The result of the debate was redirect. Actually, from a strictly vote-counting POV, that may not be the case. But the redirect argument is strong, the delete argument is not ("non-notable"? May as well say "I wanna delete!"; at least one person should explain why it's non-notable), and the keep argument is really very sad indeed. Okay, so a redirect still appears to get rid of the content, so the deleters will be happy nonetheless, but I felt like making a point. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable Drdisque 00:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
43 unique Google hits. Non-notable sports club. Rampart 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
One of several articles created in connection with Alexander Bolonkin. This article, in particular, is pure speculation.
The result of the debate was delete all. Mindmatrix 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Like E-being (E-man), these are almost entirely speculation/sci-fi.
The result of the debate was DELETE, since such is the procedure after noone offers to translate, and noone offers to keep. - Splash talk 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 16. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merged and redirected into Scrabble letter distributions. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 14:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Now successfully merged with Scrabble letter distributions, so can be deleted safely.
The result of the debate was KEEP, since it was translated subsequent to all the deleters' comments. No prejudice to a nomination on other grounds in future. - Splash talk 00:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A hospital radio service of one UK hospital. Really stretching the limits of notability. JFW | T@lk 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like some kind of joke. No explanation of notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, but a merge is clearly needed. It's already tagged. - Splash talk 00:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is pretty much all song lyrics, has nothing to do with the band itself, and probably a copyright infringement by posting the lyrics on the article in the first place. Cernen 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. As translated, it's an nn-bio. No prejudice to a recreation done properly. - Splash talk 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Also possbile nn-bio. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie
The result of the debate was keep. I'm going to move it to Laszlo Toth, however. And if'n I catch anyone removing AfD tags from an article still under discussion again, worl ... fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be notable. Possible merge to
Pieta. Disputed nn-bio.
Stifle 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Actually, delete and redirect per Eusebeus.
Stifle
11:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Uncited; I suspect it's a hoax. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student group. The relevent information has already been merged into University of Massachusetts Amherst. This page should be deleted. peachlette 01:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
unverifiable [4]. Article even admits it's unverifiable... any questions? -- W.marsh 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nnbio small unknown band most likely a publicity page Reid A. 01:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete and the closing administrator that there was a consensus to smite this article from the wiki :) Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NPOV & Non-encyclopaedic - Drdisque 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Image77 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)from the author of this article: I will amp up my entry with the logical argument I offer in my book and link to the sources, such as St. Augustine and Stephen Hawking, from which I derive my alternative to Creationism and the Big Bang. I will remove the link to my blog. Today, many authors have to self-publish in order to get their ideas out there. In my case, I also want to keep the rights to my work and not sell them. It isn't always valid to state that a self-published book has no merit on a priori basis, though of course I can understand the perception. If anyone here wishes, I will e-mail you a free PDF of my book for further review. I do work in science. I am not a Ph.D., but I do work in plasma physics. Let me have a few more days before destroying my article with asteroids, foreign objects, etc. My e-mail is secretsoflight@gmail.com reply
-- Image77-- (from the author) Please delete my article.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Zoe. Jamie 08:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Subsubsubsubstub about a pornstar's pseudonym; the pornstar does not herself have an article. YixilTesiphon Say hello 01:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Phishing. - Splash talk 01:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. 2Ghits.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organisation/website for global transcendence.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An article about a band that has never released any recordings, as the article states. Obviously non-notable. Delete. Hapsiainen 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to Arnold Rimmer; no content untrivial enough to be worth merging, beyond a sentence on the effect of the Rimmer Experience. Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems non-notable. As a fan of the TV show in question, I've no reason to see that this particular sequence is worthy of a dedicated article. Delete or merge with a to-be-created article on Series 8 of the show. pomegranate 02:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I believe this article is a hoax. Jesus on a Bicycle" "The Heroin Addicts" -wikipedia garners the old google bagel. [9] If this was indeed so popular a track, it might be mentioned somewhere on the internet. Also, I cannot find an allmusic listing. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. The merge target suggested is a deleted, protected page at present. - Splash talk 01:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
0 Google results. Appears to be a division of a record label with no relevant Google results that had a member of D12 who left in 2001. Mys e kurity( have you seen this?) 02:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. unnecessary dictionary definition of slang term, poorly written, much of the page is off-topic ("Asshat" is not a synonym for "Asshole"). wikipediatrix 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JJay's comment is not terribly helpful without an actual expansion on the part of the editor making the comment; particularly when the alternative is delete! - Splash talk 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable; wikispam. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I came across this while scrubbing for unsourced images. While I'm sure there are mask fetishists out there, with sites on the internet to cater to their tastes and everything, I'm also sure there are fetishists who like to strap chicken livers on their chests, too. I did some googling for this and found 148 references to the phenomenon, many of which were wikipedia mirror sites. Fetishes almost by definition are unusual, but this particularly seem to me to be a sufficiently widespread fetish (compared to, say, Foot fetishism), and I am always aware of the likelihood of commercial trawling with this sort of thing. So I'm bringing it here. Nandesuka 03:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't see her meeting WP:MUSIC so Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO RESULT. It's been deleted already, and is now a dab page....which has only one entry. A new nomination would be needed if a definitive result were sought. - Splash talk 01:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently this is a recreation of a previously deleted dictionary definition. Durova 21:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 23:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This is another adjective with no obvious noun target for a redirect and with no scope for expansion into an encyclopaedia article. Wiktionary had had Wiktionary:deleterious for 1 month prior to this article's creation. Uncle G 11:29, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Unsigned anonymous votes were not counted for the purpose of resolving this AfD. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Author admits it's a neologism just used on web-forums. I can't even find evidence of that [14]... -- W.marsh 03:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I hear it all the time. It might be a regional (midwest) thing. Keep it.
I have seen and heard it all the time. Also bar macks.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It might have potential with the Burrito article but it doesn't really need its own page. Eeee 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was yeah, that's a delete all right. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be non-notable from my research. gren グレン 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Specifically though, cum fart is more dicdef than anything else. Moreover, it is a made up term used by the pornography industry to market particular types of porn. This term cannot be cross-referenced. It is more of an advertising gimmick than anything else. Dec 19, 2005
Keep it. It's amazing that this behavious exists, and I don't condone it, but since it exists, it may as well be documented.
Delete this garbage I can't imagine how in God's name this disgusting article will help anybody, not counting perverts. Please delete this trash.
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
There were presumably many thousands of non-Muslims who interacted with Muslims during Muhammad's lifetime. Of course, we don't know the names of most of them. If they are notable, they should be mentioned in one of the Wikipedia history articles. If they aren't notable, they don't need to be listed. This article should be deleted. Zora 03:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Some Counterstrike prank, all that Google shows up is forum posts. Pilatus 04:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
At best a dicdef. But a google search on the phrase "circle your ducks" [18] returns no hits. Either a hoax or a very local usage. Rholton 04:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Band with 1 release, no label info, no evidence they meet WP:MUSIC. Not on AMG, etc. -- W.marsh 04:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
how is it hurting the encyclopedia to make it more inclusive of smaller musical acts?
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn fanforum, doesn't even have its own website. User:Zoe| (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Publisher of some garage wrestling newsletter, WP:BIO inclusion is doubtful. Wrestling cruft. karmafist 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
By the way, from that aforementioned Google Books search, here's a great quote about Meltzer's significance that would be a fine addition to the article. It's from the New York Times No. 1 bestselling autobiography of Mick Foley, the former WWF world champion:
I was at Brian Hildebrand’s in the early summer of ’88, when I saw him reading a strange publication called the Wrestling Observer. I had heard about these “dirtsheets” (inside newsletters) that “exposed” wrestling to its readers, but had never actually seen one. At the time, these sheets were probably read by fewer than a thousand people, but nonetheless carried a lot of weight in the business. Men as important as Bill Watts were known to change the company’s direction if the sheets didn’t like what was going on, while many others swore they’d kill the guy who wrote it if they ever found him. In 1990, the guy, Dave Meltzer, introduced himself to be in Greensboro, North Carolina, and I was shocked that he actually appeared in public. I thought he was like Salman Rushdie of The Satanic Verses fame.
“Hey, Brian,” I said, “could I take a look at that thing when you’re done?”
“Sure,” he replied, “you’re in it.”
“I am?” I asked in disbelief. “For what?” Before he could answer, I changed my mind. “Never mind, I’ll read it myself.” When Brian handed me the sheet, I took it to a place where I could concentrate, and it was there, on the bowl of the Hildebrand house in Pittsburgh while squeezing out a solid Snow, that I read the biggest compliment of my young career. “Cactus Jack, who many consider to be the best no-name independent in the country.”
I couldn’t believe it—as much as the Observer was maligned by people in the business, a wrestler getting a favorable write-up was like an actor getting a good review in the New York Times. Whether it was coincidence or not, I’ll never know, but interest in Cactus Jack picked up immediately. -- Masterofzen 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Here is some further info from sportsbyline.com which is a sports-talk radio network "heard on nearly 200 radio stations and by 2.2 million listeners per week" ( http://www.sportsbyline.com/history.htm) on which Dave hosts a weekly wrestling show on Sunday's.
The show, which was the most listened to internet-generated talk show from late 1999 through 2001, moved to radio in March of 2002 and is the place where the most serious wrestling fans in the world talk about the unique sports entertainment form and its incredible popularity. Meltzer is considered the pioneer of pro wrestling journalism. A lifelong fan, Meltzer began writing about wrestling at the age of ten in various newsletters and fan club publications. While attending San Jose State University and reporting for the Oakland Tribune, Meltzer started the Wrestling Observer Newsletter in 1982. It was the first publication that covered pro wrestling that made no excuses about the industry being entertainment as opposed to sport, including coining the term "athletic entertainment" to describe pro wrestling, a term later changed to "sports entertainment" by Vince McMahon. The Observer remains the publication of record within the pro wrestling industry, read by nearly every serious fan and student of the game around the world.
Meltzer is joined every Sunday night by Alvarez, an independent pro wrestler who puts out the newsletter Figure Four Weekly, the most hilarious weekly look at pro wrestling around the world. In recent polls, the Observer and Figure Four were rated as the two most popular pro wrestling weekly publications in the world.Meltzer is considered the leading independent expert on pro wrestling, and has been featured in Sports Illustrated and on Entertainment Tonight. His book, "Tributes," was the best selling pro wrestling book in late 2001 and early 2002. He's been on every major network newscast as well as the Phil Donahue Show, numerous specials on pro wrestling from A&E, Court TV and the Discovery Channel, quoted in publications such as TV Guide, Rolling Stone, New York Times and Newsweek and appeared in the two leading documentaries on wrestling, Wrestling with Shadows and Beyond the Mat. Alvarez adds tremendous insight to the show as well as humor, making the two hours fly by every Sunday night. ( http://www.sportsbyline.com/bios/meltzer.htm) Jazzy joe 15:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This does not document an actual game, it is a product of the creator's imagination (unsigned comment from Penguincube)
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Subjective listcruft.
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a neologism with no Google hits [27]. While the concept described by the phrase is believed by some to exist, it should be described in some appropriate article without this pseudo-Latin term. Delete per WP:NOR. -- Metropolitan90 04:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
character from non-notable SNL skit. Unexpandable, doesn't really need more than possibly a mention at Dana Carvey GTBacchus 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Made by username "Jpl consulting" and thus invalid under WP:CORP YixilTesiphon Say hello 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move to Longwan District. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Bare stub, and NN. Found on WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Text from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to List of painters. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
We already have Lists of painters. Everybody in this list is famous. Delete abakharev 04:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, fails WP:MUSIC.
2 sites link to http://www.google.com.au/search?q=link%3Awww.mphase.tk&btnG=Search&meta=
3 sites link to http://www.google.com.au/search?q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.escapevelocity.com%2F
The counter on the band's site reads 5400 hits. Josh Parris # : 04:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a place for original research.
See this LiveJournal entry, this comment "You should add your scale to Wikipedia, thus lending it a veneer of respectability" and subsequent replies.
-- Matthias Bauer 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 25. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 04:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Pamri • Talk 14:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (5d/2k). Mindmatrix 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN. http://www.google.com.au/search?q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.revolutionmusic.net%2F shows 11 sites linking to the group in question. Josh Parris # : 05:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to lingerie. No content mergeable, but editors are free to dig up and prune all the POV from the original article to merge (if anything useable exists). Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is advertisement. TheRingess 05:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn site ---- Astrokey44| talk 05:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It appears this article exists solely to promote an event. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 06:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is not just an event, but an organization that is going to convene international economics congresses every year, publish books, etc.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and unencyclopaedic: a few short paragraphs describing an internet-based gaming clan/group.-- PeruvianLlama( spit) 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was originally deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golgothian Sylex. The only legitimate user who voted "keep" on that AfD has recreated the article. Precedent ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahamoti djinn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serra Angel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juzam Djinn, etc.) has established that individual Magic cards are not notable. Andrew Levine 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, dictdef Ronabop 06:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Possible vanity article of a non-notable person The user who created the article is Simion.m, so certainly is autobiographical - Akamad 07:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User Brookie. Capitalistroadster 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a poorly written advertisement for software. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Copyvio, and too old to speedy per CSD A8. Also listed on WP:PNT, discussion (to date) from there follows... Jamie 07:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Brookie. Capitalistroadster 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense...this is probably a speedy, but best sent to BJAODN-- MONGO 07:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems spamish, but retagging from a speedy tag for vote-- MONGO 08:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article was speedy tagged, now bring it to a vote. Some additions have been made and may be of minor importance-- MONGO 08:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not very notable. Originally speedy tagged, so here now we can vote on the issue.
13 Google News references [32] including references in the Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and CBS News. There are 25 results in Google Books [33] and 26 Google scholars. [34] Meets WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 09:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, this is just a page for spam from anonymous users (who also keep inserting external links to bump google hits). I wouldn't be surprised if this term was made up on Wikipedia. Scott Ritchie 08:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged for speedy deletion. Doesn't look very notable.
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy delete, and article states that it was to have a playground for opposing points of view and to reach a concenus. The last substantive edit was 2 months ago, so perhaps the issues have been resolved and the edit war is over. This article is almost a carbon copy of Bob Dylan-- MONGO 08:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Rallidae. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be Original research, not obviously supported by a quick google search. Ben Aveling 08:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unnotable, fails google test. Haakon 08:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
May be it seems like advertising. But it's not a commercial advertising. It's a PSA.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 61.247.252.205 ( talk • contribs)
Delete first-person marketing drivel Drdisque 08:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
We think Last Malthusian, lost the Consciousness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.252.205 ( talk • contribs)
We think Movementarian thoughts, moves towards wrong side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.252.205 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nominated for speedy. Seems of minor importance though.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail critia of WP:MUSIC and is primarily original research-- MONGO 09:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An obsoleted bio article from the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union, which is now voted for deletion as well. minghong 09:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged for speedy, appears to be not notable so, Delete-- MONGO 09:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn, possible vanity page-- MONGO 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. The spiky little discussion finishes up sounding like a delete. - Splash talk 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable Sleepyhead 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:MONGO as "nonsense" (CSD G1). Jamie 10:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, stupidity Lancer Sykera 09:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:NSLE. Jamie 10:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, belongs on user page Lancer Sykera 09:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 10:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity Lancer Sykera 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 09:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity Lancer Sykera 10:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:FCYTravis. Jamie 10:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nonsense Lancer Sykera 10:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Seabhcan. Jamie 13:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary-esque Lancer Sykera 10:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Presumably a copyvio from the now-defunct website. The debate below says all that needs to be said. - Splash talk 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is either a summary or a direct copy of an article from 1995. It dosen't really have any reason to be in Wikipedia. In my opinion. You may feel differently... Furius 10:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Ok, this was originally at Sweet Bird of Youth; an anonymous user overwrote the article about the Tennessee Williams play with a music band stub. I had reverted that page, copying the "band page" info to here. Now, in retrospect, I have come to believe that this band is NN, and fails WP:MUSIC, as well as possibly being the object of a crystal ball, so I call for deletion. -- Taiichi « talk» 11:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This sounds like a very sensible idea for the New Universities, however, I can't find any evidence anywhere that this group actually exists outside of the "drunken joke" mentioned in the article. Chris talk back 11:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Jamie 11:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Music vanity. Stifle 11:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment this AfD was blanked for several days. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This seems strikingly similar to the unencyclopedic logocruft created by Logoboy95. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, unreferenced. Stifle 12:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable magazine. No citations provided to show that it merits inclusion. Stifle 12:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. CSD A7, non-notable biography. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 15:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Purely a vanity article. Not a notable person. This is obvious self-promotion (by an anonymous contributor), and Wikipedia is not a soap box for free advertising or propaganda IZAK 12:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Mostly is a hoax. On search all entries are from wiki and its mirror sites.-- Raghu 11:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is an abstract on a book presenting arguments in favour of Intelligent Design. I fail to see any evidence that the book eve made any impact; the Amazon sales rank is somewhere around 200000. Wikipedia isn't an abstracting service. Pilatus 13:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 09:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a group of anti-abortion activists. There is no assertion in the article that it ever made any impact. Pilatus 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)s reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Cardcruft. Stub article on an individual card from a game with hundreds, maybe thousands of these. Doesn't impress me as paticularly notable. AKMask 13:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
the list is based on NNPOV assumptions about what constitutes a cliche, and thus can never be made NPOV. wikipediatrix 14:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I like it, It's not strange but very interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.70.1.19 ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as A7 non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Although well written, vanity nonetheless Lancer Sykera 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
There are inconsistencies in the Bibles. So what? Only a fundamentalist of some kind would deny this, or try to explain it away, and only somebody polemicizing against fundies would need to stress the issue. For the rest of us a well-referenced, critical treatment of the Bible is no different from a well-referenced, critical treatment of Homer, Icelandic sagas or any other old literary works containing a mixture of mythology, legend and some actual historical events. u p p l a n d 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Languages of the Philippines.
Minimal text, listing information contained in the main Philippine Islands article. A substantial article on Philippine languages is Languages of the Philippines, which includes, not surprisingly, Central Philippine languages. Her Pegship 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
dic def Bachrach44 15:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does wikipedia really need another useless list? Bachrach44 15:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Details of Grand Theft Auto IV have yet to be announced, and no secured source on the city is found using Google. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 15:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) ╫ reply
The result of the debate was a general agreement to Redirect to Ctrl Alt Del (webcomic), with no consensus on what to do with the old content, which can be found here. Be WP:BOLD and merge it if you see fit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:50, Dec. 21, 2005
Honestly, as much as I love CAD, I have to say this article should be deleted. Chef Brian is non-notable, garnering only 949 hits on google Kross | Talk 15:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Feels like somebody is using Wikipedia to promote a personal website Uucp 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Sub-stub on a particular iPod case. There are hundreds of different iPod cases available. I doubt any of them are notable. Delete. AlistairMcMillan 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. No such word (when spelt with a K it is, of course, the German word for potato); I can't find record of any such usage within or outside the debating world Humansdorpie 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete. It is actually a term quite often used in popular debates such as the EUROS (european debating competition) and ESU debates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.254.128 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Band fails to meet notability standards on WP:MUSIC. No Allmusic.com entry. Klaw ¡digame! 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was kept; nomination withdrawn. Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a marginal bio. No books. Not a public speaker. (podcaster) Software developer. If we keep him, he should be added to Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles. Fplay 22:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN. -- Fplay 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, withdrawn. Rx StrangeLove 03:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An active Wikipedian who wrote a Wikipedia article about himself. Somewhat accomplished theatre sound man. He is a Fellow of the United States Institute for Theatre Technology. No books, but a patent in theatre technology. Just want to ensure tha he is "notable". If so, he goes onto Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles Fplay 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN. -- Fplay 18:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a tough one. Lousy obit on dead professor. Fplay 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The page says that the stuff no longer works. Do we keep the page? Fplay 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Uh, the owner of Consumerpida, Dan Keshet, says it it dead. I will go for a speedy... Fplay 04:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. This debate was weird... :-{ Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I am making this page go through an AfD because it refers to User:VoodooKobra's software. Fplay 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
What do you mean it doesn't exist? I didn't say that. I said the stuff the article LINKED TO doesn't exist right now. Can you guys be fair for once?! Kobra 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, when you put it that way... I can see your guys's side of the argument. Tell you what: when I finish it, I'll re-post this article if it's fine by you... you can delete it until then. Kobra 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I said delete it. End of discussion. Kobra 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy. This was done before this AfD was closed - no further action is required. Mindmatrix 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Maybe this belongs in Wikipeida: somewhere... or back in the User: space... Fplay 03:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
RESOLVED: User:Caroig copied to his area. In retrospect, I should have communicated with him first. -- Fplay 08:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This was founded by Kevin Byrne . Notable? Fplay 05:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Ecnalubma is what is painted in ambulance so that you can read the work in a rear-view mirror. This is the source of several jokes and a TV commerical. Notable? Does it belong elsewhere? Wikipedia is not a joke book. Fplay 06:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The software was written, in part, by John Chew . It is notable? Fplay 07:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
DELETE IT. It is a bunch of stupid people making fun of other stupid people. It is STUPID!
What the hell? Don't delete this entry. Fandom_Wank is great. However, it is addicting. Hmmm.. Don't delete it anyway. -Lurker
It is big online community, but it is also quite rude and, in my opinion, dull. Notable? Fplay 07:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Reads like an email spam for "get rich by working at home on the Internet". Fplay 07:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This configuration file was written by VolodyA! V Anarhist . I thought that Wikipeida was not a place for tutorials. Maybe Wikisource or something? Fplay 09:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is at the border to advertising, imo. While it is not advertising per se, an aricle detailing that there are two (holiday) resorts for nudists & other open-minded poeple does ont belong in wikipedia, esp. if both resorts are operated by the same company.
I therefore propose that this entry be removed
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a vanity page Author previously vandalized Phillips Academy page See also Mastermind Media
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page started by and edited exclusively by article subject James Martin (writer) by User:Jcmartin. Claims about self "Thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." Jokestress 22:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 16:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
We all love Magnus, but does he get a page?
For perspective, how many of the "maintainers" at Comparison of wiki software deserve a page? As usual, I note Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles
Fplay 01:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity Page. Page advertises a very expensive holiday. At this point there is a very short track record and an entry here would be seen to be promotional in the furtherance of extending the short life span of this trip. As a general rule a cycling event should have a minimum track record of at least 10 years before being considered for an encyclopedic reference. For example Boston-Montreal-Boston has been running since 1988. This is a randonnuer challenge event which is similar to Paris Brest Paris - PBP. PBP is included in Wikepedia however BMB is not and that latter event now has a high profile within the cycling world because it is run annually while PBP is quadrennial. ATA Girl 23:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Luigi30 (vanity). -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity, spam
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relevance not stated. Just an advertisement as it stands. QEDquid 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. This debate is a great example of why AfD isn't a vote, by the way. Johnleemk | Talk 09:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Violation of proposed WP:CORP/non-notable company that probably doesn't need to be listed with Wiki. Vortex 16:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, nearly nonsense. FreplySpang (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
if this is a neologism it is a very minor one, and WP:ISNOT a slang dictionary either. I don't suppose Wiktionary want it, and I don't think we do either. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 16:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be an article telling people not to write an article. I don't see the point of it. Gurch 16:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, it exists, but evidence of notability is a bit hard to come by> Associated forum has only around 120 members, this article is the top of the 300 or so Google hits. I say it's cruft. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 16:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a data dump. This is original data, and of no interest to anyone except people who are going to transfer some money. Those will get an up-to-date SWIFT code from their bank. Pilatus 17:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: The list is neither complete nor authoritative. The December update to the printed SWIFT directory runs to sixteen pages, and that's just the changes. The full database is not available for public download from the authoritative source ( the SWIFT BIC Database) -- this database with its lookup facility is already linked from the article on ISO 9362, the formal name for the standard. This vote is not on a full, authoritative list of codes, it's on a partial and manually-updated list which anybody needing a SWIFT code is unlikely to use as they can look up the code for their bank free of charge from an authoritative source linked in the main article. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 09:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not on allmusic, not on Amazon, article is quite likely nonsense but not patent nonsense. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 17:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A not-yet-released album by a minor English band. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, etc. Tim Pierce 17:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Capitalistroadster 17:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Jossifresco as nonsense. Jamie 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't think Wikitionary will want this as it appears to be complete bollocks. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is clearly original research - but actually I think it's someone using WP as a host for their internal discussion. I'd suggest it is userfied, since there is no evidence it extends beyond the single (unnamed) faculty discussed. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 18:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Our intent is to link this yet-to-be-finished page into the Blended Learning topic. Our thought is that somebody studying instructional methodologies might be interested in rationale and some real-life examples. Msass 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Also, can somebody point me to where there are guidelines for the timing of Wiki contributions, editing, discussions? If one has a fulltime job, it is tough to be reading content/discussions, contributing, and editing every day. Since your comment implies some timeframe for improvement of the page in question, I'm thinking that there are time guidelines and expectations somewhere that you might be able to share with me. Msass 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
dic def Bachrach44 18:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note added stub. Bjelleklang - talk 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Borderline speedy (nonsense). Blargh is a made-up onomatopoeia. Some currency for "an exclamation indicating that one has absorbed or is emitting a quantum of unhappiness" (emanating originally from MIT and/or a blogger by the looks of it) but this definition is (a) apparently spurious and (b) a neologism which is unlikely to be welcome at wiktionary. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Spurious neologism (11 Google hits) describes what most consultants would refer to as "what if your CEO were run over by a bus" rather than the article's beer truck. I don't think Wiktionary would want this non-notable neologism, and I'm pretty sure we don't either. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 18:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Abstain. The page originally had {{db|this has got to be a hoax}} on it, but I don't think it applies for CSD. Also note there's a redirect to the page, which should be deleted as well, if this one does. Interiot 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oops ... I didn't know this article already existed and I started Wikipediaclassaction.org So ... they should be merged, or whatever. -- Nerd42 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem notable, but it makes some people nervous, so it does merit a response. But by keeping a real link to their ad-driven site, we're basically paying them for their service, which seems inappropriate. Sanbeg 22:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Sandwich. – Rob e rt 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
dic def Bachrach44 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article was speedily deleted by Luigi30. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable band with an article written either by a band member or a friend or one of them (since the main contributor also took the photo in the article) BCorr| Брайен 18:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company according to WP:CORP. Google finds it only in directories, etc. S.K. 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable, no artists, no records Drdisque 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
updated info. Proof of relevance : http://www.stereotyperecords.com Dylan@stereotyperecords.com 21:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Scientific method. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A dictdef, and very nearly a tautology, and I see few prospects for useful expansion. A previous version of this topic by the same editor was speedy deleted, adn this was tagged for speedy as "nonsense" but i don't think it qualifies. However, Delete. DES (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I suspect this is a vaniety page, living in Toronto for 20+ years I've never heard of this place, and it contains only a vague assertion of noteworthiness with no real evidence, a quick web survey reveals nothing to distinguish it from thousands of other random restaurants in Hogtown WilyD 18:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Capitalistroadster 22:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I just noticed that the external link in the article (which links to a piece in Eye, a local paper) even says the following in the first line: "For 52 years, Fran's Restaurants has been a Toronto landmark, as much a part of the city as the Leafs or High Park." Skeezix1000 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
delete written in first person promo format & unencyclopaedic, largely non-notable although some could argue that they are Drdisque 19:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not sure about this. Was speedied but it isn't a CSD. It's pretty sketchy and there probably isn't a lot to say about the website. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 19:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
*This is a forum with some accompanying essays. But what did this website actually do? Delete, because this isn't a web directory.
Pilatus
17:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research, neologism, previously deleted.
D-Rock 19:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Not a neologism, see below.
D-Rock
23:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
In some ways I would say that terms like NIMTO and CATNIP are part of 'gallows hummor' which exist in some parts of the waste, chemical and nuclear industries. Cadmium 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I would say that the article is not original research, NIMTO might be a new word to many people but it sums up something which many people have experienced in their lives. I have added an anylisis which considers the possible origins of NIMTOism, the anylisis is based on S. Freud so prior art exists. Hence it is not original thought being presented here. Cadmium 12:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This band is not notable yet Bill 19:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to The Adrenaline Vault. – Rob e rt 00:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
self promotion, a nickname for a website only. Bachrach44 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A list of the buildings of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with their addresses and phone numbers. Is Wikipedia a phone directory? JoaoRicardo talk 20:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was disambig. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to describe an event in Ladysmith, British Columbia ( [62]), though I do not know if this itself would be considered notable, even if the article was written above a 2nd grade level. I abstain from voting until feedback is posted. Fang Aili 20:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Luigi30 (vanity). -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
this article does not meet the criteria of WP:Music
The article was speedily deleted by Luigi30. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable band with an article written either by a band member or a friend or one of them (since the main contributor also took the photo in the article) BCorr| Брайен 18:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Similar to Power-laundering. Neologism Woohookitty (cat scratches) 20:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure person. Unworthy of encyclopedia article Mecanismo | Talk 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
page of personal opinions which contains no useful encyclopedia content. Any relevant information on geek girls would belong in the geek entry anyway Ocicat 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article was speedily deleted by Luigi30. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
no content
solo market in springfield missouri... Maoririder 18:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) keep reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Jmabel as copyvio. Jamie 03:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be a Polish description of the play Antigone (note references to "Edipa" and "Sofoklove"). Klaw ¡digame! 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be a widespread phenomenon; Google turns up no pages whatsoever. Sounds like a hoax. Tim Pierce 20:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable and not developed waffle iron 21:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as per consensus. No such group CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete Re-post of page which was recently speedily deleted: see here -- Ryano 21:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
fuck u ya gommy fuck or me n the icr boys will come down and giv u a hidin
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure comic. Top google result is from wikipedia. Article is orphan and uncategorized and it seems like spam/vanity Mecanismo | Talk 21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure musician who is starting out. Article is orphan, uncategorized and it looks like spam/vanity Mecanismo | Talk 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete original research/opinion Drdisque 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is about a Wikipedian who is author of the webcomics. If she is notable, she should go onto Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Fplay 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; editorial decision taken to redirect to Wikipedia Class Action. Johnleemk | Talk 17:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
There appears to be nothing more to this than someone slapping up a webpage. Possibly a hoax? In any case, WP is not a web directory. If this lawsuit is filed or covered in the media, we will then have sources to construct a verifiable account. Until then, delete. Gamaliel 22:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
oops - I re-created the article by accident because I didn't see all this. I have since merged my version of the article with Wikipedia Class Action ... delete at will, or keep the redirect -- Nerd42 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Redirect I think all the other articles on Wikipedia Class Action should be redirects to Wikipedia Class Action. -- Nerd42 02:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Merge & redirect -- Simon Cursitor 08:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable bio. Mo0[ talk] 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unnotable photographer. Possibly self-biographical. Most google hits on his name are not about him. Haakon 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as previously deleted content and copyvio. Capitalistroadster 22:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A huge article, all original research in the form of a personal essay. Breaks WP:NOT, and is a possible copyvio. Harro 5 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
"Massive NPOV problems" - ROFL!!!! Does ANYONE here know what expository... oh, nevermind...
The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure artist. Article is uncategorized, orphan and it reads too much as a vanity page. Mecanismo | Talk 22:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
12/12/05: Article updated to remove subjective material /cingerto
12/13/05: Page updated with categories /cingerto
12/13/05: updated to include Village Voice link and added quantifiable touring schedule Cingerto 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Cingerto reply
12/14/05: added external links showing major press reviews & asian-american songwriters showcase information Cingerto 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Cingerto reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
While I'm sure Ms. Taylor is a fine author, her book is not yet published and when it is will only be available in Australia and New Zealand [64]. It only secures 6 google hits [65]. I think the article is best removed until the subject has more prominance. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, non-notable. Google shows 6 non-wiki sites. [69] D-Rock 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure lawyer and it reads too much like vanity. Mecanismo | Talk 22:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Some "computing urban legend" that I can't find with Google. Delete as nn or hoax. Kusma (討論) 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Since God created it, it cannot be plagarism. It is impossible to plagarize God. We don't even know God exists. Plus: The bible writers wrote things that God said. That's plagarism, but I don't see God coming down from the sky with a big lightning bolt or anything. -Paul
Delete It is not humor or satire and to the degree it is a myth it is someone trying to create one. And not doing a very good job.
Again, those words were from God, so it cannot be words taken out of context (e.g. plagarism). - Paul
Well, Rainer, if it was an urban legend and God wrote the message, it might be an example of EVP, except relating to a computer. I have heard of events whereby God has communicated to people over the old BBC Micro computers in the 1980s, so if it really happened as suggested by the urban legend, then compiling the "@" symbol would not be viable because God himself wrote the message. I am assuming it is not an easter egg left by a PDP-8 programmer, nor it is something a Fortran IV creator would have left in the source code for the compiler. The only explanations which cover this are: Either Gustav was hallucinating (PDP-8 programmers were known to be overworked/taking drugs) or God really did communicate with Gustav. We cannot be certain, however, because his diary of the events has since been lost. Unfortunately, this is just computer lore. - Paul
Are you suggesting that I cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not? I talked to God a lot in my youth, and just because it happened to be on a Commodore 64 does not detract from the fact that it did take place. - Paul
Hmmmm no I won't. You think it is fit for consumption and have no problem with off-topic posts so deal with it you hypocrite.
Your existance isn't appropriate.
It is something you made up Panks. Now get back to writing programs that finish 36th out of 36.
You really are cluessless aren't you? Just stop responding unless your compulsive/obsessive disorder keeps you from it.
ω Delete the article, but interesting discussion for the most part. With the remaining time maybe we could brainstorm ways to ensure an urban legend is notable, so to bypass future strife. Probably mass emails and some initial groundwork (websites, scopes.com entry). Anything else? This has left me pondering the meaning of a hoax hoax. Thanks.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Pure, unadultered, unashamed spam article Mecanismo | Talk 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Pure nonsense and spam on article on obscure construction kit Mecanismo | Talk 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 23:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax religion. Not hits on Google. Kross | Talk 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity article on obscure band Mecanismo | Talk 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus keep. While I found the arguments for deletion strong (and struggled to find any arguments for keeping at all), there is clearly a strong contingent of people who feel the article should be kept. It can still be merged with Elvis impersonator or similar at a later date, mind you. Before saving this edit, and getting on with finishing the procedure for closing an AfD, I thought it would be appropriate to clear up some misinterpretations of the AfD process. Ready?
Current: Keep: 7 Delete: 3 Merge: 3
This is liscruft gone mad! A list of fictional characters who impersonate a dead singer at some point, even if they only do it once? Come on, poeple! Homer SImpson is not real! Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you, but in the context of an encyclopaedia the fact that he once "impersonated elvis" is so far below the level of significance as to be indistinguishable with the naked eye! Take it to Wikicities or some place, please! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
(Clarification: for the avoidance of doubt, grounds for nomination is WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information)
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advert page for a probably non-notable organization. Stifle 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. The article had already been deleted before this AfD was closed. Mindmatrix 20:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nothing of merrit. Delete -- Walter Görlitz 22:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism based on a non-notable flash game. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
One of millions of software developer/consultanting companies. Only 147 displayed hits despite CEO being an active blogger and 'user reviews' contributor on other websites. Both created by
User:DamonCarr, indicating likely self-promotion.
24.17.48.241
21:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedily userfied. FCYTravis 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable CEO of Agilefactor, above. Gets a few more hits than his company, but again is mostly due to self-created entries such as blogs, forums, and 'user reviews'. Both created by User:DamonCarr, indicating likely self-promotion. This one appears to be been deleted per VfD almost a year ago ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Damon_Carr), but since I can't compare the content and the name is different, I figured I'd list it just to be safe. 24.17.48.241 21:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - Not every small firm should have its own Wikipedia article File Éireann 23:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It is not a small company - my article will be expanded (it's 1 AM in Poland :-)
The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. Content could easily go into Spoon. Klaw ¡digame! 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No references to claims of this persons activites, and may be vanity Lancer Sykera 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Actually, from a strictly vote-counting POV, that may not be the case. But the redirect argument is strong, the delete argument is not ("non-notable"? May as well say "I wanna delete!"; at least one person should explain why it's non-notable), and the keep argument is really very sad indeed. Okay, so a redirect still appears to get rid of the content, so the deleters will be happy nonetheless, but I felt like making a point. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable Drdisque 00:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
43 unique Google hits. Non-notable sports club. Rampart 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
One of several articles created in connection with Alexander Bolonkin. This article, in particular, is pure speculation.
The result of the debate was delete all. Mindmatrix 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Like E-being (E-man), these are almost entirely speculation/sci-fi.
The result of the debate was DELETE, since such is the procedure after noone offers to translate, and noone offers to keep. - Splash talk 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 16. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merged and redirected into Scrabble letter distributions. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 14:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Now successfully merged with Scrabble letter distributions, so can be deleted safely.
The result of the debate was KEEP, since it was translated subsequent to all the deleters' comments. No prejudice to a nomination on other grounds in future. - Splash talk 00:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A hospital radio service of one UK hospital. Really stretching the limits of notability. JFW | T@lk 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like some kind of joke. No explanation of notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, but a merge is clearly needed. It's already tagged. - Splash talk 00:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is pretty much all song lyrics, has nothing to do with the band itself, and probably a copyright infringement by posting the lyrics on the article in the first place. Cernen 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. As translated, it's an nn-bio. No prejudice to a recreation done properly. - Splash talk 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Also possbile nn-bio. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie
The result of the debate was keep. I'm going to move it to Laszlo Toth, however. And if'n I catch anyone removing AfD tags from an article still under discussion again, worl ... fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be notable. Possible merge to
Pieta. Disputed nn-bio.
Stifle 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Actually, delete and redirect per Eusebeus.
Stifle
11:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Uncited; I suspect it's a hoax. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student group. The relevent information has already been merged into University of Massachusetts Amherst. This page should be deleted. peachlette 01:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
unverifiable [4]. Article even admits it's unverifiable... any questions? -- W.marsh 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nnbio small unknown band most likely a publicity page Reid A. 01:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete and the closing administrator that there was a consensus to smite this article from the wiki :) Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NPOV & Non-encyclopaedic - Drdisque 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Image77 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)from the author of this article: I will amp up my entry with the logical argument I offer in my book and link to the sources, such as St. Augustine and Stephen Hawking, from which I derive my alternative to Creationism and the Big Bang. I will remove the link to my blog. Today, many authors have to self-publish in order to get their ideas out there. In my case, I also want to keep the rights to my work and not sell them. It isn't always valid to state that a self-published book has no merit on a priori basis, though of course I can understand the perception. If anyone here wishes, I will e-mail you a free PDF of my book for further review. I do work in science. I am not a Ph.D., but I do work in plasma physics. Let me have a few more days before destroying my article with asteroids, foreign objects, etc. My e-mail is secretsoflight@gmail.com reply
-- Image77-- (from the author) Please delete my article.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Zoe. Jamie 08:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Subsubsubsubstub about a pornstar's pseudonym; the pornstar does not herself have an article. YixilTesiphon Say hello 01:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Phishing. - Splash talk 01:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. 2Ghits.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organisation/website for global transcendence.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An article about a band that has never released any recordings, as the article states. Obviously non-notable. Delete. Hapsiainen 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to Arnold Rimmer; no content untrivial enough to be worth merging, beyond a sentence on the effect of the Rimmer Experience. Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems non-notable. As a fan of the TV show in question, I've no reason to see that this particular sequence is worthy of a dedicated article. Delete or merge with a to-be-created article on Series 8 of the show. pomegranate 02:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I believe this article is a hoax. Jesus on a Bicycle" "The Heroin Addicts" -wikipedia garners the old google bagel. [9] If this was indeed so popular a track, it might be mentioned somewhere on the internet. Also, I cannot find an allmusic listing. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. The merge target suggested is a deleted, protected page at present. - Splash talk 01:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
0 Google results. Appears to be a division of a record label with no relevant Google results that had a member of D12 who left in 2001. Mys e kurity( have you seen this?) 02:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. unnecessary dictionary definition of slang term, poorly written, much of the page is off-topic ("Asshat" is not a synonym for "Asshole"). wikipediatrix 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JJay's comment is not terribly helpful without an actual expansion on the part of the editor making the comment; particularly when the alternative is delete! - Splash talk 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable; wikispam. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I came across this while scrubbing for unsourced images. While I'm sure there are mask fetishists out there, with sites on the internet to cater to their tastes and everything, I'm also sure there are fetishists who like to strap chicken livers on their chests, too. I did some googling for this and found 148 references to the phenomenon, many of which were wikipedia mirror sites. Fetishes almost by definition are unusual, but this particularly seem to me to be a sufficiently widespread fetish (compared to, say, Foot fetishism), and I am always aware of the likelihood of commercial trawling with this sort of thing. So I'm bringing it here. Nandesuka 03:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't see her meeting WP:MUSIC so Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO RESULT. It's been deleted already, and is now a dab page....which has only one entry. A new nomination would be needed if a definitive result were sought. - Splash talk 01:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently this is a recreation of a previously deleted dictionary definition. Durova 21:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 23:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This is another adjective with no obvious noun target for a redirect and with no scope for expansion into an encyclopaedia article. Wiktionary had had Wiktionary:deleterious for 1 month prior to this article's creation. Uncle G 11:29, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Unsigned anonymous votes were not counted for the purpose of resolving this AfD. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Author admits it's a neologism just used on web-forums. I can't even find evidence of that [14]... -- W.marsh 03:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I hear it all the time. It might be a regional (midwest) thing. Keep it.
I have seen and heard it all the time. Also bar macks.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It might have potential with the Burrito article but it doesn't really need its own page. Eeee 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was yeah, that's a delete all right. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be non-notable from my research. gren グレン 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Specifically though, cum fart is more dicdef than anything else. Moreover, it is a made up term used by the pornography industry to market particular types of porn. This term cannot be cross-referenced. It is more of an advertising gimmick than anything else. Dec 19, 2005
Keep it. It's amazing that this behavious exists, and I don't condone it, but since it exists, it may as well be documented.
Delete this garbage I can't imagine how in God's name this disgusting article will help anybody, not counting perverts. Please delete this trash.
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
There were presumably many thousands of non-Muslims who interacted with Muslims during Muhammad's lifetime. Of course, we don't know the names of most of them. If they are notable, they should be mentioned in one of the Wikipedia history articles. If they aren't notable, they don't need to be listed. This article should be deleted. Zora 03:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Some Counterstrike prank, all that Google shows up is forum posts. Pilatus 04:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
At best a dicdef. But a google search on the phrase "circle your ducks" [18] returns no hits. Either a hoax or a very local usage. Rholton 04:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Band with 1 release, no label info, no evidence they meet WP:MUSIC. Not on AMG, etc. -- W.marsh 04:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
how is it hurting the encyclopedia to make it more inclusive of smaller musical acts?
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn fanforum, doesn't even have its own website. User:Zoe| (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Publisher of some garage wrestling newsletter, WP:BIO inclusion is doubtful. Wrestling cruft. karmafist 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
By the way, from that aforementioned Google Books search, here's a great quote about Meltzer's significance that would be a fine addition to the article. It's from the New York Times No. 1 bestselling autobiography of Mick Foley, the former WWF world champion:
I was at Brian Hildebrand’s in the early summer of ’88, when I saw him reading a strange publication called the Wrestling Observer. I had heard about these “dirtsheets” (inside newsletters) that “exposed” wrestling to its readers, but had never actually seen one. At the time, these sheets were probably read by fewer than a thousand people, but nonetheless carried a lot of weight in the business. Men as important as Bill Watts were known to change the company’s direction if the sheets didn’t like what was going on, while many others swore they’d kill the guy who wrote it if they ever found him. In 1990, the guy, Dave Meltzer, introduced himself to be in Greensboro, North Carolina, and I was shocked that he actually appeared in public. I thought he was like Salman Rushdie of The Satanic Verses fame.
“Hey, Brian,” I said, “could I take a look at that thing when you’re done?”
“Sure,” he replied, “you’re in it.”
“I am?” I asked in disbelief. “For what?” Before he could answer, I changed my mind. “Never mind, I’ll read it myself.” When Brian handed me the sheet, I took it to a place where I could concentrate, and it was there, on the bowl of the Hildebrand house in Pittsburgh while squeezing out a solid Snow, that I read the biggest compliment of my young career. “Cactus Jack, who many consider to be the best no-name independent in the country.”
I couldn’t believe it—as much as the Observer was maligned by people in the business, a wrestler getting a favorable write-up was like an actor getting a good review in the New York Times. Whether it was coincidence or not, I’ll never know, but interest in Cactus Jack picked up immediately. -- Masterofzen 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Here is some further info from sportsbyline.com which is a sports-talk radio network "heard on nearly 200 radio stations and by 2.2 million listeners per week" ( http://www.sportsbyline.com/history.htm) on which Dave hosts a weekly wrestling show on Sunday's.
The show, which was the most listened to internet-generated talk show from late 1999 through 2001, moved to radio in March of 2002 and is the place where the most serious wrestling fans in the world talk about the unique sports entertainment form and its incredible popularity. Meltzer is considered the pioneer of pro wrestling journalism. A lifelong fan, Meltzer began writing about wrestling at the age of ten in various newsletters and fan club publications. While attending San Jose State University and reporting for the Oakland Tribune, Meltzer started the Wrestling Observer Newsletter in 1982. It was the first publication that covered pro wrestling that made no excuses about the industry being entertainment as opposed to sport, including coining the term "athletic entertainment" to describe pro wrestling, a term later changed to "sports entertainment" by Vince McMahon. The Observer remains the publication of record within the pro wrestling industry, read by nearly every serious fan and student of the game around the world.
Meltzer is joined every Sunday night by Alvarez, an independent pro wrestler who puts out the newsletter Figure Four Weekly, the most hilarious weekly look at pro wrestling around the world. In recent polls, the Observer and Figure Four were rated as the two most popular pro wrestling weekly publications in the world.Meltzer is considered the leading independent expert on pro wrestling, and has been featured in Sports Illustrated and on Entertainment Tonight. His book, "Tributes," was the best selling pro wrestling book in late 2001 and early 2002. He's been on every major network newscast as well as the Phil Donahue Show, numerous specials on pro wrestling from A&E, Court TV and the Discovery Channel, quoted in publications such as TV Guide, Rolling Stone, New York Times and Newsweek and appeared in the two leading documentaries on wrestling, Wrestling with Shadows and Beyond the Mat. Alvarez adds tremendous insight to the show as well as humor, making the two hours fly by every Sunday night. ( http://www.sportsbyline.com/bios/meltzer.htm) Jazzy joe 15:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This does not document an actual game, it is a product of the creator's imagination (unsigned comment from Penguincube)
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Subjective listcruft.
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a neologism with no Google hits [27]. While the concept described by the phrase is believed by some to exist, it should be described in some appropriate article without this pseudo-Latin term. Delete per WP:NOR. -- Metropolitan90 04:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
character from non-notable SNL skit. Unexpandable, doesn't really need more than possibly a mention at Dana Carvey GTBacchus 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Made by username "Jpl consulting" and thus invalid under WP:CORP YixilTesiphon Say hello 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move to Longwan District. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Bare stub, and NN. Found on WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Text from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to List of painters. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
We already have Lists of painters. Everybody in this list is famous. Delete abakharev 04:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, fails WP:MUSIC.
2 sites link to http://www.google.com.au/search?q=link%3Awww.mphase.tk&btnG=Search&meta=
3 sites link to http://www.google.com.au/search?q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.escapevelocity.com%2F
The counter on the band's site reads 5400 hits. Josh Parris # : 04:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a place for original research.
See this LiveJournal entry, this comment "You should add your scale to Wikipedia, thus lending it a veneer of respectability" and subsequent replies.
-- Matthias Bauer 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 25. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 04:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Pamri • Talk 14:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (5d/2k). Mindmatrix 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN. http://www.google.com.au/search?q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.revolutionmusic.net%2F shows 11 sites linking to the group in question. Josh Parris # : 05:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to lingerie. No content mergeable, but editors are free to dig up and prune all the POV from the original article to merge (if anything useable exists). Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is advertisement. TheRingess 05:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn site ---- Astrokey44| talk 05:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It appears this article exists solely to promote an event. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 06:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is not just an event, but an organization that is going to convene international economics congresses every year, publish books, etc.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and unencyclopaedic: a few short paragraphs describing an internet-based gaming clan/group.-- PeruvianLlama( spit) 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was originally deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golgothian Sylex. The only legitimate user who voted "keep" on that AfD has recreated the article. Precedent ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahamoti djinn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serra Angel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juzam Djinn, etc.) has established that individual Magic cards are not notable. Andrew Levine 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, dictdef Ronabop 06:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Possible vanity article of a non-notable person The user who created the article is Simion.m, so certainly is autobiographical - Akamad 07:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User Brookie. Capitalistroadster 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a poorly written advertisement for software. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 07:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Copyvio, and too old to speedy per CSD A8. Also listed on WP:PNT, discussion (to date) from there follows... Jamie 07:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Brookie. Capitalistroadster 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense...this is probably a speedy, but best sent to BJAODN-- MONGO 07:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems spamish, but retagging from a speedy tag for vote-- MONGO 08:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article was speedy tagged, now bring it to a vote. Some additions have been made and may be of minor importance-- MONGO 08:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not very notable. Originally speedy tagged, so here now we can vote on the issue.
13 Google News references [32] including references in the Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and CBS News. There are 25 results in Google Books [33] and 26 Google scholars. [34] Meets WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 09:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, this is just a page for spam from anonymous users (who also keep inserting external links to bump google hits). I wouldn't be surprised if this term was made up on Wikipedia. Scott Ritchie 08:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged for speedy deletion. Doesn't look very notable.
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy delete, and article states that it was to have a playground for opposing points of view and to reach a concenus. The last substantive edit was 2 months ago, so perhaps the issues have been resolved and the edit war is over. This article is almost a carbon copy of Bob Dylan-- MONGO 08:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Rallidae. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be Original research, not obviously supported by a quick google search. Ben Aveling 08:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unnotable, fails google test. Haakon 08:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
May be it seems like advertising. But it's not a commercial advertising. It's a PSA.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 61.247.252.205 ( talk • contribs)
Delete first-person marketing drivel Drdisque 08:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
We think Last Malthusian, lost the Consciousness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.252.205 ( talk • contribs)
We think Movementarian thoughts, moves towards wrong side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.252.205 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nominated for speedy. Seems of minor importance though.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail critia of WP:MUSIC and is primarily original research-- MONGO 09:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An obsoleted bio article from the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union, which is now voted for deletion as well. minghong 09:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged for speedy, appears to be not notable so, Delete-- MONGO 09:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn, possible vanity page-- MONGO 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. The spiky little discussion finishes up sounding like a delete. - Splash talk 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable Sleepyhead 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:MONGO as "nonsense" (CSD G1). Jamie 10:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, stupidity Lancer Sykera 09:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:NSLE. Jamie 10:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, belongs on user page Lancer Sykera 09:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 10:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity Lancer Sykera 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 09:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity Lancer Sykera 10:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:FCYTravis. Jamie 10:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nonsense Lancer Sykera 10:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Seabhcan. Jamie 13:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary-esque Lancer Sykera 10:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Presumably a copyvio from the now-defunct website. The debate below says all that needs to be said. - Splash talk 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is either a summary or a direct copy of an article from 1995. It dosen't really have any reason to be in Wikipedia. In my opinion. You may feel differently... Furius 10:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Ok, this was originally at Sweet Bird of Youth; an anonymous user overwrote the article about the Tennessee Williams play with a music band stub. I had reverted that page, copying the "band page" info to here. Now, in retrospect, I have come to believe that this band is NN, and fails WP:MUSIC, as well as possibly being the object of a crystal ball, so I call for deletion. -- Taiichi « talk» 11:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This sounds like a very sensible idea for the New Universities, however, I can't find any evidence anywhere that this group actually exists outside of the "drunken joke" mentioned in the article. Chris talk back 11:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Jamie 11:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Music vanity. Stifle 11:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment this AfD was blanked for several days. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This seems strikingly similar to the unencyclopedic logocruft created by Logoboy95. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, unreferenced. Stifle 12:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable magazine. No citations provided to show that it merits inclusion. Stifle 12:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. CSD A7, non-notable biography. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 15:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Purely a vanity article. Not a notable person. This is obvious self-promotion (by an anonymous contributor), and Wikipedia is not a soap box for free advertising or propaganda IZAK 12:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 02:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Mostly is a hoax. On search all entries are from wiki and its mirror sites.-- Raghu 11:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is an abstract on a book presenting arguments in favour of Intelligent Design. I fail to see any evidence that the book eve made any impact; the Amazon sales rank is somewhere around 200000. Wikipedia isn't an abstracting service. Pilatus 13:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 09:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a group of anti-abortion activists. There is no assertion in the article that it ever made any impact. Pilatus 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)s reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Cardcruft. Stub article on an individual card from a game with hundreds, maybe thousands of these. Doesn't impress me as paticularly notable. AKMask 13:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
the list is based on NNPOV assumptions about what constitutes a cliche, and thus can never be made NPOV. wikipediatrix 14:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I like it, It's not strange but very interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.70.1.19 ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as A7 non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Although well written, vanity nonetheless Lancer Sykera 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
There are inconsistencies in the Bibles. So what? Only a fundamentalist of some kind would deny this, or try to explain it away, and only somebody polemicizing against fundies would need to stress the issue. For the rest of us a well-referenced, critical treatment of the Bible is no different from a well-referenced, critical treatment of Homer, Icelandic sagas or any other old literary works containing a mixture of mythology, legend and some actual historical events. u p p l a n d 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Languages of the Philippines.
Minimal text, listing information contained in the main Philippine Islands article. A substantial article on Philippine languages is Languages of the Philippines, which includes, not surprisingly, Central Philippine languages. Her Pegship 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
dic def Bachrach44 15:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does wikipedia really need another useless list? Bachrach44 15:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Details of Grand Theft Auto IV have yet to be announced, and no secured source on the city is found using Google. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 15:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) ╫ reply
The result of the debate was a general agreement to Redirect to Ctrl Alt Del (webcomic), with no consensus on what to do with the old content, which can be found here. Be WP:BOLD and merge it if you see fit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:50, Dec. 21, 2005
Honestly, as much as I love CAD, I have to say this article should be deleted. Chef Brian is non-notable, garnering only 949 hits on google Kross | Talk 15:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Feels like somebody is using Wikipedia to promote a personal website Uucp 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Sub-stub on a particular iPod case. There are hundreds of different iPod cases available. I doubt any of them are notable. Delete. AlistairMcMillan 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. No such word (when spelt with a K it is, of course, the German word for potato); I can't find record of any such usage within or outside the debating world Humansdorpie 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete. It is actually a term quite often used in popular debates such as the EUROS (european debating competition) and ESU debates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.254.128 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Band fails to meet notability standards on WP:MUSIC. No Allmusic.com entry. Klaw ¡digame! 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was kept; nomination withdrawn. Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a marginal bio. No books. Not a public speaker. (podcaster) Software developer. If we keep him, he should be added to Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles. Fplay 22:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN. -- Fplay 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, withdrawn. Rx StrangeLove 03:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An active Wikipedian who wrote a Wikipedia article about himself. Somewhat accomplished theatre sound man. He is a Fellow of the United States Institute for Theatre Technology. No books, but a patent in theatre technology. Just want to ensure tha he is "notable". If so, he goes onto Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles Fplay 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN. -- Fplay 18:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a tough one. Lousy obit on dead professor. Fplay 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The page says that the stuff no longer works. Do we keep the page? Fplay 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Uh, the owner of Consumerpida, Dan Keshet, says it it dead. I will go for a speedy... Fplay 04:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. This debate was weird... :-{ Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I am making this page go through an AfD because it refers to User:VoodooKobra's software. Fplay 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
What do you mean it doesn't exist? I didn't say that. I said the stuff the article LINKED TO doesn't exist right now. Can you guys be fair for once?! Kobra 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, when you put it that way... I can see your guys's side of the argument. Tell you what: when I finish it, I'll re-post this article if it's fine by you... you can delete it until then. Kobra 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I said delete it. End of discussion. Kobra 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy. This was done before this AfD was closed - no further action is required. Mindmatrix 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Maybe this belongs in Wikipeida: somewhere... or back in the User: space... Fplay 03:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
RESOLVED: User:Caroig copied to his area. In retrospect, I should have communicated with him first. -- Fplay 08:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This was founded by Kevin Byrne . Notable? Fplay 05:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Ecnalubma is what is painted in ambulance so that you can read the work in a rear-view mirror. This is the source of several jokes and a TV commerical. Notable? Does it belong elsewhere? Wikipedia is not a joke book. Fplay 06:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The software was written, in part, by John Chew . It is notable? Fplay 07:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
DELETE IT. It is a bunch of stupid people making fun of other stupid people. It is STUPID!
What the hell? Don't delete this entry. Fandom_Wank is great. However, it is addicting. Hmmm.. Don't delete it anyway. -Lurker
It is big online community, but it is also quite rude and, in my opinion, dull. Notable? Fplay 07:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Reads like an email spam for "get rich by working at home on the Internet". Fplay 07:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This configuration file was written by VolodyA! V Anarhist . I thought that Wikipeida was not a place for tutorials. Maybe Wikisource or something? Fplay 09:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is at the border to advertising, imo. While it is not advertising per se, an aricle detailing that there are two (holiday) resorts for nudists & other open-minded poeple does ont belong in wikipedia, esp. if both resorts are operated by the same company.
I therefore propose that this entry be removed
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a vanity page Author previously vandalized Phillips Academy page See also Mastermind Media
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page started by and edited exclusively by article subject James Martin (writer) by User:Jcmartin. Claims about self "Thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." Jokestress 22:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 16:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
We all love Magnus, but does he get a page?
For perspective, how many of the "maintainers" at Comparison of wiki software deserve a page? As usual, I note Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles
Fplay 01:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity Page. Page advertises a very expensive holiday. At this point there is a very short track record and an entry here would be seen to be promotional in the furtherance of extending the short life span of this trip. As a general rule a cycling event should have a minimum track record of at least 10 years before being considered for an encyclopedic reference. For example Boston-Montreal-Boston has been running since 1988. This is a randonnuer challenge event which is similar to Paris Brest Paris - PBP. PBP is included in Wikepedia however BMB is not and that latter event now has a high profile within the cycling world because it is run annually while PBP is quadrennial. ATA Girl 23:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Luigi30 (vanity). -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity, spam
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relevance not stated. Just an advertisement as it stands. QEDquid 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. This debate is a great example of why AfD isn't a vote, by the way. Johnleemk | Talk 09:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Violation of proposed WP:CORP/non-notable company that probably doesn't need to be listed with Wiki. Vortex 16:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, nearly nonsense. FreplySpang (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
if this is a neologism it is a very minor one, and WP:ISNOT a slang dictionary either. I don't suppose Wiktionary want it, and I don't think we do either. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 16:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be an article telling people not to write an article. I don't see the point of it. Gurch 16:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, it exists, but evidence of notability is a bit hard to come by> Associated forum has only around 120 members, this article is the top of the 300 or so Google hits. I say it's cruft. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 16:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a data dump. This is original data, and of no interest to anyone except people who are going to transfer some money. Those will get an up-to-date SWIFT code from their bank. Pilatus 17:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: The list is neither complete nor authoritative. The December update to the printed SWIFT directory runs to sixteen pages, and that's just the changes. The full database is not available for public download from the authoritative source ( the SWIFT BIC Database) -- this database with its lookup facility is already linked from the article on ISO 9362, the formal name for the standard. This vote is not on a full, authoritative list of codes, it's on a partial and manually-updated list which anybody needing a SWIFT code is unlikely to use as they can look up the code for their bank free of charge from an authoritative source linked in the main article. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 09:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not on allmusic, not on Amazon, article is quite likely nonsense but not patent nonsense. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 17:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A not-yet-released album by a minor English band. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, etc. Tim Pierce 17:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Capitalistroadster 17:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Jossifresco as nonsense. Jamie 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't think Wikitionary will want this as it appears to be complete bollocks. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is clearly original research - but actually I think it's someone using WP as a host for their internal discussion. I'd suggest it is userfied, since there is no evidence it extends beyond the single (unnamed) faculty discussed. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 18:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Our intent is to link this yet-to-be-finished page into the Blended Learning topic. Our thought is that somebody studying instructional methodologies might be interested in rationale and some real-life examples. Msass 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Also, can somebody point me to where there are guidelines for the timing of Wiki contributions, editing, discussions? If one has a fulltime job, it is tough to be reading content/discussions, contributing, and editing every day. Since your comment implies some timeframe for improvement of the page in question, I'm thinking that there are time guidelines and expectations somewhere that you might be able to share with me. Msass 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
dic def Bachrach44 18:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note added stub. Bjelleklang - talk 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Borderline speedy (nonsense). Blargh is a made-up onomatopoeia. Some currency for "an exclamation indicating that one has absorbed or is emitting a quantum of unhappiness" (emanating originally from MIT and/or a blogger by the looks of it) but this definition is (a) apparently spurious and (b) a neologism which is unlikely to be welcome at wiktionary. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Spurious neologism (11 Google hits) describes what most consultants would refer to as "what if your CEO were run over by a bus" rather than the article's beer truck. I don't think Wiktionary would want this non-notable neologism, and I'm pretty sure we don't either. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 18:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Abstain. The page originally had {{db|this has got to be a hoax}} on it, but I don't think it applies for CSD. Also note there's a redirect to the page, which should be deleted as well, if this one does. Interiot 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oops ... I didn't know this article already existed and I started Wikipediaclassaction.org So ... they should be merged, or whatever. -- Nerd42 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem notable, but it makes some people nervous, so it does merit a response. But by keeping a real link to their ad-driven site, we're basically paying them for their service, which seems inappropriate. Sanbeg 22:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Sandwich. – Rob e rt 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
dic def Bachrach44 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article was speedily deleted by Luigi30. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable band with an article written either by a band member or a friend or one of them (since the main contributor also took the photo in the article) BCorr| Брайен 18:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company according to WP:CORP. Google finds it only in directories, etc. S.K. 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable, no artists, no records Drdisque 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
updated info. Proof of relevance : http://www.stereotyperecords.com Dylan@stereotyperecords.com 21:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Scientific method. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A dictdef, and very nearly a tautology, and I see few prospects for useful expansion. A previous version of this topic by the same editor was speedy deleted, adn this was tagged for speedy as "nonsense" but i don't think it qualifies. However, Delete. DES (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I suspect this is a vaniety page, living in Toronto for 20+ years I've never heard of this place, and it contains only a vague assertion of noteworthiness with no real evidence, a quick web survey reveals nothing to distinguish it from thousands of other random restaurants in Hogtown WilyD 18:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Capitalistroadster 22:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I just noticed that the external link in the article (which links to a piece in Eye, a local paper) even says the following in the first line: "For 52 years, Fran's Restaurants has been a Toronto landmark, as much a part of the city as the Leafs or High Park." Skeezix1000 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
delete written in first person promo format & unencyclopaedic, largely non-notable although some could argue that they are Drdisque 19:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not sure about this. Was speedied but it isn't a CSD. It's pretty sketchy and there probably isn't a lot to say about the website. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 19:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
*This is a forum with some accompanying essays. But what did this website actually do? Delete, because this isn't a web directory.
Pilatus
17:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research, neologism, previously deleted.
D-Rock 19:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Not a neologism, see below.
D-Rock
23:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
In some ways I would say that terms like NIMTO and CATNIP are part of 'gallows hummor' which exist in some parts of the waste, chemical and nuclear industries. Cadmium 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I would say that the article is not original research, NIMTO might be a new word to many people but it sums up something which many people have experienced in their lives. I have added an anylisis which considers the possible origins of NIMTOism, the anylisis is based on S. Freud so prior art exists. Hence it is not original thought being presented here. Cadmium 12:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This band is not notable yet Bill 19:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to The Adrenaline Vault. – Rob e rt 00:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
self promotion, a nickname for a website only. Bachrach44 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A list of the buildings of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with their addresses and phone numbers. Is Wikipedia a phone directory? JoaoRicardo talk 20:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was disambig. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to describe an event in Ladysmith, British Columbia ( [62]), though I do not know if this itself would be considered notable, even if the article was written above a 2nd grade level. I abstain from voting until feedback is posted. Fang Aili 20:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Luigi30 (vanity). -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
this article does not meet the criteria of WP:Music
The article was speedily deleted by Luigi30. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable band with an article written either by a band member or a friend or one of them (since the main contributor also took the photo in the article) BCorr| Брайен 18:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Similar to Power-laundering. Neologism Woohookitty (cat scratches) 20:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure person. Unworthy of encyclopedia article Mecanismo | Talk 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
page of personal opinions which contains no useful encyclopedia content. Any relevant information on geek girls would belong in the geek entry anyway Ocicat 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article was speedily deleted by Luigi30. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
no content
solo market in springfield missouri... Maoririder 18:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) keep reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Jmabel as copyvio. Jamie 03:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be a Polish description of the play Antigone (note references to "Edipa" and "Sofoklove"). Klaw ¡digame! 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be a widespread phenomenon; Google turns up no pages whatsoever. Sounds like a hoax. Tim Pierce 20:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable and not developed waffle iron 21:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as per consensus. No such group CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete Re-post of page which was recently speedily deleted: see here -- Ryano 21:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
fuck u ya gommy fuck or me n the icr boys will come down and giv u a hidin
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure comic. Top google result is from wikipedia. Article is orphan and uncategorized and it seems like spam/vanity Mecanismo | Talk 21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure musician who is starting out. Article is orphan, uncategorized and it looks like spam/vanity Mecanismo | Talk 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete original research/opinion Drdisque 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is about a Wikipedian who is author of the webcomics. If she is notable, she should go onto Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Fplay 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; editorial decision taken to redirect to Wikipedia Class Action. Johnleemk | Talk 17:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
There appears to be nothing more to this than someone slapping up a webpage. Possibly a hoax? In any case, WP is not a web directory. If this lawsuit is filed or covered in the media, we will then have sources to construct a verifiable account. Until then, delete. Gamaliel 22:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
oops - I re-created the article by accident because I didn't see all this. I have since merged my version of the article with Wikipedia Class Action ... delete at will, or keep the redirect -- Nerd42 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Redirect I think all the other articles on Wikipedia Class Action should be redirects to Wikipedia Class Action. -- Nerd42 02:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Merge & redirect -- Simon Cursitor 08:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable bio. Mo0[ talk] 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unnotable photographer. Possibly self-biographical. Most google hits on his name are not about him. Haakon 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as previously deleted content and copyvio. Capitalistroadster 22:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A huge article, all original research in the form of a personal essay. Breaks WP:NOT, and is a possible copyvio. Harro 5 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
"Massive NPOV problems" - ROFL!!!! Does ANYONE here know what expository... oh, nevermind...
The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure artist. Article is uncategorized, orphan and it reads too much as a vanity page. Mecanismo | Talk 22:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
12/12/05: Article updated to remove subjective material /cingerto
12/13/05: Page updated with categories /cingerto
12/13/05: updated to include Village Voice link and added quantifiable touring schedule Cingerto 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Cingerto reply
12/14/05: added external links showing major press reviews & asian-american songwriters showcase information Cingerto 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Cingerto reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
While I'm sure Ms. Taylor is a fine author, her book is not yet published and when it is will only be available in Australia and New Zealand [64]. It only secures 6 google hits [65]. I think the article is best removed until the subject has more prominance. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, non-notable. Google shows 6 non-wiki sites. [69] D-Rock 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on obscure lawyer and it reads too much like vanity. Mecanismo | Talk 22:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Some "computing urban legend" that I can't find with Google. Delete as nn or hoax. Kusma (討論) 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Since God created it, it cannot be plagarism. It is impossible to plagarize God. We don't even know God exists. Plus: The bible writers wrote things that God said. That's plagarism, but I don't see God coming down from the sky with a big lightning bolt or anything. -Paul
Delete It is not humor or satire and to the degree it is a myth it is someone trying to create one. And not doing a very good job.
Again, those words were from God, so it cannot be words taken out of context (e.g. plagarism). - Paul
Well, Rainer, if it was an urban legend and God wrote the message, it might be an example of EVP, except relating to a computer. I have heard of events whereby God has communicated to people over the old BBC Micro computers in the 1980s, so if it really happened as suggested by the urban legend, then compiling the "@" symbol would not be viable because God himself wrote the message. I am assuming it is not an easter egg left by a PDP-8 programmer, nor it is something a Fortran IV creator would have left in the source code for the compiler. The only explanations which cover this are: Either Gustav was hallucinating (PDP-8 programmers were known to be overworked/taking drugs) or God really did communicate with Gustav. We cannot be certain, however, because his diary of the events has since been lost. Unfortunately, this is just computer lore. - Paul
Are you suggesting that I cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not? I talked to God a lot in my youth, and just because it happened to be on a Commodore 64 does not detract from the fact that it did take place. - Paul
Hmmmm no I won't. You think it is fit for consumption and have no problem with off-topic posts so deal with it you hypocrite.
Your existance isn't appropriate.
It is something you made up Panks. Now get back to writing programs that finish 36th out of 36.
You really are cluessless aren't you? Just stop responding unless your compulsive/obsessive disorder keeps you from it.
ω Delete the article, but interesting discussion for the most part. With the remaining time maybe we could brainstorm ways to ensure an urban legend is notable, so to bypass future strife. Probably mass emails and some initial groundwork (websites, scopes.com entry). Anything else? This has left me pondering the meaning of a hoax hoax. Thanks.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Pure, unadultered, unashamed spam article Mecanismo | Talk 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Pure nonsense and spam on article on obscure construction kit Mecanismo | Talk 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 23:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax religion. Not hits on Google. Kross | Talk 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity article on obscure band Mecanismo | Talk 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus keep. While I found the arguments for deletion strong (and struggled to find any arguments for keeping at all), there is clearly a strong contingent of people who feel the article should be kept. It can still be merged with Elvis impersonator or similar at a later date, mind you. Before saving this edit, and getting on with finishing the procedure for closing an AfD, I thought it would be appropriate to clear up some misinterpretations of the AfD process. Ready?
Current: Keep: 7 Delete: 3 Merge: 3
This is liscruft gone mad! A list of fictional characters who impersonate a dead singer at some point, even if they only do it once? Come on, poeple! Homer SImpson is not real! Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you, but in the context of an encyclopaedia the fact that he once "impersonated elvis" is so far below the level of significance as to be indistinguishable with the naked eye! Take it to Wikicities or some place, please! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
(Clarification: for the avoidance of doubt, grounds for nomination is WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information)
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advert page for a probably non-notable organization. Stifle 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. The article had already been deleted before this AfD was closed. Mindmatrix 20:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nothing of merrit. Delete -- Walter Görlitz 22:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism based on a non-notable flash game. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
One of millions of software developer/consultanting companies. Only 147 displayed hits despite CEO being an active blogger and 'user reviews' contributor on other websites. Both created by
User:DamonCarr, indicating likely self-promotion.
24.17.48.241
21:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedily userfied. FCYTravis 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable CEO of Agilefactor, above. Gets a few more hits than his company, but again is mostly due to self-created entries such as blogs, forums, and 'user reviews'. Both created by User:DamonCarr, indicating likely self-promotion. This one appears to be been deleted per VfD almost a year ago ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Damon_Carr), but since I can't compare the content and the name is different, I figured I'd list it just to be safe. 24.17.48.241 21:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - Not every small firm should have its own Wikipedia article File Éireann 23:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It is not a small company - my article will be expanded (it's 1 AM in Poland :-)
The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. Content could easily go into Spoon. Klaw ¡digame! 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No references to claims of this persons activites, and may be vanity Lancer Sykera 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply