individual notability; this one does not; no CSD (yet) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 18:45, 27 April 2008 (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}} . |
Non-notable academic. Being a Fellow of the IEE doesn't seem adequate for WP:PROF, which is the only biographical guideline which seems to apply. Dwyer function, which would, if accepted, also be grounds for at least putting some biographical information in that article, is also up for deletion by {{ prod}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn and the concerns of the "delete" voters have been answered. (Non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Purports to be a disambiguation page but is purely a collection of red links, with no way for anyone to sort out whether any of these might actually be reasonable future article topics. Russ (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (but cleanup). Cbrown1023 talk 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The "subject" seems to be little more than a mere collocation: True, an article on it could say that A cultural icon is an icon of culture -- appending to each the parenthesis (whatever this word is used to mean; and these days it's often used to mean very little). For yes, it seems to be more widely used than natural icon, postural icon, plural icon, rural icon, intercrural icon, etc., but so?
While I don't enjoy criticizing my fellow editors, the article is junk, really -- as I've already said on its talk page. (Response so far: Silence.) Now, en:WP has lots of junk articles on non-subjects, and most are harmless enough, but this vapid phrase actually gets trotted out and linked to, e.g. from the dreadful start of Marilyn Monroe: my removal of this twaddle was promptly dubbed "preposterous" and undone.
Observing that that WikiProject Philosophy catered for Deep Thought as well as actual philosophy (the latter being an almost incomparably more rigorous enterprise), I appealed on the talk page of the Project for help in this article. Nobody there has yet shown any interest, and I certainly can't blame them.
An earlier article on this phrase was deleted via AfD, but I'm not sure if I can speedy this as it's not a re-creation; it's merely no better. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article examines various strategies for teaching controversial topics. As a case study, I present examples from my experience teaching about the cultural/political geographic concept of iconography in southern classrooms using as an example recent debates over whether governments in the region should sanction the flying of the Confederate battle flag. First, I discuss the recent literature on the teaching of controversial issues. Second, I examine the concept of iconography and the debates over flying the flag. Third, I present different strategies that can be used to approach this controversial icon in a classroom setting. I conclude by arguing that there is no perfect solution to the teaching of controversial topics that will succeed for every topic, irrespective of time and place.
Part of a section on race and Shakespeare studies. The writer discusses the depiction of Othello in Oliver Parker's 1995 movie version of Shakespeare's play. The audience is encouraged to enjoy Parker's (and Lawrence Fishburne's) physical Othello, to take pleasure in his body, in his rages, and even in his murder of the play's heroine. This is conveniently accomplished by reducing Othello' black identity to an appetizing and culturally acceptable icon: that of the athletic black male body. Most frequently, Othello is played as responding to characters around him with grunts, glares, or lapses into feverish sexual fantasy. Fishburne evokes in this way a cultural figuration of the American black male of the 1990s. It is paradoxical that by signaling Othello's ultimate unreadability through iconic representations, Parker engages with the history of the many ways that Othello has been read before. It is precisely his stimulation of cultural memory through the replication of past images of black masculinity that makes the film postmodern.
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Clone of a notable game with no apparent notability on its own. Powers T 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete — Alex. Muller 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This single is not confirmed, it is, once again based on rumours. Surfer-boy94 ( talk) 06:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
All the information in this article now exists in Bogan (disambiguation) Asher196 ( talk) 05:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Greeves ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article covers a book that claims to have been out of print since 1989, although I did find a scientology bookstore that offered copies (but no publication information...I assume it is back in print). No secondary sources could be found outside of "Operation Clambake" which had the 4. Have You Lived Before This Life, and it was mentioned in a few blogs, but those only referanced it to say that "yes, scientology believes in reincarnation" which is already covered by many other wikipedia pages. It isn't even the primary source of the scientology doctrine of reincarnation, only a collection of stories about scientologists talking about past lives. not notable outsde the church or within the church (they stoped publishing it, and wern't in a hurry to bring it back). Coffeepusher ( talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article unsourced since 2003 Foggy Morning ( talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable winner of a beauty style pageant in Ireland. The competition is call The Rose of Tralee and is notable, the finals are shown on Irish television and regularly top the ratings. However, this women is not notable for anything other than winning this contest. If we allow articles for this, then every woman who wins Miss Ireland, Miss UK, Miss Bulgaria, Miss Uruguay, etc. needs an article and for every year of the competition too. I propose this article be deleted or redirected to the Rose of Tralee. Snappy56 ( talk) 06:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article unsourced since origination in 2004. Foggy Morning ( talk) 02:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestler from a non-notable organization. This pages has pretty much no information. iMat thew 20 08 17:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, as unverifiable. Davewild ( talk) 11:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
deleteI cannot find any reference to this church existing other then this page. Also the Username of the writer is the same as the article name. Pewwer42 Talk 15:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
An unconfirmed release date, no tracklisting and no sources. For the time being, it doesn't qualify for its own article. Surfer-boy94 ( talk) 12:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete — Alex. Muller 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestler, with barely any information on his page. It was two references. iMat thew 20 08 18:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Cbrown1023 talk 18:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Bio of a young filmmaker of little notability in terms of his career or significant, independent coverage, not yet even included in IMDB. Does not appear to pass inclusion guidelines for creative professionals. FF 13:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page because it is an article about an unreleased film directed by Luke Massey (and created by the same editor), lacking significant independent coverage of its production, and so does not satisfy notability guidelines for movies:
The result was delete. Punkmorten ( talk) 09:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable soccer (or football in Europe) league. Written like an advertisement, no sources whatsoever. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 13:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and salt. Cbrown1023 talk 18:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Recreation of a page AfDed in February (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talbert W. Swan, II for the previous discussion). As with the previous article, User:Revtswan2 is the creator, once again raising the WP:AUTO and WP:COI issues that existed the first time out. This non-notable local activist still fails WP:BIO and still lacks reliable sources about him as required. I'm not suggesting a Speedy, because I don't know for a certain fact the articles are identical, but at this point, I strongly urge a Delete and Salt. RGTraynor 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep as the nominator has withdrawn and there are no extant delete preferences (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable charity organization, only on a local level. Fails WP:CORP. Only sources or links are to the organization's website, and a local newspaper entry. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 13:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
An article assembled from tidbits of news coverage, almost all of which is dominated by opposition to the company's union busting activities. OTRS ticket 2008041410037191 applies. The main editor tried to improve the sourcing, but acknowledges that it is "is a hard company to get information on, precisely because they want to be secretive". Absolutely correct. But WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV means we need to be sure that if a company is hard to get information on, we are not blazing the trail in correcting that, especially when we only have polemical sources on which to draw. Guy ( Help!) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete I agree with many of the changes made by the prior contributor in an effor to make the article "neutral." The original artical was more of a one sided attack, rather than a neutral discription of the business. This was most evident under the "Operations" heading. I see that the prior contributor noted several good questions and I would like to add that the fines levied against the Chinese Daily News went back to 2000, prior to their employment of The Burke Group. However, this piece is written in such a way as to infer that the litigation was a direct result of The Burke Group's involvement.
Ilikewiki11 (
talk)
12:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Ilikewiki11striking SPA's statement
reply
:Delete: I still don't know what you mean by unregistered user. I am new to this. I have no idea who the others are but welcome their input. But back to the original posting.....it is written in Wikipedia rules that postings are to be neutral and unbiased? If this post is intended as a slam on a private company because you differ with them, it is an improper posting. If it is an attempt at an unbiased analysis of a consulting company then it is proper. Please don't resort to name calling. It is unproductive. The additions of content are written with citations and research. What is your intent on this posting? If you oppose union free environments you should write a posting called "union free" or add to the "union busting" section in development. You've cited things under "operations" that are uncorroborated. I am curious why you post the amounts of money allegedly earned by TBG but don't post what is earned by the unions? You say TBG lost one case. OK, so the union won....correct? What did they spend to win? IF the company spent money to remain union free then the union spent money equally to organize them and win.....correct? Either way the employees have the result they want based on their vote. Why don't you post what cost is now to employees now paying union dues upon losing their bid to remain union free? You see.....all I'm trying to illustrate is there are two sides that need to be presented in order for this posting to live and be deemed a neutral point of view. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.81.85.165 (
talk) 08:32, 22 April 2008 striking SPA's statement
To the writer of Strong Keep......have you been reading the protestations? The company is not thin skinned. It's not about negative truth, its about lies. Yes, I agree the work is notable and should be covered, but not by biased contributors who have no interest in truth. I also agree that the spirit of Wikipedia is to IMPROVE articles rather than delete however ALL the improvements have been deleted! We aren't editing because we don't like it, we are editing because it is untrue. If there is no interest in truth, improvements or edits then it should be deleted. If you are going to print stories about David Burke then print that he is a decorated DISABLED combat veteran of the 1st Infantry Division (Vietnam) and earned a Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart after 2 years of service and 6 months of hospitalization. Hardly thin skinned!! He is also a former member of the United Furniture Workers of America and Shop Steward with Retail Clerks now United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). If you are going to profile The Burke Group then print what preceded founding The Burke Group. Living in government projects in abject poverty supporting his immigrant grandmother he was called out on a 13 week strike for higher wages with no strike benefits. Upon return there was no increase but the union bosses never missed a check. His grandmother died and he has no money for a head stone. That soured him on unions because he learned there was no benefit to being a member except to the union bosses who took his dues. There are 1,000's of stories like that and that is why unions are losing membership. You demonize David Burke but worship Martin Levitt who is a 3 time ex con with felony convictions such as arson, insurance fraud, theft, and battery (public record San Francisco and Cleveland). No consulting firms would hire him so he wrote a book (which you cite) demonizing them. Is there something wrong with this picture? You say he impedes an employees right to form a union......not true. What about an employees right NOT to join a union? Either allow edits or delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo212 ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
STRONG DELETEWhat's really going on here? This is clearly a biased, poorly disguised attempt by "union organizers" to use Wikipedia as a tool to advertise for labor. If you're going to profile this group, it should be fair. Don't just show the one-sided view. How could this company have been in business so long and have so many clients all over the world if they are nothing but bad? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Laborfriend (
talk •
contribs)
02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC) whose only edit so far is this one striking SPA's statement
reply
STRONG DELETE I was in a union and HATE them and applaud that this company protects and assists us against the thugs that come into our workplace to disrupt and wreak havoc just to take our money. Who are you kidding? I'd like to know more about this company. If I was trying to understand the differences between Democrats and Republicans would I go only to the DNC and allow no input from the RNC? I don't think so. That little box on the main page called "labor portal"? That's a dead giveaway your nothing but a bunch of paid organizers. This site does not meet with the neutrality requirements. That's one point. But it also does not allow edits. That's bad. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.172.223.137 (
talk)
07:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) striking SPA's statement
reply
Keep. Seems a notable company. And if new users and anons are so keen to see it deleted, then clearly it must be kept! -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 13:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
STRONG DELETE This entire dialogue questions the integrity of Wikipedia itself. Clearly, the initial entry of this article is biased and, therefore, should be considered for immediate deletion. Terms such as "union busting" are non-neutral in nature and will only veil a negative connotation upon the described party. Note: No where within the associated company’s website do “they” classify themselves as such. This term is only used by opposition with a biased position. From my general understanding, the involved company is a privately held enterprise. Hence, we should not expect them to divulge their business structure, financial stability, and/or staffing levels. The company has rights and I personally feel much of this proposed propaganda is opening the door to slanderous activity. As defined by their principals, it is Wikipedia’s duty to maintain unbiased and neutral definition of all stated entries. IF such language is acceptable, then we can look forward to seeing such definitions as; Mr. John Logan: a contributor to Wikipedia who is a known supporter of crime, corruption, embezzlement, and violence associated with organised labour unions. Mr Logan has a “proven” track record of authoring fictional editorials based on hearsay and personal opinion in lieu of factual evidence. Mr. Logan believes in the hindering of employee rights, allowing organised labour to plague of the ignorance of the uninformed for financial gain. All said, the end disposition to this dilemma is up to Wikipedia’s administration. What direction do you wish to pursue? How much weight do you wish to put upon your institution’s integrity? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Unionfree (
talk •
contribs)
14:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —
Unionfree (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. striking SPA's statement
reply
DELETE: Your opinions should be posted under the category "Union Buster" which pre-existed this site. If you are going to "target" one specific consulting firm, and allow no additional opinions or countering opinion the it is USELESS to a reader researching or trying to understand the dialogue of the pro's and con's. This site is pointless and embarrassing to the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mdelosrios (
talk •
contribs)
16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —
Mdelosrios (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
The result was Delete, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Davewild ( talk) 11:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article consists of nothing but an unlinked list of surnames. This article is not encyclopedic; it’s just an indiscriminant indiscriminate collection of information. It violates
WP:NOTDIRECTORY and
WP:IINFO.
I {{ Prod}}’ed this article two weeks ago, but removed the tag after someone promised on the talk page to improved the article, and add more encyclopedic content. I was skeptical, but tried to give the benefit of the doubt. Since then, nothing has been done except the addition of more names. I’ve left a couple of messages on the talk page, but nothing gets done, so I think it’s time for AfD. barneca ( talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article fails to meet the notability guidelines. It amounts to an announcement that this game will soon be released by 8monkey Labs. That article, in turn, amounts to an announcement that 8monkey Labs will soon release Darkest of Days. Neither of them has any real content. 007bistromath ( talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete both, consensus is that the articles fail the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 11:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Band have apparently split up without releasing an album Alastairward ( talk) 12:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have never heard this term before, neither in English nor in German ("Dresdner Schule"), at least not as a style of architecture. There might be something like Dresden baroque style but "Dresden school" is new to me. Looks like a hoax to me. Can anyone log in at the page that's supposed to be the source for the article? (by User:X-Weinzar)
The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 18:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable company, sources don't really indicate notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 03:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local student government. No reliable sources and no assertion of notability SevernSevern ( talk) 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete consensus is that the term is not notable. Davewild ( talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems a non-notable (at least does not assert) neologism, non-encyclopedic tone, unrefd, OR, spam etc. SGGH speak! 11:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 07:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article in question relates to an organization (No Use For Nickels) which has twice been deleted due to non-notability. It is not encyclopedic material. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 11:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was originally nominated for deletion in WP:Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD). Since that large group AfD took place, it has not been possible to establish verifiability or notability for the subject. My own searches haven't brought any third-party reliable sources to light, hence the nomination. Gazimoff ( talk) 10:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedied - nonsense. Fl owerparty☀ 10:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be nonsense, no google results and it is the kind of thing that would have google results. SGGH speak! 09:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 11:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A guy mistakenly accused of being a war criminal [61]. The article at present seems to misrepresent the facts (no surprises that it cites no sources) - that BBC article ( [62]) says that it was a case of mistaken identity. -- Naerii 09:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to List of Antarctic territorial claims per consensus below. Nick ( talk) 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article used to give an overview of Antarctic claims, which are now in List of Antarctic territories, and discusses the Antarctic Treaty System, which has its own article. Those two are enough to cover the topic, and having this article in between will create confusion. Classical geographer ( talk) 09:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (but cleanup/rewrite). Cbrown1023 talk 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article has been inadequately sourced for several months. It concerns living individuals, and some of the content is highly negative. Since nobody seems to be interested in properly sourcing it and thereby resolving potential WP:BLP issues, it should be deleted. These issues were not properly discussed in the recent AfD. In terms of living individuals, the rule is: source it or lose it. This is not a case for indefinitely keeping crap content, because living individuals get better treatment than that. Yes, I know the show is popular, that does not give you a bye on sourcing. Guy ( Help!) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is in really, really bad shape. daveh4h 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) replyOffen absconded with his young daughter in the midst of a custody battle with his first wife. For seven years, Offen and his daughter drifted from apartment to apartment as he worked various scams, never remaining in one place for more than a few months at a time. During this period, he did not allow his daughter to have any schooling or friends, and trained her in the art of deception in the event he was apprehended.
The result was keep. John254 03:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Since its last deletion, article still does not demonstrate how the subject is notable per WP:N guidelines. I've found one possible reliable review here but multiple sources are required. Marasmusine ( talk) 08:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, no evidence article meets the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 11:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Incorrectly tagged for speedy, but nominated for deletion anyway as his roles are very minor, mostly 1-2 episodes. Punkmorten ( talk) 07:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 11:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. The article does not meet our notability guideline because there is no coverage of the subject by any reliable sources. WODUP 07:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 10:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not quite notable enough. None of his credits from the two supplied links seem to suggest that he is anything more than (a) a commercial actor, (b) an independent film actor, or (c) an extra. I'd love to hear his Chris Tucker impersonation though. So Awesome ( talk) 06:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 10:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This page is unencyclopedic, and even though I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, I think that this page is very much like an advertisement, and is not written encyclopedically; rather, it is much like a story about EVERYTHING about the subject; it's not necessary. – Obento Musubi ( C • G • S) 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Dreadstar † 06:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that "How to destroy the universe" belongs here. Plus, I'm not sure why the author wrote it. Maybe it's just me... – Obento Musubi ( C • G • S) 05:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 10:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
When I made this about 1 1/2 years ago I didn't have the Wikipedia:Reliable sources in mind. Now we know the pirated game exists but I do not see any notable coverage in reliable, third party sources. Therefore I don't think this belongs on Wikipedia any longer. I don't know if any Russian or Chinese sources cover this, but I really doubt it. WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment If you want to get rid of it, I guess you can, but I don' think it's necessary. WP is not paper; most video games are notable in that they've been published and played by many people. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 05:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 12:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
High school student who won a regional art award. Since 1,200 of these awards are given out per year, I'm not really convinced this establishes notability. (Especially since a google search turns up about 3 hits). Bfigura ( talk) 05:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
it's an national award.
The result was keep. John254 03:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Removed prod. unsourced. Does not meet WP:PROF there is no sources to indicate this person or her body of work are well known. Not notable. Seems somewhat WP:FRINGE. This article seemed to have been spammed into other articles [65] [66]
The result was delete. Greeves ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article fails WP:CORP in that there seem to be no significant third party sources on its subject. The only source is the organization's website, and the article's primary purpose seems to be advertising Ketsuekigata ( talk) 04:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep This article has several references to credible magazines and news sources. Reference to the company website seems appropriate. Referral to Hitch and other non-supported material was deleted.
Keep There's a significant amount of coverage in the PUA community, which is where you'd expect it to be notable. 50k hits on Google. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 05:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
comment OptimistBen says "There's a significant amount of coverage in the PUA community, which is where you'd expect it to be notable." But this is not a PickUpArtist wiki, we need notability in reliable sources which is where you'd expect a wikipedia article's subject to be notable.:) Merkin's mum 00:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
comment if it's kept, someone might edit it so it accurately reflects what the sources say about the founders. So maybe we should delete it because of eventual WP:BLP concerns, to protect their reputation and feelings.:) Merkin's mum 23:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Identified at least until it is released. Davewild ( talk) 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article does not assert any notability rationale per WP:MUSIC. I attempted to redirect to its album, but my edit was reverted. Rather than edit war, I submit this to AfD. Erechtheus ( talk) 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus (default keep). I suggest a serious attempt be made to remove crystalballery, POV content, and OR and then in a few months, if this still seems unacceptable, to try AfD again. It was simply too difficult to argue for its deletion with arguments that really call for editing to counter the plethora of keep recommendations. Many of the participants of this AfD referred to guidelines as policies, and essays as guidelines, and wikiprojects proposals and other editors comments elsewhere as precedent. Everyone involved should do a little homework before a round two, so future discussions can be less messy and more on-point. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Characters have no notability in of themselves. Almost all of the material is included in the various articles for each iteration of the game. Much of the article currently is being used for speculation as to the fates of characters in Call of Duty 4, something that is completely original research per that page's talk page consensus, hence this article is being used as a POV fork. Also, reads very much like a game guide. Lacking any significant sources as well. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all, consensus is that the articles fail the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 10:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Bootleg albums not notable as per WP:MUSIC hellboy ( talk) 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they do nothing more than provide track lists for the not notable albums reply
The result was keep. Greeves ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This title seems to be only held by a few people. Neutrality talk 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep, disagreement over whether the article meets the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 10:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all, individual notability has not been established, if sources to establish notability are available an article on all Aspire computers would be the best way to go. Davewild ( talk) 10:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are in a similar vein:
Wikipedia isn't a directory nor list for every product ever produced by a company. nneonneo talk 02:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per the improvements to the article by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles which have established notability and persuaded the nominator of this. Davewild ( talk) 10:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A nearly contentless stub about a non-notable journalist from a local television station who has partial credit in writing a self-help book. I haven't been able to google up anything else which suggests she should pass WP:BIO. Trusilver 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 07:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unnotable, minor character in the InuYasha series. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that has almost done nothing but remove PRODs and reverse merges. Collectonian ( talk) 02:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 07:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unnotable, minor character in the InuYasha series. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that has almost done nothing but remove PRODs and reverse merges. Collectonian ( talk) 02:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unnotable, minor one-episode character in the InuYasha series. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that gave no reason for removal and removed from multiple prods. Collectonian ( talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete and Redirect to InuYasha the Movie: The Castle Beyond the Looking Glass. The movie article is a better destination than the list of characters because the former contains background information concerning this particular character. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 07:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unnotable, minor one-movie character in the InuYasha series. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that gave no reason for removal and removed from multiple prods. Collectonian ( talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List_of_InuYasha_characters#Other_characters. Page history is left intact so editors who would like to merge any basic relevant info won't encounter GFDL issues or difficulty retrieving materials.-- PeaceNT ( talk) 07:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unnotable, minor one-episode character in the InuYasha series. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that gave no reason for removal. Collectonian ( talk) 02:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List_of_InuYasha_characters#Y.C5.8Dkai-Wolf_tribe. Page history is left intact so editors who would like to merge any basic relevant info won't encounter GFDL issues or difficulty retrieving materials. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unnotable, minor character in the InuYasha series that only appears briefly in three episodes. Fails WP:FICT and nothing but excessive, unsourced WP:PLOT. Failed PROD removed by anon IP that gave no reason for removal. AnmaFinotera ( talk) 02:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 18:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Week article 2 years old. Non-notable as is. Forsee no actionable growth or useful purpose. Lemmey ( talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus (but cleanup based on concerns expressed here). Cbrown1023 talk 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
We're creating stub articles about individual NYtimes articles now? What next listing all the letters to the editor?
Lemmey (
talk) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
:Article created Today by a now banned user. --
Lemmey (
talk)
02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The deletion argument was that the list was unnecessary and unsuited to Wikipedia. The keepers argued that the list was organised, not indiscriminate and served a useful purpose as an alternative to many stub articles. There was a clear consensus that the page should be kept and, further, in my judgement the keepers had the better of the debate. Finally, there were no overriding policy arguments that would indicate deletion against the consensus. There are deficiencies with the page but these are editorial matters so I am tagging the article for improvements. (Non-admin closure) BlueValour ( talk) 01:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the Complete Guide to InuYasha. Terms are already given similarly brief definitions when first mentions and in the relevant articles. Such a list is completely unnecessary. Collectonian ( talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that he is only notable for one event thus falling under WP:BLP1E. Davewild ( talk) 10:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Lack of notability beyond WP:BLP1E. He's a natural gas trader in the news for being dismissed after losing a large ammount of funds. However I can find no other notability beyond the single event. Cube lurker ( talk) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:FICT, with excessive unnotable WP:PLOT details. Individual weapons and attacks are already better covered in the individual articles for the characters listed. Collectonian ( talk) 01:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted under G5 (edits made by banned user). Hut 8.5 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Original research; see Original research; see related AFDs at Heisenberg's paradox and New de Broglie's paradox. Bm gub ( talk) 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted under G5 (edits made by banned user). Hut 8.5 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Original research; see related AFDs at Heisenberg's paradox and Inversion of logic in Schrödinger equation. Bm gub ( talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, as a dictionary definition, anyone can create a soft redirect to wiktionary as appropriate. Davewild ( talk) 09:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT#DICTIONARY - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A definition of this word already exists on Wiktionary. Jamie S93 01:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, clearly not going to be deleted. Endorsing SynergeticMaggot's non-admin closure. Neıl ☎ 09:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This was declined as a speedy, but to me it reads as advertising for this guys book with a dose of instructional content and a linkspam farm thrown on top. No links to reliable sources, and I couldn't find any either, so it seems to qualifiy as original research as well. Beeblbrox ( talk) 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
afd reopened after closure as WP:SPEEDYKEEP by SynergeticMaggot ( talk · contribs) diff speedy keep requires No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves. as the nominator hasnt with drawn the nomination and that the discussion continued after the closure diff indicates that this needs to run the full time period. Gnan garra 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, probably a hoax, no reliable sources to verify anyway. Davewild ( talk) 09:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Links/sources at bottom do not work, false information, not a real model Blahblah609 ( talk) 00:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, Creator supports deletion, no evidence that article meets the relevant notability guideline and is only the bishop of a small church making the usual presumption that bishops are notable less applicable in this case. Davewild ( talk) 09:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable, completely unreferenced. Fails Google Test. Note that although he is a bishop, it is of a rather small splinter sect. Prodded earlier, but since I'm a noob and forgot to put a reason, prod was removed. TallNapoleon ( talk) 00:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I created this page and I support its deletion; and yes, by the post-Vatican II Church's standards, this Bishop and his Order would be considered very small/fringe. Bay17832 Bay17832 ( talk) 18:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
P.S. The Order has 6 members - 2 of which are Bishops. 2 are Priests. 2 are Brothers. Bay17832 Bay17832 ( talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Also this page was already deleted last year and I re-created it. All the more cause for re-deletion. Bay17832 Bay17832 ( talk) 18:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted under G5 (edits made by banned user). Hut 8.5 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I can't find any reference to this paradox on the internet. I am nominating for deletion per WP:OR: appears to be purely original research. nneonneo talk 00:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment As I'm sure many have noticed, all of the ISPs arguing to "keep" on this page are single purpose ISPs whose only edits have been to post to this and related AfD's and as such can be disregarded. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 09:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by Ohnoitsjamie, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable "sport". Google shows five myspace videos and nothing else. Probably neologism, unreferenced. Tan | 39 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as duplicate of properly named article. Pastordavid ( talk) 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Incorrect title naming scheme, no content, release(d) date July 2008, citing WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no actual content whatsoever. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply