The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be an advertisement of poor quality. Shawnc 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability requirements. Velvetsmog 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Also, even though it's a non-profit group, it seems like advertising to me. This should be on Google, not Wikipedia. Belmore 00:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily kept per a general consensus that high schools are notable FCYTravis 04:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Lost, orphan article on obscure, non-notable school Mecanismo 00:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I originally tagged this as a speedy but it was removed. Guess I have to move it over here. Non-notable bio. Stifle 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I nominated this for speedy deletion too, but it was removed. Barely-notable singer and article has very little room for expansion. Stifle 00:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is obviously spam/vandalism Mecanismo 00:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Please note that any comments before this one, do not reflect the article as rewritten by Pburka. Please don't count them when closing. - Mgm| (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted (blanking by creator). - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a brand of caffeine tablets. ERcheck 01:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopedic. ERcheck 01:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (or at worst, no consensus). bainer ( talk) 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Any article that leads with advertising raises eyebrows to its notability in my book. karmafist 01:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity article, no actual product has been commercially released; appears to be more like a fan-produced game Howie ☎ 02:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 01:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This reads just like a sales ad and looks to me like blatant advertising DanielCD 02:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable, vanity Avalon 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Autobiography of real person. Minor assertion of notability. ERcheck 02:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was (Speedy) delete - please see this talk page for full context regarding the closure of this AfD. Thank you. -- HappyCamper 03:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism; few Google hits. Psychonaut 03:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was (Speedy) delete - please see this talk page for full context regarding the closure of this AfD. Thank you. -- HappyCamper 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism; no Google hits. Psychonaut 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily kept - Encyclopedic subject that got vandalized. FCYTravis 04:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is more or less an advertisement, and provides no content suggesting it could be made into a quality Wikipedia article. Benandorsqueaks 03:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
This came to no consensus because the non-deletes, despite being in the majority overall, couldn't decide whether to keep as is, rename, or merge somewhere else. Any future nominators, keep in mind that the deletes were in an overall minority here.
Do we need really this list? Lists of women in $TRADITIONALLY_MALE_PROFESSION are as unsuitable as the n "Lists of Jews". Wikipedia is as much a vehicle to boost pride in one's gender as it is to boost one's pride in one's ethnicity. Pilatus 03:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No evidence that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 03:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to properly finish the merge per policy, see links below. - Mgm| (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I have completed a merge of this page's remaining significant information over to the more-complete Decision support system article. I believe that this article is now redundant and can be deleted; it is an orphan and so does not even need a redirect. Steve Summit ( talk) 03:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The game is technically not related to the Dragon Quest game series because it was created by fans. It is not a commerical game and there are a lot of fan made Flash games. J. Nguyen 04:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a joke or vanity page. eaolson 04:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable singer, not in allmusic. No released albums. No tours. feydey 04:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete under CSD G4 karmafist 05:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a very short article with no context other than spam, blah blah. FCYTravis 04:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. Delete. worthawholebean talk contribs 04:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, hoax, and so on. Delete. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-10 04:59:27 Z
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Of the dozens of definitions for "email hack" I could think of, this would be... well, it wouldn't even be on the list. Someone tagged this for speedy deletion, but I don't think that's appropriate. Nonetheless, it should still be deleted. I'm not sure what specific policy to cite; maybe WP:NOR, since this definition seems quite original to me. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-10 05:04:14 Z
The result of the debate was keep per general consensus that high schools are notable. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unlike the other Garfield High Schools listed on the disambiguation page, this school does not appear to have any notability other then the attendance of a member of the New York Jets football team. Benw 05:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [5]. -- PeruvianLlama( spit) 07:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Total self promotion of a nonotable company. Delete for being in violation of the 'Wikipedia is not a propaganda Machine' policy. Bjorn Tipling 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of this debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [6]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 05:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Borderline nn-bio. But I suppose the assertion that he was an "astonishing" football player is an assertion of notability. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 05:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [7] -- PeruvianLlama( spit) 07:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Complete fiction. Delete for being in violation of the 'Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought' policy.' Bjorn Tipling 05:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [8]. -- PeruvianLlama( spit) 07:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is a hoax, there were 0 results for JANDGE Day on Google. Delete for being a hoax. Bjorn Tipling 06:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Is this notable? I'm not sure. Abstain. Neutrality talk 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm not certain whether this actually exists, and if it is, it is certainly isn't notable. The website has nothing to do with the article. TimBentley 06:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "non-notable neologism," but the deletion process was not completed. — Brim 06:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "neologism, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable reference," but the deletion process was not completed. — Brim 06:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If the internet has a plentiful supply of anything, it's catalogues of logical fallacies. Funny, then, that this one is only listed as a logical fallacy in Wikipedia itself and WP mirrors. Original research, delete. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, as the original and sole contributor, Haseler ( talk · contribs), of this aticle marked it as such.-- Sean| Bla ck 08:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "nnonencyclopedic essay," but the deletion process was not completed. — Brim 06:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "advert and misspelled as well," but the deletion process was not completed. — Brim 06:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An article about the main character of a series of novels; articles about the series itself have not been written yet. Delete. Neutrality talk 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This initial list has been supplanted by Category:Voting theory and it's 3 sub categories Category:Voting theorists, Category:Voting systems, and Category:Voting system criteria. Scott Ritchie 07:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is written from original research. I also think the subject fails to meet the requirements in
WP:BIO, but I don't speak french and I could be wrong.
Movementarian
08:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable entry, does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria, has only recorded a couple of demos Akamad 08:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable. Google search for "Vegetarian Society of Colorado" returns 293 results. Their own site only has one listing for 'in the news', a 2003 article in the Durango Herald. AKMask 09:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant vanity/spam for a non-notable discussion board. (Has no Alexa rank; their provider's traffic rank is 79777.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Currently rather POV and unencyclopaedic in tone (which is fixable) article about an organisation which appears to be not in any way notable. Most Google hits on FOTGR are for cameras, once those are excluded the number of hits on FOTGR is below 300, and even those are often not about this project. Might (just) be justifiable with reference to systemic bias, I've voted keep on that basis before now, but I really don't see that in this case. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 10:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily kept as nominator has withdrawn his nomination. FCYTravis 23:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
"Internet radio" (i.e. not radio at all) show which hasn't quite reached the dizzy heights of having its own domain name yet. Some evidence of minor discussion in web forums, but not of any true media coverage or significance. This is the editor's first and (to date) sole contribution. Already seems to be on Wikicities, I see no reason why it can't stay there until it becomes well-known. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 10:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As the title suggests, this is one person's guide to the iPod. Adds nothing to IPod that I can see. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 10:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a joke religion amongst a handful of people, run out of a local restaurant. -- CBD ☎ ✉ 10:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 10:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't think Wikipedia is a dictionary of sexual slang. This appears to have been copied from here (note repeat of spelling error). User's sole contribution. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 10:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Promotional. This 'independent' film is looking for investors, and is unlikely to gain a proper theatrical release. Not notable. The JPS 10:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable. Can't find any google results, so unverifiable. Promo. The JPS 10:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Cannot be verified. Non notable. See also this afd. The JPS 10:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Unverified. Similar articles also up for AFD. The JPS 10:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was revert to October 21, 2005 version. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Currently a NN musician which is far too brief to assert importance. Does not cite reference. Previous versions of this page have been moved to wikitionary. Expect sockpuppets to 'contribute' to this AFD. The JPS 10:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
no evidence given of importance File Éireann 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity/non-notable. It mentions a nationwide campaign of some sort but no results. Snurks T C 10:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. CSD A1, nonsense. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Its been here for nearly a month and still doesn;'t give any useful information. File Éireann 10:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was booby delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
13:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Alexa rank >3,000,000 Google finds only one hit (the site itself). Domain registered Jan. 2004. Forums claim a whopping 370 members, which if the thread list is accurate means an average of under 2 posts per member (I hope they are archiving, otherwise they are clearly wasting their time!) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 11:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
spam, plain and simple. Can anyone think of an appropriate speedy criterion? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 11:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete: joke/vandalism. Thue | talk 18:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete:this page is not encyclopedic - nn - vanity -- Dschor 12:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Cross between a dicdef and a website advert. — Xezbeth 12:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this metal pseudo subgenre. This article basicaly describes the band Mastodon, which already has an article. Spearhead 12:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be an advertisement of poor quality. Shawnc 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination for User:66.191.124.236. Punkmorten 12:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Extremelly obscure article based on an attempt at a neologism. The google test lists 160 results. Article is orphan Mecanismo 13:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not really meet WP:MUSIC. A staggering 18 Google hits, and 1 hit on a Norwegian search engine. Punkmorten 13:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Seán Kelly (GAA President). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Orphan article not in english Mecanismo 13:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Capitalistroadster 17:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's an advert. Howie ☎ 13:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wikibooks. Owen× ☎ 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Is this article really needed on Wikipedia? Doesn't look like it belongs here at all. -- Mrdie 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 13:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Aecis praatpaal 14:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is another POV-fork by user Ed Poor presenting his particular take on the possible ways to answer the question "Can evolution be guided by God?" He ignores the fact that there are articles on theistic evolution and progressive creationism which already address this question in an NPOV manner. He reinstated this article claiming it wasn't properly AfDed when it was speedily deleted. -- ScienceApologist 14:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Either a hoax or non-notable unless author can provide citation File Éireann 14:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Information belongs best on the manufacturer's web site. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 14:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
More of the same. I had it redirect to evolutionary creationism, but yah, OR. — Dunc| ☺ 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
More of the same. I had it redirect to evolutionary creationism, but yah, OR. — Dunc| ☺ 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article doesn't say anything not said elsewhere in a better way, it just sort of rambles its was through variously flavoured slices of piffle. It is also factually incorrect; "Any other account of changes within populations (or the emergence of new populations) of life is Creationism, not Science" when alternative scientific theories have been proposed to account for evolution (they were wrong but they were nevertheless science).
It is on VFD to circumvent aggressive bullying tactics from certain users. — Dunc| ☺ 15:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
In particular, this is another example of a personal research essay by User:Ed Poor about the subject of evolutionary creationism. When User:Duncharris redirected the article, Ed Poor decided that he wanted the article reinstated as is. "Guided evolution" is another example of a creationist neologism, it should just be deleted anyway. Are people really going to do a search for "guided evolution"? -- ScienceApologist 16:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Totally self-promotional Daniel Case 16:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus (I counted 3 deletes, 2 keeps, 2 non-votes, 2 uncounted comments). — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
Apparently an author in the field of comparative religion, but her "notable theories" are as about as groundbreaking as a plastic shovel in permafrost. Assertions of notability may be valid, but I don't know if the publication of a few pieces of "pulp academia" are worthy of inclusion. Tom Lillis 09:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was yet another non-existant metal genre. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 16:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Merge per Spearhead. Leyasu 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article needs to be removed as we've revoked wikipedia the rights to use our trademarks after a series of incidents of our publication being changed, most of them questioning wether or not we would be a souvereign state or not (which is not up to anyone else except for us to decide), some even insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb3rob ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Enochlau 01:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't look very notable and not much content.
Delete GoldenGirl 05:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was only link is Silent Civilian, also on AFD. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A very short article describing an allegedly well known person with no Google hits; no sources provided." Shawnc 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable. 4 pages on Google, a lot of them are from either Wikipedia or school websites. Vanity page. Vulturell 04:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete per nomination. Vulturell 04:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was neologism with no google hits. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 16:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
del wikipedia:verifiability. A series of Slavic myhtology by anons. No reputable traces on web, no references. mikka (t) 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for deletion by 66.191.124.236, with the edit summary "nominate AFD -- non-notable gamers website". Completing nomination.
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to fail WP:BIO. The only hits I'm turning up in a google search are blogs and archives of emails, etc. Furthermore, it's been a stub article for over a year, so there doesn't appear to be much chance of it being expanded out into something encyclopedic. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Capitalistroadster 17:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable podcast (I hate that word) about a high school's goings-on. Non-notable.-- Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 17:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopedic, borderline original research? D-Rock 17:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Britney Spears. Owen× ☎ 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Baby has done nothing notable, except being born to Britney Spears and that guy. I don't think this child warrants his own article. - orion eight ( talk) 17:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:RHaworth. Jamie 08:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like someone pasted an entire spam email into an article and then gave it a horrible name. Speedyable under G1 and/or G3, is it not? Agamemnon2 17:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy, for sure, as per nominator. Lord ViD 17:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete, it is pure spam. -- Eeee 21:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Snowspinner restored this but neglected to list it on AfD, as the discussion on WP:DRV clearly mandates. It has had a previous AfD. - Splash talk 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non notable web site. Thunderbrand 17:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep it. He is funnay as all get out. I listen to him when I get the chance, and I know of many others at the University of Illinois and other colleges that do the same.
I'd like to see some comments on how notable this "famous" radio personality really is, as there's even no article for WPGU-FM 107.1. I'd say delete. feydey 17:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 10:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
move to wiktionary, where it truly belongs. mikka (t) 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move to User:R4gnar0k. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A
vanity article for a 19-year old university student who has yet to achieve sufficient notability. Delete.
Sliggy
18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Davidson. Renomination request by an anon at WP:AFC. Seems like good-faith, so I'm finishing it up. Kappa 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: The page is an unencyclopedic vanity page a doting parent wrote about their very young daughter. Hu 18:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article that should be about a town in mexico is hijacked by an article on some mexican personality. Article is badly written and orphan. Mecanismo 18:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure event organized in an obscure college Mecanismo 19:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Band article that doesn't seem to have any releases or a label, fails WP:MUSIC's guidelines for band notability. Not on AMG, 26 hits on Google [30]. -- W.marsh 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Underdeveloped article made redundant by more complete Category:Jazz ensembles Mecanismo 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable File Éireann 19:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Pretty blatant advertising Bjones 19:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisment Removed
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on room which may or may not exist in the churches of a cult Mecanismo 19:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Incoherent article about what seems to be a school project. Non-notable. 'Delete'. Catamorphism 19:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Bio of a musician. Just going by the claims of the article, doesn't meat WP:MUSIC because the first release isn't out, and won't be until 2007. Having serious trouble Verifying any of that... all of 3 Google results for his name [31], 2 of which redirect to casino webpages for me. -- W.marsh 19:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The software has no awards, merits, notability or special qualities. Promotion. feydey 19:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 11:02, Dec. 17, 2005
Probably non-notable biography, but making some claim to notablility. Joyous | Talk 19:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
he is well known in internet circles. 'weebl and bob' gets millions of hits..and the webcomic list is also very popular. both are well known sites particularly the weebl and bob one. but if hes not well known enough for wiki im sorry -- Aubiekat 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
well i see your points. if i can get a promise an entry for the webcomic list won't be non notable I'll write one about it. it really is an interesting site-- Aubiekat 00:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Only two voters were citing all the articles added to the nomination, but since the articles are essentially identical, and are about the same subject, I will delete them all. Mindmatrix 01:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement File Éireann 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Also see Atomic tea, Calgary tea, *atomic, Atomic experience, which should all be deleted as spam. Morwen - Talk 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Term fails the google test. Appears to be original research. Article is orphan. Mecanismo 20:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Company spam. Sole editor is Pick of India. Site has an Alexa rank of about 276,750. -- D e ath phoenix 20:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A non-profit organization that runs a historical house. House might be significant, but the "Adams Educational Center" gets 57 google hits. Renata3 20:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nonsense. Enochlau 01:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense? Web site ad? Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A catchphrase from an obscure character isn't encyclopedic material Mecanismo 20:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. I propose a move to Wiktionary, then delete. Klaw Talk 20:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. worthawholebean talk contribs 20:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Google search [33] returns 642 results. worthawholebean talk contribs 21:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus(see talk page) karmafist 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Yet another tragic tale of death, but one that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is a not a place for memorials. Caerwine 17:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 21:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Outside guidelines for WP:BIO. Link provided does not even verify the weak claim to notability stated. TimPope 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Ethnic group. Owen× ☎ 02:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef; no potential for expansion. Should be deleted, Wiktionaried, or merged into ethnic. This article was created as part of a vandalism/trolling/POV campaign — see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr_again]. Psychonaut 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article about a personal homepage. Alexa has no traffic rating and shows no sites linking to the site. [34] Delete as per WP:WEB. -- Allen3 talk 21:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam. Main claims to notability feeling of perpetual nighttime and the prices - insufficient in my estimation.
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This was speedy deleted under the vandalism criteria, with the deletion summary indicating something about a personal attack. The current content is identical to previous, and I don't believe that it meets the criteria. No vote. Sean| Bla ck 21:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
for info ... I just copyedit the page; I think it is an improvement ... Vamp: Willow 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism - at best a dictdef
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As determined on its translation request entry, it's an nn-spam group. YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 22:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
original research File Éireann 22:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Yes if it isn't accepted as anything other than original research perhaps it should be tagged on somewhere else or deleted...-- Aoclery 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Tony. reply
The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising - doesn't meet
WP:CORP
The result of the debate was IDelete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable search engine. You can buy the site for $12000 but it's cheaper to ...
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising for non-notable company.
The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 13:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Was marked with a speedy delete tag but it's not. But it still fails WP:MUSIC big time so Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 22:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Idelete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An advertisement File Éireann 22:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
notability Melaen 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unimportant church, and a poorly written stub unlikely to improve. Not really a speedy delete. Harro 5 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Contentless article about a high school newspaper whose originating high school lacks an article YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity. Google results are mainly self-promo, plus a BBC local article about their participation in a 2004 Battle of the Bands. FreplySpang (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cryptic (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a minor local band. Hard to do a websearch for because "The Charts" and "Time is up" turn up thousands of matches. Richfife 23:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD here was sort-of set aside by Deletion Review in light of the recreation we now have. The people there expressed some concern that it may still be original research. Reading the article, it doesn't appear to offer external sources for its claims about the various things it talks about, unless that one reference at the bottom says all this. AfD should consider carefully whether this is still original research: and delete it if it is. - Splash talk 23:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nomination seconded. Original research. Delete it. I may be inclined to strike my vote later. Xoloz 06:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
no reference found Melaen 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
notability Melaen 23:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 02:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not a commonly used phrase; appears to have been created to list Japanese games, anime, etc., that Americans like. tregoweth 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be an advertisement of poor quality. Shawnc 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability requirements. Velvetsmog 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Also, even though it's a non-profit group, it seems like advertising to me. This should be on Google, not Wikipedia. Belmore 00:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily kept per a general consensus that high schools are notable FCYTravis 04:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Lost, orphan article on obscure, non-notable school Mecanismo 00:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I originally tagged this as a speedy but it was removed. Guess I have to move it over here. Non-notable bio. Stifle 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I nominated this for speedy deletion too, but it was removed. Barely-notable singer and article has very little room for expansion. Stifle 00:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is obviously spam/vandalism Mecanismo 00:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Please note that any comments before this one, do not reflect the article as rewritten by Pburka. Please don't count them when closing. - Mgm| (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted (blanking by creator). - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a brand of caffeine tablets. ERcheck 01:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopedic. ERcheck 01:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (or at worst, no consensus). bainer ( talk) 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Any article that leads with advertising raises eyebrows to its notability in my book. karmafist 01:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity article, no actual product has been commercially released; appears to be more like a fan-produced game Howie ☎ 02:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 01:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This reads just like a sales ad and looks to me like blatant advertising DanielCD 02:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable, vanity Avalon 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Autobiography of real person. Minor assertion of notability. ERcheck 02:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was (Speedy) delete - please see this talk page for full context regarding the closure of this AfD. Thank you. -- HappyCamper 03:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism; few Google hits. Psychonaut 03:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was (Speedy) delete - please see this talk page for full context regarding the closure of this AfD. Thank you. -- HappyCamper 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism; no Google hits. Psychonaut 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily kept - Encyclopedic subject that got vandalized. FCYTravis 04:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is more or less an advertisement, and provides no content suggesting it could be made into a quality Wikipedia article. Benandorsqueaks 03:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
This came to no consensus because the non-deletes, despite being in the majority overall, couldn't decide whether to keep as is, rename, or merge somewhere else. Any future nominators, keep in mind that the deletes were in an overall minority here.
Do we need really this list? Lists of women in $TRADITIONALLY_MALE_PROFESSION are as unsuitable as the n "Lists of Jews". Wikipedia is as much a vehicle to boost pride in one's gender as it is to boost one's pride in one's ethnicity. Pilatus 03:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No evidence that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 03:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to properly finish the merge per policy, see links below. - Mgm| (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I have completed a merge of this page's remaining significant information over to the more-complete Decision support system article. I believe that this article is now redundant and can be deleted; it is an orphan and so does not even need a redirect. Steve Summit ( talk) 03:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The game is technically not related to the Dragon Quest game series because it was created by fans. It is not a commerical game and there are a lot of fan made Flash games. J. Nguyen 04:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a joke or vanity page. eaolson 04:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable singer, not in allmusic. No released albums. No tours. feydey 04:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete under CSD G4 karmafist 05:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a very short article with no context other than spam, blah blah. FCYTravis 04:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. Delete. worthawholebean talk contribs 04:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, hoax, and so on. Delete. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-10 04:59:27 Z
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Of the dozens of definitions for "email hack" I could think of, this would be... well, it wouldn't even be on the list. Someone tagged this for speedy deletion, but I don't think that's appropriate. Nonetheless, it should still be deleted. I'm not sure what specific policy to cite; maybe WP:NOR, since this definition seems quite original to me. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-10 05:04:14 Z
The result of the debate was keep per general consensus that high schools are notable. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unlike the other Garfield High Schools listed on the disambiguation page, this school does not appear to have any notability other then the attendance of a member of the New York Jets football team. Benw 05:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [5]. -- PeruvianLlama( spit) 07:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Total self promotion of a nonotable company. Delete for being in violation of the 'Wikipedia is not a propaganda Machine' policy. Bjorn Tipling 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of this debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [6]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 05:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Borderline nn-bio. But I suppose the assertion that he was an "astonishing" football player is an assertion of notability. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 05:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [7] -- PeruvianLlama( spit) 07:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Complete fiction. Delete for being in violation of the 'Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought' policy.' Bjorn Tipling 05:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [8]. -- PeruvianLlama( spit) 07:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is a hoax, there were 0 results for JANDGE Day on Google. Delete for being a hoax. Bjorn Tipling 06:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Is this notable? I'm not sure. Abstain. Neutrality talk 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm not certain whether this actually exists, and if it is, it is certainly isn't notable. The website has nothing to do with the article. TimBentley 06:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "non-notable neologism," but the deletion process was not completed. — Brim 06:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "neologism, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable reference," but the deletion process was not completed. — Brim 06:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If the internet has a plentiful supply of anything, it's catalogues of logical fallacies. Funny, then, that this one is only listed as a logical fallacy in Wikipedia itself and WP mirrors. Original research, delete. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, as the original and sole contributor, Haseler ( talk · contribs), of this aticle marked it as such.-- Sean| Bla ck 08:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "nnonencyclopedic essay," but the deletion process was not completed. — Brim 06:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "advert and misspelled as well," but the deletion process was not completed. — Brim 06:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An article about the main character of a series of novels; articles about the series itself have not been written yet. Delete. Neutrality talk 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This initial list has been supplanted by Category:Voting theory and it's 3 sub categories Category:Voting theorists, Category:Voting systems, and Category:Voting system criteria. Scott Ritchie 07:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is written from original research. I also think the subject fails to meet the requirements in
WP:BIO, but I don't speak french and I could be wrong.
Movementarian
08:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable entry, does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria, has only recorded a couple of demos Akamad 08:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable. Google search for "Vegetarian Society of Colorado" returns 293 results. Their own site only has one listing for 'in the news', a 2003 article in the Durango Herald. AKMask 09:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant vanity/spam for a non-notable discussion board. (Has no Alexa rank; their provider's traffic rank is 79777.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Currently rather POV and unencyclopaedic in tone (which is fixable) article about an organisation which appears to be not in any way notable. Most Google hits on FOTGR are for cameras, once those are excluded the number of hits on FOTGR is below 300, and even those are often not about this project. Might (just) be justifiable with reference to systemic bias, I've voted keep on that basis before now, but I really don't see that in this case. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 10:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily kept as nominator has withdrawn his nomination. FCYTravis 23:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
"Internet radio" (i.e. not radio at all) show which hasn't quite reached the dizzy heights of having its own domain name yet. Some evidence of minor discussion in web forums, but not of any true media coverage or significance. This is the editor's first and (to date) sole contribution. Already seems to be on Wikicities, I see no reason why it can't stay there until it becomes well-known. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 10:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As the title suggests, this is one person's guide to the iPod. Adds nothing to IPod that I can see. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 10:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a joke religion amongst a handful of people, run out of a local restaurant. -- CBD ☎ ✉ 10:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 10:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't think Wikipedia is a dictionary of sexual slang. This appears to have been copied from here (note repeat of spelling error). User's sole contribution. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 10:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Promotional. This 'independent' film is looking for investors, and is unlikely to gain a proper theatrical release. Not notable. The JPS 10:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable. Can't find any google results, so unverifiable. Promo. The JPS 10:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Cannot be verified. Non notable. See also this afd. The JPS 10:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Unverified. Similar articles also up for AFD. The JPS 10:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was revert to October 21, 2005 version. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Currently a NN musician which is far too brief to assert importance. Does not cite reference. Previous versions of this page have been moved to wikitionary. Expect sockpuppets to 'contribute' to this AFD. The JPS 10:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
no evidence given of importance File Éireann 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity/non-notable. It mentions a nationwide campaign of some sort but no results. Snurks T C 10:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. CSD A1, nonsense. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Its been here for nearly a month and still doesn;'t give any useful information. File Éireann 10:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was booby delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
13:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Alexa rank >3,000,000 Google finds only one hit (the site itself). Domain registered Jan. 2004. Forums claim a whopping 370 members, which if the thread list is accurate means an average of under 2 posts per member (I hope they are archiving, otherwise they are clearly wasting their time!) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 11:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
spam, plain and simple. Can anyone think of an appropriate speedy criterion? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 11:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete: joke/vandalism. Thue | talk 18:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete:this page is not encyclopedic - nn - vanity -- Dschor 12:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Cross between a dicdef and a website advert. — Xezbeth 12:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this metal pseudo subgenre. This article basicaly describes the band Mastodon, which already has an article. Spearhead 12:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be an advertisement of poor quality. Shawnc 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination for User:66.191.124.236. Punkmorten 12:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Extremelly obscure article based on an attempt at a neologism. The google test lists 160 results. Article is orphan Mecanismo 13:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not really meet WP:MUSIC. A staggering 18 Google hits, and 1 hit on a Norwegian search engine. Punkmorten 13:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Seán Kelly (GAA President). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Orphan article not in english Mecanismo 13:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Capitalistroadster 17:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's an advert. Howie ☎ 13:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wikibooks. Owen× ☎ 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Is this article really needed on Wikipedia? Doesn't look like it belongs here at all. -- Mrdie 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 13:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Aecis praatpaal 14:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is another POV-fork by user Ed Poor presenting his particular take on the possible ways to answer the question "Can evolution be guided by God?" He ignores the fact that there are articles on theistic evolution and progressive creationism which already address this question in an NPOV manner. He reinstated this article claiming it wasn't properly AfDed when it was speedily deleted. -- ScienceApologist 14:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Either a hoax or non-notable unless author can provide citation File Éireann 14:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Information belongs best on the manufacturer's web site. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 14:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
More of the same. I had it redirect to evolutionary creationism, but yah, OR. — Dunc| ☺ 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
More of the same. I had it redirect to evolutionary creationism, but yah, OR. — Dunc| ☺ 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article doesn't say anything not said elsewhere in a better way, it just sort of rambles its was through variously flavoured slices of piffle. It is also factually incorrect; "Any other account of changes within populations (or the emergence of new populations) of life is Creationism, not Science" when alternative scientific theories have been proposed to account for evolution (they were wrong but they were nevertheless science).
It is on VFD to circumvent aggressive bullying tactics from certain users. — Dunc| ☺ 15:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
In particular, this is another example of a personal research essay by User:Ed Poor about the subject of evolutionary creationism. When User:Duncharris redirected the article, Ed Poor decided that he wanted the article reinstated as is. "Guided evolution" is another example of a creationist neologism, it should just be deleted anyway. Are people really going to do a search for "guided evolution"? -- ScienceApologist 16:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Totally self-promotional Daniel Case 16:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus (I counted 3 deletes, 2 keeps, 2 non-votes, 2 uncounted comments). — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
Apparently an author in the field of comparative religion, but her "notable theories" are as about as groundbreaking as a plastic shovel in permafrost. Assertions of notability may be valid, but I don't know if the publication of a few pieces of "pulp academia" are worthy of inclusion. Tom Lillis 09:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was yet another non-existant metal genre. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 16:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Merge per Spearhead. Leyasu 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article needs to be removed as we've revoked wikipedia the rights to use our trademarks after a series of incidents of our publication being changed, most of them questioning wether or not we would be a souvereign state or not (which is not up to anyone else except for us to decide), some even insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb3rob ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Enochlau 01:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't look very notable and not much content.
Delete GoldenGirl 05:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was only link is Silent Civilian, also on AFD. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A very short article describing an allegedly well known person with no Google hits; no sources provided." Shawnc 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable. 4 pages on Google, a lot of them are from either Wikipedia or school websites. Vanity page. Vulturell 04:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete per nomination. Vulturell 04:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was neologism with no google hits. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 16:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
del wikipedia:verifiability. A series of Slavic myhtology by anons. No reputable traces on web, no references. mikka (t) 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for deletion by 66.191.124.236, with the edit summary "nominate AFD -- non-notable gamers website". Completing nomination.
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to fail WP:BIO. The only hits I'm turning up in a google search are blogs and archives of emails, etc. Furthermore, it's been a stub article for over a year, so there doesn't appear to be much chance of it being expanded out into something encyclopedic. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Capitalistroadster 17:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable podcast (I hate that word) about a high school's goings-on. Non-notable.-- Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 17:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopedic, borderline original research? D-Rock 17:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Britney Spears. Owen× ☎ 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Baby has done nothing notable, except being born to Britney Spears and that guy. I don't think this child warrants his own article. - orion eight ( talk) 17:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:RHaworth. Jamie 08:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like someone pasted an entire spam email into an article and then gave it a horrible name. Speedyable under G1 and/or G3, is it not? Agamemnon2 17:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy, for sure, as per nominator. Lord ViD 17:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete, it is pure spam. -- Eeee 21:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Snowspinner restored this but neglected to list it on AfD, as the discussion on WP:DRV clearly mandates. It has had a previous AfD. - Splash talk 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non notable web site. Thunderbrand 17:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep it. He is funnay as all get out. I listen to him when I get the chance, and I know of many others at the University of Illinois and other colleges that do the same.
I'd like to see some comments on how notable this "famous" radio personality really is, as there's even no article for WPGU-FM 107.1. I'd say delete. feydey 17:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 10:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
move to wiktionary, where it truly belongs. mikka (t) 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move to User:R4gnar0k. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A
vanity article for a 19-year old university student who has yet to achieve sufficient notability. Delete.
Sliggy
18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Davidson. Renomination request by an anon at WP:AFC. Seems like good-faith, so I'm finishing it up. Kappa 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: The page is an unencyclopedic vanity page a doting parent wrote about their very young daughter. Hu 18:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article that should be about a town in mexico is hijacked by an article on some mexican personality. Article is badly written and orphan. Mecanismo 18:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure event organized in an obscure college Mecanismo 19:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Band article that doesn't seem to have any releases or a label, fails WP:MUSIC's guidelines for band notability. Not on AMG, 26 hits on Google [30]. -- W.marsh 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Underdeveloped article made redundant by more complete Category:Jazz ensembles Mecanismo 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 08:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable File Éireann 19:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Pretty blatant advertising Bjones 19:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisment Removed
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on room which may or may not exist in the churches of a cult Mecanismo 19:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Incoherent article about what seems to be a school project. Non-notable. 'Delete'. Catamorphism 19:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Bio of a musician. Just going by the claims of the article, doesn't meat WP:MUSIC because the first release isn't out, and won't be until 2007. Having serious trouble Verifying any of that... all of 3 Google results for his name [31], 2 of which redirect to casino webpages for me. -- W.marsh 19:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The software has no awards, merits, notability or special qualities. Promotion. feydey 19:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 11:02, Dec. 17, 2005
Probably non-notable biography, but making some claim to notablility. Joyous | Talk 19:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
he is well known in internet circles. 'weebl and bob' gets millions of hits..and the webcomic list is also very popular. both are well known sites particularly the weebl and bob one. but if hes not well known enough for wiki im sorry -- Aubiekat 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
well i see your points. if i can get a promise an entry for the webcomic list won't be non notable I'll write one about it. it really is an interesting site-- Aubiekat 00:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Only two voters were citing all the articles added to the nomination, but since the articles are essentially identical, and are about the same subject, I will delete them all. Mindmatrix 01:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement File Éireann 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Also see Atomic tea, Calgary tea, *atomic, Atomic experience, which should all be deleted as spam. Morwen - Talk 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Term fails the google test. Appears to be original research. Article is orphan. Mecanismo 20:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Company spam. Sole editor is Pick of India. Site has an Alexa rank of about 276,750. -- D e ath phoenix 20:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A non-profit organization that runs a historical house. House might be significant, but the "Adams Educational Center" gets 57 google hits. Renata3 20:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nonsense. Enochlau 01:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense? Web site ad? Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A catchphrase from an obscure character isn't encyclopedic material Mecanismo 20:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. I propose a move to Wiktionary, then delete. Klaw Talk 20:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. worthawholebean talk contribs 20:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Google search [33] returns 642 results. worthawholebean talk contribs 21:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus(see talk page) karmafist 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Yet another tragic tale of death, but one that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is a not a place for memorials. Caerwine 17:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 21:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Outside guidelines for WP:BIO. Link provided does not even verify the weak claim to notability stated. TimPope 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Ethnic group. Owen× ☎ 02:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef; no potential for expansion. Should be deleted, Wiktionaried, or merged into ethnic. This article was created as part of a vandalism/trolling/POV campaign — see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr_again]. Psychonaut 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article about a personal homepage. Alexa has no traffic rating and shows no sites linking to the site. [34] Delete as per WP:WEB. -- Allen3 talk 21:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam. Main claims to notability feeling of perpetual nighttime and the prices - insufficient in my estimation.
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This was speedy deleted under the vandalism criteria, with the deletion summary indicating something about a personal attack. The current content is identical to previous, and I don't believe that it meets the criteria. No vote. Sean| Bla ck 21:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
for info ... I just copyedit the page; I think it is an improvement ... Vamp: Willow 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism - at best a dictdef
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As determined on its translation request entry, it's an nn-spam group. YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 22:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
original research File Éireann 22:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Yes if it isn't accepted as anything other than original research perhaps it should be tagged on somewhere else or deleted...-- Aoclery 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Tony. reply
The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising - doesn't meet
WP:CORP
The result of the debate was IDelete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable search engine. You can buy the site for $12000 but it's cheaper to ...
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising for non-notable company.
The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 13:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Was marked with a speedy delete tag but it's not. But it still fails WP:MUSIC big time so Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 22:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Idelete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An advertisement File Éireann 22:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
notability Melaen 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unimportant church, and a poorly written stub unlikely to improve. Not really a speedy delete. Harro 5 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Contentless article about a high school newspaper whose originating high school lacks an article YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity. Google results are mainly self-promo, plus a BBC local article about their participation in a 2004 Battle of the Bands. FreplySpang (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cryptic (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a minor local band. Hard to do a websearch for because "The Charts" and "Time is up" turn up thousands of matches. Richfife 23:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD here was sort-of set aside by Deletion Review in light of the recreation we now have. The people there expressed some concern that it may still be original research. Reading the article, it doesn't appear to offer external sources for its claims about the various things it talks about, unless that one reference at the bottom says all this. AfD should consider carefully whether this is still original research: and delete it if it is. - Splash talk 23:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nomination seconded. Original research. Delete it. I may be inclined to strike my vote later. Xoloz 06:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
no reference found Melaen 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
notability Melaen 23:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 02:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not a commonly used phrase; appears to have been created to list Japanese games, anime, etc., that Americans like. tregoweth 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply