< 3 December | 5 December > |
---|
The result was keep. Frank | talk 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a collection of news headlines. Tavix | Talk 23:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. JForget 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete as an unreferenced list with a non-notable intersection. "current" is not static, which provides significant challenge for being encyclopedic. Tavix | Talk 23:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 11:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The subject software of this article is non-notable and entirely unsourced. It has never been sourced. There was an AfD in 2006 when web software had no notability standards and the reason to keep then (google hits) would not result in the article being kept now. Miami33139 ( talk) 23:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tragic death, but aside from his death he didn't received significant coverage. Didn't pass WP:ATHLETE and WP:MEMORIAL applies. Fences& Windows 00:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable athlete. Does not pass WP:ATHLETE. While his death is tragic, it is not notable and Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Reywas92 Talk 23:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 21:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NFF, this has only recently entered production, and the production itself is not notable. Wait until they're in post-production to add it. — ShadowRanger ( talk| stalk) 22:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11. ( non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 00:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising of an organisation. Eight Ounce Kitten ( talk) 22:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 11:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I found one ref besides myspace here. The article has been cleaned up good by editors, but it started as a poor vanity article. Is the one ref enough to keep this, afaik fails all of wp:music Pirate Argh!!1! 22:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Giver. I'm redirecting, editors can pick whatever material might be useful out of the history. Fences& Windows 00:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is all original research and there is already an article on Wikipedia - The Giver. Eight Ounce Kitty 21:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The result was redirect to ItaloBrothers. JForget 21:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod - original prod rationale was that it failed WP:NSONGS; I'm inclined to agree Falcon8765 ( talk) 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
— J04n( talk page) 13:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. And since we've no place to go...... ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 01:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
One award and one reference in a local paper is not enough to keep in the face of our usual presumption that grade schools are not notable. ukexpat ( talk) 21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
UKexpat - Adding an article on Wikipedia has become a lot more difficult than I thought it was going to be. Your assertion "One award and one reference in a local paper is not enough to keep in the face of our usual presumption that grade schools are not notable" is disappointing. It's a national award given by the US Dept. of Education. Very few schools across the country have won more than once--we've received it twice. The reference is from The Philadelphia Inquirer, which has a circulation of a few million subscribers. Trishlockett ( talk) 22:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Actually no, I'm the marketing director, not a teacher. Let me give you some background on why I've spent several hours of my day here today. I went to a workshop yesterday on social media and the CIO of a school whose school's article is on WP told all of us how easy and beneficial it was to be on Wikipedia. So, I jumped on here this morning. Again, I had no idea it was going to be so difficult. Any suggestions? Trishlockett ( talk) 22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Thank you all for your input and your patience for this WP newbie. I'll continue to work on the article. What a great idea involving our students. They've probably already contributed to other articles in the past. I apologize for my naivete. Trishlockett ( talk) 02:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'm deleting before Transwiki. This material is no use to Wiktionary, the sources aren't any good: they need permanently archived sources that attest to the use, not websites, and most of those terms are in Wiktionary anyway. If anyone wants a copy for userspace, let me know. Fences& Windows 00:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A combination of an indiscriminate list and, primarily, a list of dictionary words. Coming from the second link, "Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides." (bolding mine). Additionally, the references used are very iffy: going through, the most unreliable sources used are about.com, wiktionary, urbandictionary, and slangsearch. Mm40 ( talk) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 01:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet notability guidelines and lacks sources. Article includes very little detail. Sottolacqua ( talk) 20:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A stub about a roller coast that is scheduled to start rolling next year. Prod tag disputed by the article's creator. Problems with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. Warrah ( talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Cbbcfan ( talk) 10:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Definite consensus to delete. This bio as it stands definitely has no place in Wikipedia. The notability is also very much in doubt. Fences& Windows 20:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a long and rambling career résumé, and badly written at that. It's an essay, original research, an advert, and I'll welcome anyone who says it ought to be speedied. I just can't quite justify nominating it there. But it has so much that screams "speedy" to me and even looks like a copyvio, though I can't find the source! Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 11:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable hobby book for aviation enthusiasts, one of many on the market. Nothing to show why it is anymore notable than any other. Contested prod, article had been deleted a year ago following a prod for lack of notability MilborneOne ( talk) 18:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. no consensus for deletion JForget 21:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The attempt to find more reliable sources has failed. The merge proposal has been on the page for ages now. No signs of interest or explanations are given on both talk pages. This article here is solely base on the primary source and the fact that this name was on the FBI list for a while. For me it looks 99 % sure that it is Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi and in this case i do not think there is much to merge. Abdul Rahim al-Sharqawi has already a section about the rendition, maybe just the fact that he was on the FBI list and then delete and redirect. If we speak about two different individuals than this article should be deleted because it fails WP:BIO notability and my attempt to find reliable secondary sources have failed. IQinn ( talk) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The article appears to be OR, based on a concept created by the page's creator and primary author ( Rsantiag. The article has only two sources, both self-published and created by Rodrigo Santiago. Searches did not find any additional references to this concept other than by Santiago. Absent additional sourcing, topic is not notable at this time. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Ravensfire ( talk) reply
The result was keep. Cirt ( talk) 11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A twitter client with a few reviews linked as sources - but nothing that seems to establish notability. Random Time 16:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete Zsinj Talk 02:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources found Polarpanda ( talk) 15:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
While I have the highest regard for all our men and women in military service, it has already been established that the Silver Star, as only the third highest award for valor in the order of precedence, is not considered notable in of itself to be suitable criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The fact that Sgt. Hester is female does not change this fact. She is a soldier and we need to make uniform standards for inclusion. Rapier1 ( talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep - I don't have access to deleted articles and it's unfortunate that (if I'm interpreting your talk page correctly) the article about your father, who was also a Silver Star recipient, was deleted (is that policy written down somewhere?), but in fact Sergeant Hester's gender is exactly what makes her notable. -- CliffC ( talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Shamsul Alam
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 01:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
As with Sgt. Hester: While I have the highest regard for all our men and women in military service, it has already been established that the Silver Star, as only the third highest award for valor in the order of precedence, is not considered notable in of itself to be suitable criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The fact that Sgt. Brown is female does not change this fact. She is a soldier and we need to make uniform standards for inclusion. Rapier1 ( talk) 17:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep - I don't have access to deleted articles and it's unfortunate that (if I'm interpreting your talk page correctly) the article about your father, who was also a Silver Star recipient, was deleted (is that policy written down somewhere?), but in fact Sergeant Brown's gender is exactly what makes her notable. -- CliffC ( talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 21:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
wp:crystal. This article seems like a random assortment of predictions about technological developments in the 21st century. I'm not against having this article, but there seems to be no consensus, among the people making these predictions, about what developments will take place, other than the existence of nanotechnology itself in some form. I think this article would have to be entirely rewritten, and have at the very least an outline of the groups of people making these predictions and how they differ from each other. Bob A ( talk) 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn and sources provided. Fences& Windows 00:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability ( WP:BAND). Google search fails to produce any non-trivial reliable sources and news search fails to produce any as well. The article has two third-party sources linked, but it's not exactly significant coverage. Ks0stm ( T• C• G) 16:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Orginal prod comments: "Seems to be WP:Original Research, an essay published by the user. Specifically WP:Synth, and included e-mail address suggests this is an advertisement."
Prod was contested with no reason provided. Another editor has since removed the e-mail from the article, yet it still seems to be an implied advertisement per "These are only examples of interpretations which I have already given to some of my clients." in the text, although this is not blatant as it may be taken from another source, as there are references present.
On balance though, doesn't seem like the kind of topic an encyclopedia would cover even after clean-up to remove synthesis. Thoughts? Taelus ( talk) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Alliance Rail. Despite the limited coverage, the consensus is to combine Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail) and Great North Western Railway into a new article about the parent company, Alliance Rail. Go to it! Fences& Windows 15:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. The reason from the proposed deletion was as follows:
There was a flurry of news articles in late September following a press release by Alliance Rail which suggested they had submitted proposals to the ORR but nothing else has emerged since nor have any details of applications appeared on the ORR website. I propose this is deleted until, or if, anything more concrete emerges such as an ORR application, particularly when the service is planned not start for four years and the reports of a dispute with Grand Central cast further doubt about the likelihood of this getting off the ground.
The prod tag was removed, without explanation by Fizzycreative ( talk · contribs), which at the current time is that user's only edit. A Google search for the username reveals a a graphic design company of that name. The website notes that the company has been working with the subject of this article to design a logo which suggests a conflict of interests. It also suggests work is continuing to develop the services described in the article but I would maintain that until evidence of an application to run the services appears on the ORR website, it is premature to have an article about this subject which could easily come to nothing.
There is also a sister company, Great North Western Railway, which I also proposed for deletion and hasn't yet been contested. If it is whilst this AfD is still ongoing then I'll add it to this discussion since exactly the same issues apply to both. Adambro ( talk) 15:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No indication that this is notable in any way, no sources given. — Chowbok ☠ 15:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Obviously this was trending strongly toward a delete until the last couple of days, at which point a number of credible and valid keep votes came in and additional sources were provided. Were this to be relisted (which I considered doing given that new info came in late), it's likely this might have ended with an even stronger "keep" sentiment, but I don't think it's worthwhile to bother extending the discussion. It's worth pointing out that the only choice here in my view (after factoring in strength and validity of argument) was between closing as no consensus or "keep" outright, in part because some of the delete comments do not really provide a rationale, and in part because some obviously missed sources when searching for info about the article subject (a lack of familiarity with Australian politics no doubt also played a role).
The concerns mentioned by Robofish in terms of BLP are well taken, particularly as this is a figure of relatively marginal notability who has received some rather negative coverage. At this time we don't have consensus to delete this BLP article in particular or these types of BLPs in general, but the least everyone here can do in the interim is watchlist the article and try to keep it up to snuff going forward. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article was prodded on Nov. 27 with the following rationale: "no credible assertion of notability, no sources supporting basic facts, possible BLP violations." On Dec. 2, User:Rotovia removed the prod with the message "see talk." However, no such discussion was posted on the talk page, then or later. The fact is that the prod was correct: this article makes no credible assertion of notability. He's a right-wing blogger, but those are a dime a dozen; no effort is made to show that he meets our inclusion guidelines for biographies or that his website meets WP:WEB. The majority of material in this article has no citations, and there have already been BLP concerns as well as serious conflicts between the article subject and Wikipedia administrators. This article is unmaintainable crap that we don't need. *** Crotalus *** 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 11:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No coverage by reliable third-party sources. Additionally scope of activities is not international or even national in scale thus failing WP:CLUB. The article is filled with unencyclopedic, non-verifiable, that when removed would leave absolutely nothing in the article.
(The sources in the article, btw, are not reliable, and winning interschool events does not satisfy notability guidelines) Aditya Ex Machina 14:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Actually, the sources are as reliable as most others, though it may not satisfy notability guidelines.-- Karmanyaaggarwal ( talk) 15:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 03:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
She undoubtedly exists; she certainly wrote (co-wrote, actually) the book mentioned; and she gets a few hits on Scholar. Does this cross the bar for notability? I'd suggest it doesn't. Black Kite 14:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted. TN X Man 14:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No indications that this person ever actually existed. Fails WP:BIO. Perhaps falls under WP:HOAX as the person is claimed to be president of Dhaka which can refer to either a city or a district, but not a country, and therefore has never had a president. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Aside from the nom there is one editor arguing for deletion, while we have three expressing a keep sentiment (including Edkollin, who did not officially !vote), one merge, and one on the fence. There's no consensus for deletion, and the keep commenters all invoke specific sourcing provided during the AfD by Edkollin showing that the term "Second British Invasion" has had some purchase (at least in the 1980s in the U.S.) and thus might plausibly be a basis for a Wikipedia list article. Thus we end up with keep, though of course a merge remains an editorial option outside of the context of AfD, and is something that could be pursued on the talk page. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
List based entirely on one source. The second source makes no mention of "Second British Invasion". Basically just a list of British bands that popular in the early 80's. You could make similar list for practically any era of music. Ridernyc ( talk) 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources for this campaign. Article then appears to be about related stuff and not what the articles title states. Polargeo ( talk) 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Reliable sources have been added. The page is about a humanitarian campaign and in line with similar pages of other UN/humanitarian organizations. user:Lowpet —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC). reply
As this campaign is clearly identified as an FAO initiative 1billionhungry, 1billionhungry.org, not dated linked to the World Summit on Food Security 2009 why not move this article into the World Summit article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.195.128 ( talk) 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Tom Kuntz#Short Films. Consensus is to delete and redirect. Sandstein 10:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable internet satire. External links confirm it exists but that does not satisfy WP:N (first 100 Google hits fail to show independent coverage in reliable sources). I have PROD'ed it twice before and both times it was endorsed by other editors, then inexplicably removed. GSMR ( talk) 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep; this is a real geographic place ("populated place" in GNIS). Deletion nomination was motivated by an apparently erroneous GNIS search result. I'm glad that this AfD caused me to notice this article and clean it up. -- Orlady ( talk) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Geo stub topic I tried to clean up. Original poster RVed. On further investigation I cannot find any GNIS [39] indication by the place name of the article title. Article tone is also problematic. Shadowjams ( talk) 12:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. JForget 21:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
the last AfD seemed more like no consensus, note it was closed by an admin who is now banned from closing bilateral AfDs. in any case, these 2 countries do not have embassies, and almost all of the third party coverage is based on mulitlateral relations. [40]. simply being EU members does not guarantee automatic notability...I would like to see keep votes actually show evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 12:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 03:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
At the previous deletion discussion in 2006, the main argument for keeping seemed to be that the nominator's Google test was flawed. Which, perhaps, it was. However, the evidence presented in that discussion appears to have been limited to Google and the User Friendly site. Our notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and this article contains no such references. I also can't find any such references myself, although that may be due to confusion with other things named "OMNICODE" or some variant. As such, since this appears to have no notability outside of the User Friendly community, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for this content. Powers T 12:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Amateur football team, doesn't meet WP:SPORTS. Shadowjams ( talk) 12:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep, non-admin close, withdrawn by nominator as article improved and only dissenting opinions offered ♪ daTheisen (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Sigh. My PROD was removed because it's a stub, for some reason thinking stubs are immune from deletion for any reason. I'll quote myself from the PROD: "As it stands, it is literally just a list. A list of 5 things, 2 of which don't even have articles." The 3 working links are also stubs with no sources. There is no "Basic Info" or explanation text as is required by WP:STUB ♪
daTheisen
(talk)
10:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Nominator note:
Here's policy on lack of stub immunity for no sources, and they must have some actual explanatory information. ♪
daTheisen
(talk)
10:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. AFD is not for cleanup. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 01:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
While the concept of uninstallers is a notable matter, this article, despite its name, proceeds to describe a completely alien topic which fails to meet Wikipedia general notability requirements. To make matter worse, this article is written like a blog post or the author's opinion, cites not a single reliable sources and employs a heap of weasel words or other vague phrases. (E.g note how many "Usually" are used and how the phrase "most (third-party) uninstallers" is used.) Finally, this article also contradicts itself too. It can be safely deleted. Fleet Command ( talk) 08:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 02:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I initally deleted this as a speedy deletion. However, this may have been hasty, there is a credible assertion of notability, so I've restored it. This is a procedural nomination. Ged UK 08:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 02:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
SEE GOOGLE NINJUWUSU..DO NOT DELETE, WHAT IS U.F.C THEN. NINJUWUSU HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE 1973.
However, I have been unable to locate reliable sources to establish notability for this topic. A Google News Archive search returns no results; this is the same with a Google Books search. Cunard ( talk) 06:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual. Lacks GHits of substance and limited GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 06:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 02:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. The article's claim to fame is unsourced and is not even mentioned on the John Slaughter article. In addition, the article has been an orphan for quite some time. The only pages linking to the article are Assessment categorization templates. -- Fredddie ™ 06:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete - Just sounds like another dirt road in the desert. --- Dough 48 72 18:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Possibly dead single-named porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Only source at time of nomination is a dead link. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 06:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
BLP of porn performer sourced only to IMDB at time of nomination. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. G10. NW ( Talk) 22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Poorly sourced BLP of porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 05:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Early close. Previous AfD closed as keep only two weeks ago, there's no point rehashing this debate so soon afterwards. If editors want to merge to Media portrayal of lesbianism they can discuss that on the talk pages. Fences& Windows 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The terms of reference for this article (ie, the lesbian kiss episode is a new "sub-genre" of American television) are mostly based on an out of date article from The New York Times. This presents major WP:ONESOURCE and point of view issues, as the lesbian kiss episode phenomenon has been observed in Australian television for years now. I am sure it will soon appear in other countries as well.
I doubt these issues will be resolved by splitting the article into two separate lists for American and international television programs. My experience is that even one list would be difficult to maintain as more and more episodes which are rating stunts are added. Two editors who argued to keep the article in the first AFD are firmly against expanding the criteria for inclusion, say to include all lesbian kiss episodes which drew more than a million viewers. I feel the only alternative is to delete the article and use a category until more up to date sources are available. Ottre 05:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Poorly sourced article about gay porn performer which includes unsourced assertions that they were "male prostitute" and had a "love of Latin boys". Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 05:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. G10 - Negative unsourced BLP Kevin ( talk) 20:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Tagged as unsourced BLP since July 2007. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 04:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Judging from the history, this was originally cut and pasted from somewhere, resulting in gibberish. After trying to figure out what it originally meant to be, I can't find any traces of this album. — Kww( talk) 04:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to International Congress of Genealogical and Heraldic Sciences. Sandstein 10:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Deprodded article on an annual gathering of of heraldists and genealogists which was held in Bruges in 2004. Nothing remotely indicates that anything notable happened at this meeting. Article has been edited only 10 times since 2006, and gets viewed less than twice a day. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is abundandtly clear, so closing a couple hours ahead of time. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Utterly uncompleteable and arguably non-notable. Overall, most music is instrumental. Hairhorn ( talk) 04:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Student club at a single campus with no particular claim of notability and no sources for notability. Deprodded. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Promotion for non-notable company; article from SPA with conflict of interest [50] (he's a marketing person working for the company). Sources given are insignificant trade rags. Haakon ( talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 03:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet any of the three notability guidelines listed under Wikipedia:Notability (web). The 4 sources also lend no notability, with 1 being to a forum, 1 to the game itself, and 2 to gaming websites that do not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable source. Staxringold talk contribs 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
UPDATE: After reviewing the deletion policy and notability guidelines, I realize that this individual game may not be entirely notable for the english wikipedia. So, I propose a move/merge to "Saw flash games" or something similar which would refocus the page on all of the four flash games of the Saw franchise. This would allow coverage of each almost-notable game together and make it entirely notable due to it covering multiple games equally. Thoughts or opinions? GroundZ3R0 002 ( talk) 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 03:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. It definitely needs work, but there's no consensus to delete it. Fences& Windows 00:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
It's like a list of metaphors - it is endless. I do not believe such a list is useful - there are 1000s of metonyms and everyone can make 1000s more. A few more prominent examples in metonymy should suffice. Renata ( talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep for Buttercup (TV series), and speedily deleted by the ed17 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for Party Of Five (Philippine Version). NAC. I hate bundled noms... Tim Song ( talk) 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Hoax "upcoming" television show. This article has been previously posted as Party of Five (Philippine Version). The creator ( User:Harry santavega) also has a history of creating hoax TV show articles related to Claudine Barretto.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason.
- WayKurat ( talk) 16:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 05:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable TB ( talk) 15:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Marimallappa High School, helpfully created by Fences and windows. No one disputes the fact that there are no available sources as of right now, and as such we can't have an article. If sources are found later the redirect can be reverted to a full biographical article. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Zero third-party external sources. All are either Wikipedia-mirrors, the University mentioned in the article, or Wikipedia itself. Aditya Ex Machina 08:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 02:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Fails the primary criterion - no secondary sources in Google. Traffic rank of ~294,000. Leuko Talk/ Contribs 03:47, 4 December 2009 (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}} . |
Administrator note
User:OmniWikia has been blocked 1 month for vandalism and sock puppetry, with
24.118.220.174 being blocked 1 week as a sock puppet.
MuZemike
21:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
article serves only to define a non notable acronym Wuh Wuz Dat 22:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is about a nonnotable musician that fails WP:BIO as he hasn't been the subject of significant discussion in reliable, third-party sources and he hasn't had any notable influence on his field. The article is also an unreferenced BLP. Them From Space 03:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. I'm not finding any coverage in reliable sources; appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow Talk 18:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under criterion G7; requested by author (on this AfD's talk page). {{ Nihiltres| talk| edits}} 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill ( talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 07:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Being noted as one of three ministers who ordained another minister (whose article was deleted) hardly meets WP:N. Furthermore, although it's unclear from the article if the subject is still alive, but there appears to be some WP:BLP issues here too. And that self-reference to the talk page only leaves me with the impression that this article, just as the one for Arnold Murray did, will only draw POV pushers and fanatics. œ ™ 04:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Well despite my nomination for deletion being for the article in the state it was before User:IP69.226.103.13's edits essentially resolved most of the issues, that still leaves only the question of the subjects notability. Even in its current stubbified state it's not much of an article but nevertheless I withdraw my original nom. -- œ ™ 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Girl Next Door (band). Kevin ( talk) 00:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Singer with a notable band, no assertion of individual notability. -- SquidSK (1MC• log) 03:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 01:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
As for Ring Indicator, this is one pin of the RS 232 interface; nce you take out the duplication from RS 232 required to give this article context there's insufficient content left to support an article. Wtshymanski ( talk) 14:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is orphan, google search 1 and 2 fail to produce any non-trivial 3rd party sources. Appears to be non-notable. Ks0stm ( T• C• G) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
A nonnotable software piece with no secondary sources given. - Altenmann >t 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by creator. tedder ( talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Per comment at Talk:List of Crayola crayon colors#Pure Advertising: It.27s a Commercial for Crayola by Timothy Perper. His reasons listed if I understand them correctly are an NPOV concern that the majority of sources used were from Crayola's websites, a question of notability, and the list in effect being a commercial for Crayola. PaleAqua ( talk) 01:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 00:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable home-made movie. Article is completely unsourced or based on the director's blog. User should use twitter and not Wikipedia to log the production's updated. Damiens.rf 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kevin ( talk) 00:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Damiens.rf 00:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 00:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't think it would be a wise idea to merge all those election articles into that one page. Therefore, this redundant page accomplishes what a delightful navbox would do much more effectively. @ harej 00:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 03:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Badly named. It's possible a rename, and creating a disambiguation page under this name ( Minimum principle (mathematics)) would be appropriate, but, even if this principle is notable (I'm not convinced), it might be better to delete this one and start over under a more accurate name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Hilbert space. Kevin ( talk) 00:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The article seems to be about the theorem that the quaternions form a complete inner product space. It may be that something can be said about complete inner product spaces, but this isn't even a part of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kevin ( talk) 00:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist. No non-trivial coverage exists about him/her. Not a single source used. Damiens.rf 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Does not meet the WP:ORG criteria for notability. I can find no matches in Google News and general Google search results seem to be circular or based on the universe-people website. Google books produces two references, both seem insignificant tangential references to the website. The study quoted is a special study of cults and a mention in this paper provides no evidence that the "cult" has any significance or impact besides being an exercise in self-promotion and an associated website. The video links are doubtful evidence of notability and on their own are little evidence of notability apart from being an amusing news story of the "duck on a skateboard" sort. Ash ( talk) 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kevin ( talk) 00:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is supposed to be covered into more specific [ [63]] where same procedures in electoral process does held. The "notability" of facing off of former mayors and incumbent mayors during elections are not new. The process of election in Manila is also the same of local elections held in the Philippines all throughout. JL 09 q? c 13:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply