The result was Delete. BJ Talk 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List of The Clique series characters to satify the concerns both that this information is worthwhile of inclusion and that is inadequately sourced. There will probably be ongoing problems maintaining the already-large target article, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. brenneman 02:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable fictional character. Fails WP:FICT and WP:N in having no significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Failed PROD with PROD removed by IP with edit summary of "deleted unnecessary things." -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Question: How can you decide if its noteworthy if you don't know how popular the books which feature this character are? Shouldn't there be a rule about sales figures somewhere? You have comic book characters that have their own wikipedia pages, no matter how minor a role they appeared in anything. And forget about inherit nobility since that isn't the case here. The character's description shows she to be a main character in all of these novels. If the books are all bestsellers, then all main characters get their own pages. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/books/bestseller/0622bestchildren.html?scp=1&sq=The+Clique+Lisi+Harrison&st=nyt The New York Times bestsellers list currently shows these books to be at the top 1, 6, and 8 spots in the paperback section! I vote keep, of course. Dream Focus ( talk) 19:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
In this article Ceri James describes himself firstly as a singersongwriter - there is another singersongwriter called Ceri James it therefore causes confusion. Also the Ceri James listed here although he is a writer he works under different names like Kezzatron and with a band called The mountaineers and he doesn't use the name Ceri James. He works mostly as a session musician not as a singersongwriter under this name therefore the article is misleading. The other singersongwriter Ceri James not listed here has released an album under the name Ceri James.
This article also shouldn't be about an individual it's against Wikipedia policy
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cerijames (
talk •
contribs) 2008/06/13 00:10:25
I think alot of the aticles about bands and musicians on wikipedia are done by the band members or musicians themselves. They shouldn't do this it should happen organically. There seem to be quite a few articles that should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerijames ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
What??? It's not relevant that the article might have been done by the person themselves or by their best friend. Of course it's relevant it's the most relevant question you can ask. Also If the ordinary boys is made up of session musicians then it wouldn't be a band - it would be Preston's backing band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerijames ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Well I don't think people should write their own history as a general rule(isn't that what the Nazi's did). But whatever, I already spoke to Ceri James a few years back who quite possibly wrote this article himself - I don't know. I think he was a bit worried there would be confusion about the name that's why he wrote to me. The problem is that it causes too much confusion. He used to be in a band called The Mountaineers(not sure if he still is I think he left) he is not a solo singersongwriter under the name Ceri James. His own solo project is called something else so he should write that name onto wikipedia. Also he wasn't in the Ordinary Boys original line up I think he was drafted in a as a session musician - and the Ordinary Boys don't even exist now. If he's mainly a session musician he should state that otherwise it could mislead people. My own solo album under the name Ceri James is in all major record stores and downloads. It's registered for the chart and I'm a member of the PRS. This article uses Ceri James myspace but I actually have the CeriJames url on myspace he has another url for his solo project under a completely different name. I think for the benefit of both parties the article either needs to be ammended or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.15.164 ( talk) 15:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete despite the drama surrounding this I've decided to way in. I don't believe the Mountaineers meet notability criteria (based on the content of their article), which would mean that the subject of this article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC (unless all members of notable bands are notable - in which case I'm wrong). Problem is from looking around I don't think the "other Ceri James" (the nom) meets the criteria any better under that name based on searches I've been able to do. I say delete and protect (as it is easy enough to request unprotection if either of the two (or both) prove to be notable in future. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
It's not a question of he isn't as important as me - people have a right to know accuate information - this article doesn't really provide that. I tried to edit this article to explain who I am and that we are two different people not one and the same but that got deleted by someone on wikipedia. If wikipedia keeps supplying inaccurate, incomplete or poorly researched information no one will take it seriously. Any person who looks up this article couldquite easily end up assuming we are the same person. As I said I don't know all the procedures and guidlines but it needs amending or deletion end of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerijames ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I think Jasynnash2 might be right his proposal might be the fairest way forward. If the article had been about Ceri James the keyboardist and session musician I'd have had no problem with it. It's the singersongwriter part which is causing confusion. I think it must be wikipedia policy that all articles contain accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.15.164 ( talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
weak delete/ammend' true enough he was a session musician(possibly still is)for Echo & The Bunnymen and Ordinary Boys but I'm not sure that being a session man for either of these bands constitutes being a significant band member. He wasn't a founder member or significant member in either band and he is already mentioned in the Echo and the Bunnymen article so there doesn't need to be a seperate article. Although he definitely was a founding and significant member of the Mountaineers it's unlikely that they reach notability either cause they only released one album. Even if they did then this article should redirect and not mention contain personal references to his own project which doesn't obtain notability. If wikipedia believes his session work does obtain notability then again personal references to his own project shouldn't really be mentioned as again this could create a conflict of interest and isn't relevant at the moment. Perhaps the fairest way would be to ammend the article - I know alot of people are unhappy with the whole deletion process on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.194.58 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. His claim to fame is being director of a department in a non-notable company and producing an unnamed documentary. Google hits turn up different Ari Kaplans. Smashville BONK! 22:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as marginally spam: a non-notable company and web site. Article has serious conflict of interest concerns. Bearian ( talk) 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company article created by company employees. Most of those editing this article have also spammed other articles with links to their website. The only sources in the article are: the company website, another company's website that doesn't mention the company, the third is a MediaPost article about one of the company's websites - this one could be reliable...but keep in mind, it's not about the article subject, just something owned by the article subject, the fourth is a link to another of their sites, the fifth is a press release, the sixth is a picture and the seventh is a link to the ASJA cautioning people from doing business with the subject. Smashville BONK! 22:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was snowball keep. No consensus to delete. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 ( talk) 01:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This term does not appear to be notable. While it is clearly used, as seen by the two external links that use it, there is nothing to provide notability for this term itself. seresin (public computer) 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable rock band; db-band tag removed by an anon IP with no other edits. There is a COI issue - the author is a member of the band - but the main point is that they don't, by a long way, meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Only 128 ghits, mostly blogs and Myspace. Their first record, said to have been released "to great critical acclaim", gets 9 Ghits. JohnCD ( talk) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by Esanchez7587 , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 23:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Slang, real? chiefhuggybear ( talk) 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
There's nothing notable about this karaoke album. A list of the varioius disney karaoke albums might be worth having but not individual articles Wolfer68 ( talk) 21:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete under A3 criteria. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a link directory. Damiens.rf 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Condiment that is supposedly "one of the world's popular side sauces, on the same level as soy sauce and ketchup", but with no sources to back it up. A google search finds no direct hits for "Pork Sauce". Fails WP:V and a possible hoax. Mars2035 ( talk) 21:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Mars2035 ( talk) 21:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep(Non-admin closure) the nomination reason is obsolete as the page now lists two articles and no other delete reasons were offered. - IcĕwedgЁ ( ťalķ) 05:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
A disambiguation page that disambiguates nary an article. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) ( receiver, archives) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight ( talk) 16:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
We have deleted this twice as spam but it don't seem too bad to me. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 20:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight ( talk) 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination as per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 22#Vic Jacobs, closed as overturn and relist (see first AfD). PeterSymonds (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article originally PRODded with the rationale:
“ | Club formed less than a month ago, has never played a match, and will commence the new season in a regional league approximately seven levels below the 10th level of the English football league system, which is generally considered to be the cut-off point for notability. Also no sources which would satisfy WP:N - zero hits on Google for "Colne JFC", nothing for "Colne FC Juniors" other than reports of under-9/under-10 matches. | ” |
“ | They haven't played a match as the season hasn't started yet. And the league they are in, which has been going for 103 years, has it's own article on Wikpedia, so there's no reason why the team's should not be able to have their own articles. There will obviously be zero hits for the team on Google as it is a newly formed club, less than a month old. Once the season commences in August I'm sure the team will have a few hits on Google. Also the under 9/10 teams are part of the youth set-up of this team, so you can argue that those hits on Google count for this team. | ” |
The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight ( talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Finalnight reply
(Contested prod.)
WP:LISTCRUFT. No encyclopaedic value as it will never be complete. There's already a category of ITV programmes so this is just an unnecessary duplicate.
Ros0709 (
talk)
19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 23:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Again, User:Skanter, creates another useless page. The Mexican population is really small. There is really nothing about Mexicans in Brazil. In fact, in his only source in this page, he incorrectly list the population at 1,100, but it if you read the source that is the number of Brazilians who lived in Mexico and then later returned back to Brazil. These people are not Mexican. In that source is says the Mexican population in Brazil is 664. Why is there an article for 664 people, and there is no information about them. This article is not notable. Lehoiberri ( talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete if anything, it's a "definition" but not an encyclopedia article. Am I a "Texan Kansan" ??-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic and not verifiable. Google search results in two unrelated hits. Crowsnest ( talk) 19:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the consensus commentary. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Neologism Madcoverboy ( talk) 19:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. If you still feel strongly about merging, address it on the article talk page. — Maggot Syn 10:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not a noteworthy book per WP:NB Livitup ( talk) 19:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia isn't a directory, and certainly isn't a catalog to list every event. Relevant ECW events are already listed on List of ECW pay-per-view events. RobJ1981 ( talk) 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. On a strict vote count it would be a no consensus, but the complete lack of references from reliable sources means that it doesn't meet WP:V, and that's non-negotiable. Stifle ( talk) 09:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable recently created martial art; more ghits seem to be for the similarly named art derived instead from American Kenpo and for non-martial arts usages of the term. JJL ( talk) 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete; may be editorially redirected to where ever. Sandstein 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Nominating for deletion: assistant football coach and college football player, has not met guidelines for notability set forth in Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. There are some references, some of which have some quality, and I think they get over the line. The weight of the arguments is roughly equal. Stifle ( talk) 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Low notability outside of Australian chess...? Tim ( talk) 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted under G1. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article purports to be about the "War of the broken oar", a rivalry between Georgia Tech and Clemson. While other rivalries involving the schools are well-documented ( Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate or Textile Bowl, qq.v.), this article provides no reliable sources that document the use of this name. Additional searching turned up no sources. Accordingly, the article fails the verifiability guideline. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - unanimous vote -- JForget 23:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Disputed Prod. Special event radio station with a one-week permit scheduled to operate in July. Promotional tone with no 3rd-party WP:RS coverage. Its short term nature fails WP:NOT#NEWS. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete, no claim to notability, transient interest only. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Canon EOS; implemented as a redirect for now so that the merge can occur from the history. Sandstein 20:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This non-notable commercial product was previously nominated; the result was "merge". Four months later, the merge hasn't happend, so I'm nominating again. Mikeblas ( talk) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List of Nokia products. Only one "vote" suggests keeping the article in its current form. The history is preserved so anyone who wishes to merge anything can do so. Stifle ( talk) 10:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This article remains a stub because insufficient substantial third-party references exist to make this a useful article; at least, one that's not itself an advert or a review. The previous AfD resulted in "keep" because many users insisted there was no problem securing references for this product, and that it was notable. After five months, the article remains an uncited stub that reads like an advertisement. Mikeblas ( talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
7250 was the most stolen handset". Colonel Warden ( talk) 09:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, A7, G11, and now SNOW. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete yet another "promising band" that doesn't meet WP:BAND Mayalld ( talk) 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, no evidence of notability. TravellingCari the Busy Bee 03:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources discuss this band. Fails WP:MUSIC indopug ( talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
20:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Td7603 ( talk)I see plenty of noted referances. perhaps it was referanced incorrectly?
The result was Userfy. Stifle ( talk) 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 15:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
mine has refrences , plot, cast list, and this one ive listed is a sentence and a refrence from an unreliable source. if ur gonna mark my article for deletion, u better mark that one while ur at it.-- Jwein ( talk) 01:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to Elvis Presley. Anyone wanting to merge in part or all of the content can access it in the history. Stifle ( talk) 10:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Any sourced views of Elvis can be discussed on his page. Weird start "Not much has been written about Elvis's political views" Tenacious D Fan ( talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
<--
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild ( talk) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article seems to fail the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC. The band has released 1 album under an independent label ( WP:MUSIC requires at least 2 albums on a major label or a notable independent label), there has been no non-trivial media coverage from independent and reliable sources and the band has not charted a hit on any national music chart although there is mention of having a hit single on a local radio station. All in all, it seems to be a band that may be known locally but, again, it fails the basic tenets of WP:N and WP:MUSIC. SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
-->
The result was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The Elvis lives conspiracy theory is discussed in the Elvis Presley phenomenon article. The "Media examples" is purely a trivia list. Tenacious D Fan ( talk) 15:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I find it hard to believe anyone would consider deleting this article. Elvis sightings are a widely-known phenomenon and figure as largely in popular culture as Catholic saint apparitions. They have been continuing for at least 20 years and there are several websites devoted to the phenomenon. They can conceivably be considered distinctly separate from the "Elvis lives" conspiracy theory, as many of the "sighters" are not subscribers to any particular theory about Elvis. At any rate, readers may want to consult a catalog of sightings not unlike a discography or list of tour dates. I think the article should stay although I can't comment on revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.108.141 ( talk • contribs)
The result was Delete -- JForget 23:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company Madcoverboy ( talk) 15:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Hungarian artist; disputed deletion. DeletionAccount ( talk) 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sher eth 22:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsalvageable article about a minor participant on daytime reality TV Madcoverboy ( talk) 15:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Information in this article already exists at 1960s in fashion, 1970s in fashion, 1980s in fashion, and 1990s in fashion. Captain panda 14:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nom before any commentary began. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
A NASDAQ listing (which can be purchased, albeit at a stiff cost) is not in itself notable. The text of this unsourced, single sentence stub offers no hint of notability. Fails WP:CORP. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, no evidence he passes WP:ATHLETE. TravellingCari the Busy Bee 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Did what I could to salvage this article about a high school basketball player. Found sources where I could. Still not convinced subject meets WP:N. Dloh cierekim 14:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per unanimous vote and WP:MUSIC argument-- JForget 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete yet another "up and coming musician", who will undoubtedly warrant an article if at some point in the future he actually becomes a notable musician unlike 99%+ of up and coming musicians. One single source, and no others found. Doesn't meet WP:MUS Mayalld ( talk) 14:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Got a smidge of media coverage for supposedly being one of the many victims of Anthony Pellicano. However, all the coverage that she received is one from one event. There's also wp:blp concerns. brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
There's more to her story. I've heard of her and recall she did something with TechTV, Kevin Mitnick and some Linux thing. Frankly, any hot girl that's into Linux has my vote. I'll dig around also and see what I can find. Lexlex ( talk) 16:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, with kudos to Paul Erik.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
A pop music group which entered the contest to choose the UK entry for the Eurovision Song Contest and didn't win. No evidence of any actual released material, doesn't seem to meet any requirement of WP:MUSIC -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 13:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Don't appeared to be signed. Buc ( talk) 22:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. As Paul Erik points out, this article clearly meets WP:N, or WP:MUSIC criterion 1, so should not be deleted.
The result was No consensus to delete. Anyone wishing to merge the articles can do so. Stifle ( talk) 10:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons discussed below:
While i am trying to assume good faith here, it also appears to me that the article creator is aware of the article's heavy bias ( [7], [8]) or even untroubled by this situation. i am inclined towards deleting both but i'm at quite a loss on how to go forward, so thought i would request community viewpoints. Thanks. tomasz. 13:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is about a planned sequel to the 2002 film Dog Soldiers, but it has not entered production. Furthermore, there is not even an IMDb listing, which usually exists for projects in development. Per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not warranted. No issue with mentioning the consideration of a sequel in the article for the first Dog Soldiers film. Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Just for the record, if anyone was curious, the tapeworm business came about as the result of a loss of a accent mark in a bad cut-and-paste job. Alas for electronic translations. Sher eth 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable Myspace musician, nom under WP:N and WP:MUSIC AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 13:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into Nice (WIPO). PhilKnight ( talk) 10:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:RS. Any important information can be merged into Trademark. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted. Article did not assert any notability ( WP:CSD A7), and looked like marketing for the company ( WP:CSD G11). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Although google search shows several ghits [17], there is no significant coverage is multiple reliable sources. Same for google news, no significant coverage, only passing sound. Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Walter Russell#University of Science and Philosophy (non-admin closure). Finalnight ( talk) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Fails to assert notability. Jehochman Talk 12:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, speedy g7 author request. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fantasy novel from a vanity press publisher, created by an SPA. Only 22 G-hits, all of which are either this article, Wiki mirrors or various online sales outlets. No reliable sources, or indeed reviews or articles about the book on any level. Completely fails WP:BK's criteria. RGTraynor 12:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The book is still new so it hasn't had any reviews about it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealRael ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was consensus to keep. — Athaenara ✉ 00:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Product or company has no significant coverage in secondary sources. Only passing mention of brand in some newspapers. Fails WP:N. Also written like an advertisement. Assize ( talk) 12:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus: default to keep. — Athaenara ✉ 00:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This list is highly subjective, randomly assembled, and somewhat strange: why wouldn't people from a specific location speak in the accent of that location? Besides, as any New Yorker will testify, there is no such thing as a Noo Yawk accent -- someone from the Bronx does not sound like someone from Brooklyn. Ecoleetage ( talk) 12:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Strongly oppose 1. This article has been a long standing section of the New York Dialect article (several years?), and no one has ever proposed deletion of the section before.
2. Hence, I was surprised when first the section was precipitously deleted and then when it was cut and moved to a new article -- without any discussion on the Talk page, as WP:CIVIL would suggest.
3. I continue to believe that it makes sense as part of New York Dialect, because it provides exemplars of notable people (in the public eye) who speak New York Dialect -- giving indications of pronunciation, rhythm and other subtleties. However, perhaps a cross-link to a separate article is ok.
4. There is a major factual mistake in Ecoleetage's account. The user thinks that Bronx speaks differently than Brooklyn. However, a good deal of scholarship by Prof William Labov and others that there is a single New York dialect, predominantly spoken by white New Yorkers. This is extensively discussed in the main New York Dialect article. I am surprised that User Ecoleetage did not read it, and I am surprised as a non-native speaker of English (from his User page), that he is so ready to make pronouncements about such matters. I would hesitate to do so about Spanish pronunciation. The fact that the User did make this mistake shows the need for the main article and the exemplifying list of notable speakers.
Bellagio99 ( talk) 14:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I support ChrisRuvolo's position exactly. One logical addition would be to admit in future only names referenced sources. Also, as the main article states no one has demonstrated any substantial differences within the dialect area beyond pronunciations of specific sites and perhaps local vocabulary. mnewmanqc ( talk) 17:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article was speedy tagged but I have declined. To me it seems not a question of notability because there is plenty of information to show that he is - but is it enough - I leave it to the wikipedia community to decide. PS the youtube links are worth watching. PPS I have no idea why there is a link to Cadiz at the bottom of the page. -- VS talk 11:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - Article regarding this software fails WP:RS and is simply not notable. Pmedema ( talk) 11:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete -- if kept this wants re-editing to remove the promotional sheen and place it into an objective stance. But I would need to be satisfied of notability and of source of reputable reviews. -- Simon Cursitor ( talk) 09:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Articles main author placed a "hang-on" request (most probably in good faith) but the article has never been speedied - however on my reading (without an expertise on this type of sport and its various leagues) I have moved to AfD for further consultation. I offer no personal opinion at this time. -- VS talk 11:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Bevan Lawrence. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "Delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was speedied - but I declined. I have taken to AfD instead as article appears to fail WP:Band - this will give editors a chance to consider and clean up. -- VS talk 11:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete non notable fails WP:BAND. BigDunc Talk 11:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, no evidence of external notability.. TravellingCari the Busy Bee 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
College dorm at Stanford University with no objective claims of notability and almost no coverage outside the university. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was close with no recommendations. No one here is suggesting this article be deleted. Redirects/merges are an editorial decision and should be discussed appropriately. I will suggest, however, that the participants bear in mind an article can be redirected without the loss of information, as anything in the article history can easily be merged into the target article at a future date. Sher eth 17:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
All the page contains is an etymology which doesn't give the etymology, and a list of pop-culture references, to items none of which have been considered significant enough to get their own entry. Is this really enough for an article? Redirect to Prostitute -- Jheald ( talk) 10:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The whole article has been corrupted to the point of irrelevancy. Not to long ago it noted that a harlot was originally a "sacred prostitute". All these references have been removed leaving a meaningless word. I say the previous article should be restored. Ewawer ( talk) 22:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per crystal ball and notability problems. Davewild ( talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:CRYSTAL, all very vague about a book that may be coming out sometime this year Ged UK ( talk) 11:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline at this time. Davewild ( talk) 20:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Google search for article's subject:
Sandcastles film
This article does not appear to be notable because nearly everyone involved is a redlink, and if it's notable (and has been out since 2004) it would have had an article ages ago. ......
Dendodge ..
Talk
Help
20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC). Above is a Google search link to help you determine notability.
reply
Google search for article's subject:
Sandcastles Rymsza and
Zamki z piasku Rymsza
This film's US distribution had been withheld until the completion of its companion film, Dustclouds. Please note that it had been released in Poland under the title "Zamki z piasku" and that it's aired on Polish and US TV (
[21])
Its theatrical and DVD releases are set for 2008.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 20:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is about a film that does not appear meet the requirements for notability. A search for reliable sources about the film on Google News turns up a couple of articles that mention th film, but no substantial coverage. Additionally, as a future film, it does not yet appear to be filming in contravention of conventions for inclusion of future films. Their website has been down for some time. A google cache version would seem to indicate the flm is in pre-production. Finally, there are verifiability issues with the article content. There is no IMDB entry for the film. There is no mention of the film in the IMDB entries for Jacke Chan and Mohan Lal who are both identified as having parts in the film. Whpq ( talk) 10:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources, so tagged for over a year. He may or may not satisfy
WP:MUSIC by having been a member of notable bands, but apparently there are no sources to
verify the article's content.
Huon (
talk)
09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Snowball Delete among established editors or rather editors minus the possible meatpuppets. -- JForget 01:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn music producers whose only claim to fame is that they produced a single for a nn artist. No RS for any of this. Mayalld ( talk) 09:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
my manger will add more info when it comes available —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainetoronto2000 ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC) — Mainetoronto2000 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was Speedy Deleted (by me) per G12 - Copyright Violation. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not a notable game, unpublished. Can't see an appropriate speedy category Ged UK ( talk) 08:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
To quote Closeapple: "cut-and-paste duplicate of other articles; unsustainable, subjective list with no criteria". — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 08:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to McDonald's advertising (non-admin closure). Finalnight ( talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable promotional campaign from the 1970. The article has no citations (originally noted in September 2007), and is primarily a collection of the lyrics. Also, the external link is a spam link. Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable comic. Prod was removed, and some claims added, but I can't find any reliable independent sources about the comic. There are no Google News results [24], and only 22 Google hits in total [25], of which some dozen are about the comic. The comic exists and is published in one small newspaper, but hasn't been remarked upon by reliable sources independent of the author or the publishers. Fram ( talk) 08:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. -- VS talk 12:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Her only notability seems to be that she's the granddaughter of Johnny Carson. The article's main thrust was that she had no contact with him and was cut off from his inheritance. I've taken all that out as it was unsourced as per WP:BLP, which doesn't leave us with much. Ged UK ( talk) 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I originally marked for speedy as a hoax, however the author has added links. Here's the problem...none of the people listed are mentioned anywhere as being involved in the project...in fact Kym Jackson is in the middle of three other projects at this time and this still isn't mentioned. It appears to be a really elaborate hoax with a fantastic web site...even if it's not a hoax it still fails WP:V and WP:N and WP:Crystal. No objection to recreation if it's ever released and reviewed by a major news outlet. LegoTech·( t)·( c) 06:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, as unverifiable from reliable sources. Davewild ( talk) 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
In short, this is a fine nesting cupset of fiction: neither the facts of the story, the "legend" about them, the documentary about the legend or the feature film about the making of the documentary appear to exist. P L E A T H E R talk 06:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply"The film opens as we visit the graveyard where your great-great-great-great grandfather Johnny McCoy is buried (we'll use local graveyards & the Malibu Canyon)...You'll get to have fun with a full range on this project."
The result was no consensus; the article has been heavily edited and the original reasons for deletion do not seem to apply to most of the new content. Sandstein 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is full of NPOV problems. For one, it fails WP:V in most aspects. No citations for the majority. Not an encyclopedic article. Delete or possible merge if anything out there fits. Undeath ( talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Stifle ( talk) 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
SchmuckyTheCat listed this for speedy deletion, but I removed that due to it seeming that 263.net is very well known, particularly for its earlier years and reputation for being responsible for a lot of spam. Google news shows the following results , web search yields the following results; those are in English only, perhaps Chinese language searches will provide more results; this one needs more input from the community at large, seeing as it is the only entity listed in Category:Internet service providers of China, surely there must be some notable ISPs in China, is this one? Россавиа Диалог 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. — Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
:
Method Man (song) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
delete) Cancel this one, as
User:JuJube said; see
Billboard charts
Yes, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) is one of the greatest hip hop albums ever, but not every song that hasn't been released is notable. They fail WP:MUSIC#Songs. I'm nominating for deletion the following articles:
#
Method Man (song)
Do U(knome)?
yes...|
or no ·
04:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete - Kevin ( talk) 09:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No notability. Orphaned article. IndulgentReader ( talk) 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Although there are more opinions leaning toward deletion, I don't see the harm in keeping this as a search term. Seraphim♥ Whipp 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable charitable organisation, of seemingly limited influence. Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Libertarian Party state affiliate, which is probably the most consensual outcome. The (very meagre) content is already there. This does not prejudice against a WP:SS spinoff should size considerations ever require one. Sandstein 20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable franchise (chapter) of national org, per WP:ORG. • Freechild 'sup? 03:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as not asserting notability. If you want a copy of this article to include information in the FreeDOS article, let me know. Alex Muller 21:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, no reason given. Unreleased fork of open-source software ( FreeDOS); being open source, anyone can simply copy the original code and start a new project claiming that significant improvements are underway. This fork has no sources and no notability. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 02:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion or evidence of notability. Reads like an advertisement. Contested prod from anon SPA stating "As an x86 DOS this product is inherently notable", which I believe is a complete fabrication. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 02:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete on the balance of it all. The articles provided as references prove that he exists, has written some articles, and is no longer employed by the NY Press. There is nothing other than tangential mentions, and as has been pointed out, they do not confer notability. Stifle ( talk) 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. Was deleted as a prod but then hostilely contested a while after deletion. Notability not established per WP:CREATIVE. There are thousands of journalists, not all of them are notable - He's hardly a Sy Hersh. There is no indication that this one is particularly more notable than any other. Ave Caesar ( talk) 02:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Such childishness. It is good knowledge and Alan Cabal is someone I would like to know more about. Can we know more about him? This is an Article for Expansion.- Manhattan Samurai ( talk) 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep and expand— He seems "pretty fucking notable." And I'm not even Alan Cabal! In all seriousness now, he seems notable, and with some more citations and refs, the article will be a pretty decent stub. Leonard^Bloom ( talk) 03:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep the brutal deletionist policy that has aflicted certain articles such as Alan Cabal or Murder of Joseph Didier must be brought to a stop NOW. Smith Jones ( talk) 03:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Whoa! Who the Hell am I? I hope this isn't getting too vicious.
I've got several dozen articles in the "archives" of www.nypress.com, starting HERE:
Christ, that's a long URL. I hope it works. If it doesn't, just go to www.nypress.com. Under "archive" you'll see a search box. Enter "Alan Cabal" (in quotes), go for "oldest first."
I'm still doing book reviews for High Times, but they don't post those on the web. Calling a spade a spade has its cost vis-a-vis subjects like Israel and Ernst Zundel, and I've paid it, happily. I never set out to be any kind of "journalist", it happened by accident. Given a voice, I will state the truth as I see it, and I did.
Anyway, I'm not a journalist, I'm a polemicist. Fucking Cassandra is what I am, heh. I prefer setting up and tearing down live spectacles, like rock shows and circuses. That line of work staves off my well-deserved heart attack.
Thanks to you, and all best wishes to my allies and friends. May my enemies' poo come to life and kiss them on the lips.
Best,
Alan Cabal
The thing to do is find the article Mr. Cabal wrote about Ernst Zundel and use that as a reference. If possible, even find some "talk" resulting from the article.- Manhattan Samurai ( talk) 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
These sources are strong enough to support an entire article, and these are just the ones I found on a google search of Alan cabal. I am sure that there are innumerable more searches on the Internet as well as in books, newspapers, etc. Smith Jones ( talk) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep per Silktork's baseball player argument. the_ed 17 18:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Only sources seem to be based on a throwaway comment by the artists. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
T-Pain and Lil Wayne did mention about collaborating an album together but that's all that was said. No further sources claiming an album and the "Got Money" single was a Lil Wayne single, not as a duo. WP:CRYSTAL (not much else is said) Esanchez( Talk 2 me or Sign here) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not asserted Tim ( talk) 01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to The Clique series. Stifle ( talk) 11:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable group of characters from a series of novels. Aleready covered in the main series article, the first book article and the template. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 00:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was } - Speedy snowball keep - Early close as, apart from the unanimity, the previous three AfDs had the same debate character and continuing this is clearly not going to acheive any other outcome than keep - Peripitus (Talk) 13:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Other comedians do not have articles dedicated to the information regarding their stage persona. Why is there not a George Lopez (Character) article regarding the character George Lopez on the television show, or why not a John Oliver (Character) for the Oliver's stage persona while performing on The Daily Show? The simply answer is that the stage persona of a comedian or an actor is not notable enough to have a complete article for the dedication of a stage persona. In accordance Wikipedia's deletion policy, I gave enough time from the previous deletion before starting this deletion discuss.
To those who wish to keep the article, answer the following points
Please address the preceding points to validate a decision to keep the article. Bigvinu ( talk) 00:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Wisconsin Public Radio. The edit history is still there for anyone who wants to merge it. Stifle ( talk) 10:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails to establish why this radio show is notable. Show is syndicated across Wisconsin and in parts of Idaho but without references, it's hard to make a case for notability. Google News brings up little of use, EBSCO database search of newspapers brings up only a single mention, in an interview with one of the hosts in The Wisconsin State Journal. Fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability Rtphokie ( talk) 00:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. BJ Talk 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008#District 8. I would suggest that interested editors revisit this issue post-election to determine whether the provided sourcing indicates sufficiently notability for a standalone article, but should not be restored prior to that without the emergence of significant new sourcing. As there is no consensus to delete this material, the edit history is preserved beneath the redirect. Sher eth 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO Manion is a first time congressional candidate with pretty much no notability prior to the campaign. If he wins, then obviously he is notable, but any assumption about future notability would be more or less crystal balling. Montco ( talk) 03:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per the changes and expansion of the article with new sources establishing notability and potential for an article. Davewild ( talk) 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails notability standards, has only one source, and couldn't possibly grow into anything worthwhile. DurinsBane87 ( talk) 07:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Horologium (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This looks like a hoax. No hits on Google for his full name and no relevant hits from his initials (P. E. J. Oakley, Peter E. J. Oakley, P. E. Oakley, E. J. Oakley). Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply