The result was delete. Deville ( Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable minor writer. No third-party references to verify notability claims have been added in the 2+ years since the article was created, and the Japanese version of the article is similarly bare of any reference sources. DAJF ( talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Pastor Theo ( talk) 00:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability is asserted so A7 does not apply, but I haven't been able to find sources to verify the claims in the article. A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. The only proof of this individual's accomplishments can be found on his website. Cunard ( talk) 23:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ( X! · talk) · @501 · 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable Jack Pinchwife ( talk) 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ( X! · talk) · @501 · 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability is asserted so A7 does not apply, but I haven't been able to find sources to verify the claims in the article. A Google News Archive search returns no results about this person. Cunard ( talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ( X! · talk) · @501 · 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. Article is written like a cross between an advert and a bio for the founder. Only thing that's even close to notability is that the founder wrote a book, but as notability isn't inherited so therefore cannot be carried on to the company. SPA user whose first edit was to remove the CSD notice, followed by their 2nd edit to remove it again, so it seems there's some CoI there. Rather than getting into an edit war I've brought it to afd. Web Hamster 22:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Redirect can be created if necessary. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Article should likely be deleted or merged into the NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship article due to the arbitrary nature of cutting the list off at ten, and the lack of references justifying the top ten list. The article also duplicates information found elsewhere and seems to be WP:POV / WP:OR. For further information and discussion on this proposal, see CrazyPaco's discussion on NCAA Division I football win-loss records talk page and the NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship talk page. Cardsplayer4life ( talk) 22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A potential merger can be discussed elsewhere, but there is no consensus for deletion. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete - no independent reliable sources appear to get this past notability. The notability of the film series does not extend to every fictional character within the series. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was withdraw nomination. Tavix | Talk 22:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable Cybercobra ( talk) 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Additionally, there are a few RS English reviews of the browser, such as Softpedia, CNET Australia, and WAP Review (technically a blog, but I would considet it an RS for purposes of product review) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Article detailing a season for a club playing in regional league, which I do not believe is article-worthy, and precedents have been set here and here. I am also nominating:
for the same reason. Note that I have not nominated Gateshead F.C. season 2009–10, a season in which the club will play in a national league, as I believe this needs further discussion before a separate AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. SilkTork * YES! 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
All that I can find is a bunch of trivial mentions in multiple searches. Fails WP:N. Iowateen ( talk) 21:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete. This is the wrong forum to decide between redirecting an article and keeping it separate. Flowerparty☀ 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Article about an arbitrary Pokémon without any significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. I've searched and there doesn't appear to be sources with critical discussion on the character. Artichoker talk 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
This tortoise-like Pokémon is well-known for being featured on the cover of one of the first Pokémon games, Pokémon Blue, as well as Pokémon Stadium......Blastoise is the final evolved form of Squirtle, one of the Pokémon players may receive at the beginning of playing Pokémon Red or Blue, and the remakes of those games......Described in Notre Dame's The Observer as "a tank of a turtle",......Blastoise also appears in Super Smash Bros and Super Smash Bros Melee as one of many Pokemon that a fighter can send out after throwing a Poke Ball......and is the main Pokémon on Green's team.
The result was keep. Keep as disamb page SilkTork * YES! 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete no indication that the subject of this unsourced one-line article is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Pastor Theo ( talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local event. Appears to fail WP:NOTE. Some GHits but no substantial GNEWS. ttonyb1 ( talk) 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Deville ( Talk) 01:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete no indication that the winery which is the subject of this unreferenced one-line article is notable; fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete same reasons as Ottawa4ever and Carlossuarez46 above.-- BodegasAmbite ( talk) 23:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Article appears to fail WP:WEB. Although there are a large number of GHits, the site lacks any substantial GNEWS. ttonyb1 ( talk) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete because obvious hoaxes are vandalism. And this was an obvious hoax. It purported to define ragnad as an army sufficiently large to tip the balance in a war with the gods, relating this to Ragnarök. Now, Ragnarök means "fate" or "twilight of the gods"; this would make ragnad mean "D of the gods". Make of that what you will. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find any information online to verify the existence of this concept, which is purportedly found in Norse mythology. I would expect some scholarly hits. Gonzonoir ( talk) 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 08:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
There are no reliable third-party sources to establish this page's notability. The user who added the Amazon reference was well-intentioned, but retailers' websites do not qualify as reliable third-party sources. ╟─ Treasury Tag► duumvirate─╢ 17:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Flowerparty☀ 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is discussing 2010 in music in July of 2009 - a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Intelligent sium 17:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Asserts notability as a prolific radio host, but no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as per the concerns raised in this discussion. Pastor Theo ( talk) 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book. No third-party reliable sources found. The article's creator appears to be affiliated with the publisher judging by the editor name. bonadea contributions talk 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The book was published two months ago and I can't find any reviews or substantial informations on it. We don't have an article for author and quick Google Search reveals, that he isn't notable enough. It looks like a self-promotion. -- Vejvančický ( talk) 16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a real book. The ISBN number is: 978-0-578-02068-6 You can see a copy at: http://www.canalpublishing.com Also, it is available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Last-Block-Harlem-ebook/dp/B00295S4VQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246984267&sr=8-1 Also, it is currently being sold at St. Mark's Books and Housing Works Bookstore in NYC.— Canalpub ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC).
Ok. I guess you only take books that were produced in a giant corporate structure. This is a ligit publishing company and a ligit book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — Canalpub ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I hear you. Though in order for all of that to happen for a book, you need to go through a major publisher and pay to have your book in stores. I think that with the advent of indi publishing, the rules should change. Why not? I have my book in bookstores, and selling it to the public, have it on Amazon, and trying to make it outside of the corp. world. Check me out. It is ligit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — Canalpub ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Yes, it is my publishing company. What is wrong with that? should I do it under a different name? I have been trying to get listed in Google and cannot. I do not know their formula. It's driving me crazy. If you Google Search Canal Publishing, then I am on the top of the list. Soon, the book will be getting reviews. The post I put about the company and the book are completely objective. Just stating facts. Come on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Isn't the internet changing what is thought to be "Relevant Media?" After all, the Times and other papers like it are going under because people do not consider them to be news enough to keep purchasing. I hear what you are saying though. This is not a promotional effort. The book is being read and reviews are coming. Give the little guy a shot!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The reason why we can't "give the little guy a shot" is because if we didn't have guidelines like notability, we'd be drowning in millions of articles from people alive to the marketing possibilities of Wikipedia and who see our encyclopaedia as offering free webspace for their promotional material. Delete.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Well I will tell you this. When the title becomes huge, you can be sure that you will remember this thread. I love the open discussion here and the democracy generated by the users. All of you are clamoring for deletion while the book is gaining steam here in New York. Whatever you decide I will abide with. Let me ask, if somebody, one of the people who have read the book wanted to write an article on it, what would you all say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I understand what you are saying. Therefore, I invite you all to my site: http://www.canalpublishing.com to read the first 3 chapters of the book for yourself. Perhaps you will like it, order a copy for yourself, and then write a review? There are a few reviews coming out in the next few weeks, so I will wait and let the web take its natural course. Please feel free to keep this thread going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Reel Big Fish. Spartaz Humbug! 08:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable demo album. Fails WP:NALBUMS:
"Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" KMFDM FAN ( talk!) 15:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was merge into Billy Mays. Nosleep break my slumber 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (non-admin closure) reply
Violates WP:NOTDIR - Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. I understand people were entertained by this guy (for some reason), but this really is recentism at its peak. I doubt anyone is going to care what commercials this guy was in in a year or two's time. I don't believe this to be analogous to filmography for, all respect for the dead, real performers. We keep track of those things for just about anyone (or, at least, we can and it would be entirely reasonable), but we don't keep track of commercials that people have been in, even for people known partly for being in commercials - show me List of products endorsed by Peyton Manning or List of products endorsed by Michael Jordan. You can't, because those aren't reasonable articles. Nosleep break my slumber 15:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete-We could delete this article, and make a new section in the billy mays article called "Things Billy Mays was best known for pitching" or something. We should mention some of the things billy mays pitched, but not every single one. And in reply to Tavix, yes musicans have discography's, but the discography's have information on the things the musician is notable for. The discography's don't have EVERYTHING the musician has it's name on, such as bootleged albums. KMFDM FAN ( talk!) 20:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep How is this any different than an actor's filmography? If Tom Cruise can have one ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise_filmography), why cant Billy Mays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.5.7.4 ( talk) 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to School_District_38_Richmond. Spartaz Humbug! 08:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Currently in the process of redirecting/merging these non-notable school articles. This article is likely controversial, it was kept during an afd in 2006 but the grounds for keeping it failed to cite useful policy matter, and ignored the fact that this article is unsourced and fails WP:GNG and WP:N. Recently a decision related to school articles determined that most Secondary schools are notable and that only a select few pre-secondary schools are notable. Marcusmax( speak) 14:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Merge as above. There's no attempt to justify notability. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 21:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There is no reliable sourcing that discusses greek life in UCF so this clearly doesntr meet the GNG Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organization within a university with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Indiscriminate list of fraternities and sororities. Madcoverboy ( talk) 13:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to First Rudd Ministry (or whatever the current federal ministry is at the time), as per this AfD and linked discussion. Canley ( talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Per discussion at Talk:First Rudd Ministry#Cabinet of Australia, First Rudd Ministry, Current Australian Commonwealth ministry, duplication is occurring at Cabinet of Australia, First Rudd Ministry, and Current Australian Commonwealth ministry. Timeshift ( talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Deville ( Talk) 01:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
No indication that this person meets either WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. It was proposed for deletion in 2007, but the prod was removed on the basis of a BBC article about someone of the same name playing in the semi-professional league in Northern Ireland. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Fixing incomplete nom by User:Frankie goh with the reason given "Article would have failed the notability criteria, as it is not a professional team nor one playing at the highest non-pro level.Frankie goh (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)". No opinion from me. CastAStone //₵₳$↑₳ ₴₮ʘ№€ 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Without prejudice against recreation if something happens to make this incedent retrospectively encyclopedia-worthy. Flowerparty☀ 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, fails WP:AIRCRASH and not WP:NEWS. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software product, pretty much just an advertisement, no reputable sources for any of the content, apparently written entirely by the publisher of the software akaDruid ( talk) 10:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I searched for reliable sources for this evolutionary theory and came up blank. It seems to have some fans in the intelligent design movement, but it's not a notable scientific theory. Fences& Windows 15:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:FRINGE. No independent reliable sources. - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Most of the arguments for keeping appear to rely on assumptions, novel interpretations or WP:IAR. While there is nothing inherently wrong with such arguments (IAR is policy, after all), it is difficult to afford them as much weight as arguments more solidly grounded in the fact that it lacks multiple sources that are reliable and independent. There are a few arguments for merging but they are not amply persuasive at this point. If someone can identify an appropriate target and obtain consensus at the talk page of said target that a merge there is appropriate I am okay with restoring for that purpose (and I am willing to provisionally restore for the sake of such a discussion if it takes place). Sher eth 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Article about a student group. As attractive as it may look, the topic is non-notable. All sources are from the university website or YouTube. TM 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply
However, strong though that line of reasoning is in terms of policies and guidelines, I feel it should be ignored in this case, it being to the benefit of the encyclopaedia to do so.
Before I begin this next line of argument, I want to mention that it is in flagrant disregard of various arguments to avoid, and my reply is that I'm disregarding the said essay with all due forethought.
I feel we should keep this article because (1) Yale University is already more than long enough, (2) this article is well-written from a neutral point of view and I find it encyclopaedic, and (3) a cost/benefit analysis tells me this article is doing no harm and some good, attracting as it does visitors from a scholarly establishment, so I think it beneficial to retain it.
So overall, keep.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 17:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
DeleteorMerge I agree that the article is clearly self-promotional. The acap singing culture at Yale College is certainly notable enough to justify an article, but most of the individual groups are not. If this content is to live anywhere on Wikipedia, I would think it should live on a page with all of the groups at Yale like it. Unfortunately for this group, this article does not cite and significant sources except the one mentioned and does demonstrate being notable outside of the greater Yale acap culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.120.138 ( talk) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
— 130.132.120.138 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime T C 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
— SmudgeTheFirst ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime T C 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Collegiate a cappella often samples music in the ‘mass media tradition’, and so most groups would be hard pressed to fulfill the following:
When discussing ‘notability’, it is helpful to take into consideration how the idea applies in the community under discussion. The largest competition in collegiate a cappella is the ICCA ( International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella), and although there are hundreds of a cappella groups, it is groups which appear most often on the ICCA stage that are most recognized. One of the article references is the 2006 Results page of the ICCA website, where the group is listed as placing first in the Northeast Region 2006 ICCA Championship (the group was also awarded for best choreography).
Another measure of notability is the degree to which groups perform with more established artists. Here as well, the group exhibits notability, as evidenced by a reference to opening for the musician Ben Folds earlier this year.
A final measure of notability is the degree to which a group is referred to and consulted as an adequate source of information by reputable third parties. The group under discussion has been interviewed by or performed for WTNH Channel 8, WERS in Boston, CBS News Sunday Morning, and the Jane Pauley Show on NBC. This fact is as reasonably close as a collegiate a cappella group can get to satisfying requirements (1) Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique… and (5) Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
All the links mentioned appear as documented references in the article. Arguing for deletion on the basis that the group fails to meet the requirements under WP:MUSIC is unreasonable, because the unique circumstances of collegiate a cappella makes it all but impossible for any group (save The Whiffenpoofs, perhaps) to make the cut. When notability is considered in the context of the collegiate a cappella sub-genre, however, the group under discussion performs adequately. Equartey ( talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC) — Equartey ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime T C 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actor, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No sources found for this article and even seen in a minor TV roles. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 12:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as obvious advertising and a possible copyvio of http://www.quicklockforum.org/pdf/QN.pdf Thryduulf ( talk) 22:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
No indication of how this product is notable. Reads like an advertisement. Provided references are either primary (to the developers company) or places you can buy the product. RadioFan ( talk) 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Deville ( Talk) 00:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Djsasso ( talk) 11:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Non-admin closure. Until It Sleeps Wake me 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso ( talk) 11:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso ( talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso ( talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Non-admin closure. Until It Sleeps Wake me 14:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso ( talk) 11:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Deville ( Talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable, fails WP:ORG and purely no sources in this article. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
- Are you sure it wasn't a rugby union game? Please note there are two types of rugby: rugby league and union. The fact you had to buy a ticket for the game makes me think it must be union, because if a Spanish league side does exist, it must be in its infancy and would have been played on a local field somewhere without the need to pay to get in. Did they have lineouts (see: http://www.solarnavigator.net/sport/sport_images/Rugby_Union_Lineout_WvF_2004.jpg) when the ball went out of play?
The result was delete. The nom makes a good case, and the article fails on at least two other speedy grounds (no context, and A7) Orderinchaos 12:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article about a non-notable comic book character. No evidence of existence, let alone notability, provided. Mattinbgn\ talk 10:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Per A7 - no indication for importance or significance. So Why 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
This biography of a musical performer has had two speedy tags removed (by the same SPA) and a prod removed by the article creator. Notability is not asserted and I can find no evidence of it from a web search. Gonzonoir ( talk) 09:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (Author requested deletion). decltype ( talk) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Prod reason: "This term is not notable and hardly verifiable, as only one source actually uses this name apparently (Matches Of The Century by Don Cameron). Nothing about this on Google News or Google Books. If one single commentator uses a term to describe one game, it is far from sufficient to use that for an article. Something should be commonly known under that description to have such an article." Prod contested because "I don't think it should be deleted just because its name has not been common or used, it is a title that could become popular because of this page." This of course is the opposite of what Wikipeia is for: we report what is already notable, we don't make things notable which were obscure. Apart from the one book given above, the term is not in use at all [12] [13] [14]. Fram ( talk) 09:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. All deletes with some commments that didn't not change the consensus Nja 247 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability has not been asserted within the article. Associated acts are non notable itself. Apart from that, its Unreferenced and Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Hitro 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. toyed with no consensus but the argument that the articled meets MUSIC#6 hasn't really been refuted and deletion arguments are based more on GNG then MUSIC Spartaz Humbug! 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The band has only released one full-length album, is signed to non-notable independent record labels, and has not had any of its songs chart on a major music chart. In addition, the band is not covered significantly in reliable sources. It fails WP:Notability (music) Tim meh 03:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Nja 247 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I have nominated this page for deletion because I believe it was created in error. The creator was referring to Kisdon Force in the same area on the River Swale, and I believe that Kidson Force does not exist. Mick Knapton ( talk) 08:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Deville ( Talk) 02:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Article about a musician that doesn't assert or provide evidence of notability; I've been able to find none via Google Search. A PROD tag was removed by the article's creator, whose username suggests he has a conflict of interest. Gonzonoir ( talk) 08:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTE. Article covers one petrol station, not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sk8er5000 ( talk) 07:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Pastor Theo ( talk) 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Prod contested by IP (only edit) without improvements or edit summary. Prod reason: " Neologism that hasn't received any significant attention in reliable independent sources yet. The two external links at the bottom are completely unrelated (and not reliable anyway), leaving us with a video of someone who coined the word. This is insufficient to be included in Wikipedia". Brownge has not received attention in reliable independent sources, with no Google News hits [18] [19] or Google Books results [20] [21]. Fram ( talk) 07:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nja 247 07:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, fails WP:AIRCRASH and not WP:NOTNEWS. Only a minor airliner accident appeared in local news. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 07:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article itself doesn't seem quite sure that the album will be released in the fall of 2009. No source is given that mentions the exact date. And almost all of the sources are blogs and Twitter. Knowing how these things goes, it could be literally a year before anything is released. Just way way too vague and early for this User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 06:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. most of the coverage relates to passing mentions for appearing in 1 movie [38]. LibStar ( talk) 06:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. nothing on google news [39] and google search is mainly mirror and directory listings for appearing in Junior Eurovision. so WP:ONEVENT also applies here. LibStar ( talk) 06:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nja 247 07:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails to show notability ( WP:NOTFILM) and I'm unable to locate any RS. APK coffee talk 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
If you want to see the importance then you can come to Rajasthan villages and can ask them if they know about this movie. Still you can see the popularity of songs of this movie. Thanks for your support.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit82in ( talk • contribs) 10:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Footballer who apparently fails WP:ATHLETE. Although he started his career at Hearts, he never played in a competitive match per Soccerbase or London Hearts. He played in pre-season friendlies and was only an unused substitute in a few SPL matches. Subsequent to that he played on loan at East Fife and then Raith Rovers, who were playing in either of the two lower semi-professional divisions of the Scottish Football League. Not otherwise notable. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 06:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. only 1 gnews hit for appearance on Coronation St (his supposed claim to fame) [41]. LibStar ( talk) 06:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Article has no independent sources, and was so-tagged since Dec 2008. So, it fails WP:CORP. Article is mainly promotional. They've worked with famous groups/people, but so have lots of other non-notable organizations. Rob ( talk) 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
That the wording reads like an advertisement is something that can and will be changed, but I do not believe that this justifies the deletion of this article. First and foremost, Frontside Promotions Group IS the largest independent promotions company in Canada. This statement is based on the fact that the promotion for most major U.S. artists is either handled in-house by an artist's record label or through a U.S.-based promotion company. It is also based on Frontside Promotion Group's client list, which includes Motley Crue (publicity, radio promotion, and Crue Fest promotion), Barenaked Ladies (publicity and radio promotion), Sum 41 (radio promotion), and Hinder (radio promotion). Frontside is also hired by the Canadian government to promote Canadian Blast ( [42], [43]), a government-led initiative that highlights Canadian music internationally through media and live performances.
Aside from a list of clients (that can be found in this article), the most relevant evidence for the notability of Frontside Promotions Group would be their radio chart numbers (Billboard, Nielsen BDS, & Mediabase certified), and I will post those numbers once I have received them. As of now, I only know that Frontside has brought Sum 41, State of Shock, Drowning Pool, The Airborne Toxic Event, Metric, The Midway State, and Hinder to Top 20, Top 10, and #1 spots. Exact years and highest rank on radio charts per track will be posted when they are made available to me. Evidence of affiliation can also be found for the following artists: The Proclaimers (prominently featured at the bottom), State of Shock (within the biography), and House of Doc.
External organizations that have recognized Frontside's work include:
-
SOCAN (Canada's
Performing Rights Organization), for whom managing partner Gary McDonald has given lectures on marketing as well as presented for their "Dinner Music" web-series.
-
The Music BC Industry Association's Board of Directors, to which managing partner Geoff Goddard has been accepted.
-
The PEAK Performance Project, for which Frontside's product manager Erin Kinghorn is a member of the faculty.
-
The Western Canadian Music Awards, which nominated Frontside Promotions Group for "Independent Publicist/Radio Promoter" of the year in 2004, less than 1 year after Frontside was founded.
-
The Transmission Music Conference, which selected a Frontside managing partner as 1 of only 29 delegates from prominent Canadian music companies to attend the conference in China.
-
Canada's International Music Convention "Canadian Music Week," which identified artist manager Vince Ditrich in their list of "Movers and Shakers."
-
The New Music West - Music Industry Conference, at which multiple members of the Frontside team have presented to other music industry professionals.
-
Freedom To Groove, which awarded Frontside a PromoFACT award in April 2004, and for whom managing partner Geoff Goddard served on a panel in November 2004.
I hope that you have found my response helpful and will reconsider the deletion of this article. Thank you.
User:Red Vinyl 8:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Bad faith nom. Nom apparently made in good faith, but with bad timing.
Smashville
talk
14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
This is a disambiguation for a cemetery in which only one blue-linked article exists along with a red-link. Even if both were blue, it should be handled with headnotes. See WP:DISAMBIG. This should be a routine housekeeping matter. However, it was created by a serial creator of inappropriate disambiguation pages and it is going to take weeks to go through them all. Delete Drawn Some ( talk) 05:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Recommend a new AfD to garner more consensus if concerned. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 08:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Three software products from the same company. Little evidence of notability for any of them. Sgroupace ( talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Two deletes (including nom) and three keeps, hardly consensus Nja 247 07:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete, non notable zero hits There is a Road, No Simple Highway ( talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. F&W's recent improvements to the article are enough to warrent the keeping of this article. ( X! · talk) · @033 · 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Questionable notability/encyclopedic relevance, entire article is pretty much unsalvageable biased/vanity material. Delete, but if you must keep, stub-- Tznkai ( talk) 04:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted WP:G10 by User:DGG. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 09:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for neologisms, especially racially inflammatory ones. Vicenarian ( T · C) 05:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Essentially split down the middle and its 2nd nomination. Give it a rest for a while or work on the article to fix issues. Nja 247 07:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, original research imho. Moreover, the article doesn't make clear what's the relevance of this role. Jaqen ( talk) 10:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Arguments against deletion
1) Sources -- Most of the information on this list is based on readily verifiable information. I will add references.
2) Relevance -- What is the relevance of "List of State Leaders by Date"? Of "List of current United States governors by denomination"? List of "Deans of the United States Senate"? All of these have no practical "relevance", so to speak, but merely serve as references for those interested in a particular subject (e.g., journalists, writers, students, commentators). A quick Google search for "Senior G8 leader" should indicate how often that title is cited and used in other articles.
3) No "quick trigger" reflex -- As a matter of policy, we should be careful not to be so hasty as to remove articles such as this one: it's been around for a while (over 2 years), has been edited frequently by a number of commentators, is the only compilation of its kind, and is a topic of international interest. Wikipedia policy has been and should be to remove articles only when they are narrowly focused, edited infrequently, and do not have a long history -- in other words, when they are so insignificant and/or personal to the author that they are clearly not of general interest. It is dangerous to be so rash and remove broad-based, community-edited, general interest articles for no real reason.
Memworking ( talk) 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Memworking reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is unreferenced and a possible hoax. Google returns no references to a James Geiss associated with whaling, except for Wikipedia mirrors ( [47]). Google Scholar ( [48]) and Google News also turn up no mentions of this person. I've also been unable to find any references in Factiva to substantiate any of the article contents. His mention in the Whaling article was added by a SPA with no other edits ( diff). Suggest deletion as either a hoax or a person who doesn't meet WP's notability guidelines. Muchness ( talk) 06:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Nja 247 07:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
DELETE due to an extreme lack of notability. I find it rather ridiculous that this WP:BLP article is citing a self-published book and a myspace page for sustenance. JBsupreme ( talk) 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
*Delete Agree with nom. I see no notability
Corpx (
talk) 05:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:This
interview with the guy does provide some coverage, so I'm changing my vote to Neutral
Corpx (
talk)
18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
No further sign of notability, no sources. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bar, One Event, and Recentism. Article should be deleted as it is one event and recentism. Thanks.
Ism schism (
talk)
04:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
WP:NOTNEWS would be a good objection, except for the minor issue that this article doesn't contravene NOTNEWS in any respect whatsoever. (Read it).
I therefore feel we should keep this article.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm afraid that where I come across a policy being cited that doesn't actually support the argument, I have an unfortunate tendency to sarcasm. Sorry. I'll try to curb that in future.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
1) Is the event important or newsworthy? YES: Multiple major news networks are covering the event, and it touches on strong themes in society such as (unverified) police brutality and (unverified) gay persecution.
2) Does the article site sources? YES: All major points in the article are sited in the appropriate footnotes.
3) Does the article take a neutral voice? YES: Though this could be cleaned up a bit, and additional information added, there is no definite bias to the information presented, nor is the tone of the article in first-person, third-person, etc. No "weasel words" are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.246.246 ( talk) 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to The Heart of America Foundation. Nja 247 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability only in relation to The Heart of America Foundation. Page right now reads a lot like self-promotion. I suggest Delete and merge any relevant info into the foundation page. Sasquatch
The result was no consensus. Nja 247 07:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
NN album, hasn't charted. → ROUX ₪ 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
KEEP, but MERGE into Lil Flip. "Charting" is not in itself a criterion for deletion. Policy for music albums: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia" (see music notability guidelines). However, it is just a tracklisting at this point, so consider merging into Lil Flip (especially since Gudda Gudda is perhaps NN and only featured on the album).-- Junius49 ( talk) 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable martial artist, unsourced BLP. JJL ( talk) 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
hardly any coverage of actual bilateral relations, almost all multilateral. [49] Pre 1990 relations can be covered in Grenada-Soviet relations. For those who love to scrape trivia into these bilateral articles, there's a Russian band called Grenada, I sincerely hope no editor thinks helps establish notability. LibStar ( talk) 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Page reads like an advert. The previous version (April 2009) did not assert notability, and was little more than an advert. Martin451 ( talk) 02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Clint Eastwood#Relationships and family. BJ Talk 03:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. She has only had two films appearances and it was only as extras. Fails WP:BIO. Iowateen ( talk) 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ( X! · talk) · @033 · 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Twice deleted article that is a blatant copyright violation. CarbonX ( talk) 01:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 03:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Do two Articles really warrant a disambiguation? KMFDM FAN ( talk!) 01:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Pastor Theo ( talk) 00:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
noting that Ireland doesn't have an embassy in Chile (even though Chile is one of the economic powers of South America). distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mostly sport and bilateral [50]. there's this article but it would be pure synthesis to say that actually means bilateral relations. and their football sides played in 2006, and I know of at least one editor who would think this counts for notability, clearly not. Coverage of acceptance of refugees...Western European nations since WWII have taken refugees from wars and political turmoil from all around the world, we don't report every instance in Wikipedia, especially a relatively low number. LibStar ( talk) 00:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable politician who serves as the "part time" mayor of a small city in Illinois of about 20,000. Seems to fail WP:N criteria, could possibly be merged into the cities article but even that doesn't seem all that possible. Marcusmax( speak) 02:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. ( X! · talk) · @034 · 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable, fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ( X! · talk) · @034 · 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
No coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:NF. Previously deleted via PROD but recreated by same user. PC78 ( talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Nja 247 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The only thing in the article I see as a possible claim for notability is the "Freshman of the Year" award by a magazine. Lacking any other secondary sources that give more coverage, I'm hesitant about this, considering the amount of original research in the article. The books mentioned (and cited) are from a primary source - the movie production company itself. Corpx ( talk) 22:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Gay pornstar with no notability Corpx ( talk) 22:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Many questionable !votes from new accounts muddy the consensus. BJ Talk 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
New politic party without notability, nor any representation. See also [51] , AfD in it.wiki Invitamia ( talk) 14:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I'm going to interpret Peridon's comment as a "weak keep" so I don't have to say "no consensus". ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable small-scale investor and self promoter, so fails to meet WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJeffMa ( talk • contribs) — WikiJeffMa ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. BJ Talk 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Jared555 ( talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSICBIO Tan | 39 19:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Two deletes that are good as based on inclusion criteria. Nja 247 07:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. I'm not impressed by the current limited sourcing, either. JBsupreme ( talk)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Article has WP:COI issues and shaky references at best; does not appear to be notable based on google search results and its WP:ORPHAN status. Appears to be an article of self-promotion or other similar un-wikipedia-like nonsense. I just cannot find any valid reason why this article exists. Timneu22 ( talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Sacramento Public Library. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
3rd nom, last closed as withdrawn by nom for procedural reasons. However, consensus seemed clear-ish for a merge, which is what I'm advocating here. However don't want to implement unilaterally following 2 AfDs. I don't think there's independent notability as there's no evidence this is anything but a run-of-the-mill library, which lacks inherent notability. Thoughts? StarM 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Insufficient coverage to comply with WP:BAND. ~ mazca talk 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:BAND, seems to be more an advertisement for the band than an article about them, sourced to their website, youtube, and myspace, but no independent references or indication of notability: the authors of the page have a clear COI and while the article states that the band "strives to constantly push eachother to emotional breakage points, always taking their songwriting to the next irritating level", that is not particularly notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Three deletes. If the editor who wishes to merge wants I will make the text available to them so that any text that passes inclusion criteria can be merged. Nja 247 07:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG. no third party coverage [55]. LibStar ( talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
While I am sure that he is a fine human being, I can't see where the subject passes notability standards. As an author, his book A Knight in the Congo (also nomintated for deletion) ranks #3,701,636 at Amazon and there is a lack of reviews or reliable sources on it. Ghits for Washburn result in just over 500 returns, mostly wikipedia, its mirrors and geneology sites. Gnews comes up with no returns. The article itself asserts no notability aside from the aforementioned book and allegedly being called a knight by the King of the Congo, but the article can't source it and can only approximate what year it happened in. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The two deletes I agree with. Nja 247 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, further evidence of finding reliable sources. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete - article is purely promotional and contains no encyclopedic information about the organization in question. . . Rcawsey ( talk) 19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Borderline promotional of the subject's philosophy and philosophical centers. A More Perfect Onion ( talk) 12:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. ( X! · talk) · @034 · 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
contested redirect (to album article). Doesn't meet WP:NSONGS, no indication of charting or awards. RadioFan ( talk) 11:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Seems to be a general agreement that the subject does not yet meet notability requirements. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Concerns about notability - no obvious assertion of what makes him important or encyclopaedic (I now live in fear of thespian 'pedians thwacking me ;-)). Had been speedy'd around July 5th, was recreated and new speedy tag was declined due to presence of sources. Saalstin ( talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Unclear of any notability claim; this seems to be just an incidental web page that collects information on government volunteer programs LotLE× talk 06:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability is questionable. Fails WP:CORP. Was PRODed, but contested, so it comes here. Also worth pointing out is that the author is affiliated with the organization (per his user page), so if this is kept it will most likely need to be re-written. T'Shael, The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 04:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails notability. The article, I believe, is written by someone with conflict of interest as shown by the contribution history of article creator. Also, the entire article reads like an advertisement. OhanaUnited Talk page 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 07:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Since this article has no references, I Googled for some myself, and while it appears that there are a number of Ghits, the links lead to sites that either state something about the album coming out soon and nothing else, or they talk about unrelated topics called Private Show. And although various sites claim to have lyrics for the supposed songs on the album, when you click the links to each respective song, you won't find any lyrics. Basically, while there is some hope of the album coming out in the future, right now the article is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL (and possibly WP:NALBUMS). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply