The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN according to WP:MUSIC Josh Parris # : 03:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a POV attack against a non-notable company. The whole thing should just be deleted. Cyde Weys talk contribs 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Fir e Fox 18:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is unsourced and full of original research. Pilatus 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NOTE The reference to the entry as being contrary to Wikipedia's political spectrum entry is accurate. Here is part of the Wikipedia entry(in the Left-Right heading):
"In modern Western countries, the political spectrum is described along left-right lines. This political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy and fascism("the Right") on one end, and socialism, communism("the Left") on the other."
There are problems here that confuse rather than clarify.Theocracy describes a particular type of political system. Socialism/communism/fascism describes particular types of economic systems that have particular types of political systems. The reference to conservatism is not clear as to the intent. Is a particular ideology based on inequality and status being determined at birth being refered to(medieval Europe)? Or is this a reference to a preference to maintain the status quo in a society; which is a rate of change measurement? Many people and societies equate a democratic political system with a market economic system(democracy=capitalism.) They also have a tendency to equate a centrally planned economic system with a totalitarian political system(socialism=totalitarianism). This ignores the fact that there are separate political and economic spectra and where a country is located on one does not necessarily dictate where a country will be located on the other. In a democratic country, the people can choose to have any type of economic system they want. If they cannot choose the economic system that they desire--it is not a democracy. Fascism has a market economic system and a totalitarian political system. Socialism(communism is one type) has a centrally planned economic system and a democratic political system. Socialism has never existed in a modern society. The USSR(nor any of the others that claimed to be) was never socialist nor communist for that reason. How does the average citizen, who looks at an encylopedia to try and makes sense of these terms, deal with the fact that there terms that have different meaning depending upon the reference? How is the term liberal being used? As a reference to a society that has an ideology based upon private ownership of property, individualism, competitive, and limited government? Or is it a reference to a measurement of being willing to accept a measure of change? Shouldn't an encylopedia try to sort all of this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby ( talk • contribs)
Command economy_______________________________________________ Market economy (planned economy) ( free market economy)
Where should the UK be placed on this spectrum? The US? Sweden? China? Haiti? Wouldn't this be valuable information for people to have access to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 16 December 2005
The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 18:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition combined with a little bit of unencyclopedic personal opinion - squibix 13:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Removed the unencyclopedic personal opinion. Dunno what to do about the dictionary definition part -
Scott 17:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Doing a google search on the term didn't bring up very much. I found it referenced on some sites on leadership/management ( ex. 1, ex. 2, ex. 3, ) and for video panning ( |ex. 1, |ex. 2 ) What is interesting is that in both cases they appear to use the term as if it is commonly accepted term. (i.e. they don't use expressions like "some people call this firehosing", "sometimes known as firehosing", etc.) Scott 13:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Perfect square. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article contains (almost) no information. It says that a perfect square factor is a factor that is a perfect square and it gives one example. It has no ingoing links from the main namespace and it was created on 26 September by an anonymous editor, so I don't see any potential for expansion. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 13:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Fragment of source material, delete or transwiki. +sj + 13:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No votes recorded. Relisting to generate discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Album from band not meeting WP:MUSIC The Land 14:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a gaming clan. They have an IRC channel. Wow. 175 Googles. Unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 23:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Typical AFD fodder - a non-notable high school band. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Harro 5 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Much as I would vote for you over Harper, I can't allow vanity. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Finally: "Potentially hundreds" is not the same as "hundreds". Uncle G 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As for the reference to "potentially hundreds", the election just started, and is not expected to pick up steam (so to speak) until after the holidays. Over the next few weeks, many candidates (or more likely, their supporters) will undoubtedly create additional articles on Wikipedia that will not meet WP:BIO, in addition to all those that already candidate articles that already exist. There are more than 300 ridings, at least 5 political parties contesting every riding, with numerous independent and minor party candidates. You do the math.
Finally: I am tired of the lectures of how "ill-founded" and "flawed" my opinion is, so I am changing my vote to delete. I will, as suggested, nominate other articles for afd in an attempt to maintain some neutrality during the election. Skeezix1000 22:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Secondly: Wikipedia has been been around through several major elections. (I was one of the many editors that participated in the projects to cover some of them.) Your dire predictions don't match past experience.
Finally: As any New Pages patroller who has patrolled for a significant length of time will attest, if candidates and their supporters will be creating articles on Wikipedia about themselves telling the world how great they are and about all of their hopes, aspirations, and minor achievements, they are functionally indistinguishable from the 13-year-old schoolchildren that do exactly that too. Uncle G 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted per WP:NOT. FCYTravis 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted per Cyde's astute observation. FCYTravis 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article has many anon editors, and I can't tell if there's a reasonable point to revert it to. I think possibly all the authors are just having fun with Wikipedia. Unless notability can be established for this band, the article should be deleted.- Mr Adequate 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, borderline..seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Rx StrangeLove 04:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC criteria for notability; notability is not claimed. Tempshill 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable street gang jmd 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Even namechecked in "Surf's Up: The Girl's Guide to Surfing" see [12]. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No name yet exists for this video game. This is just fan speculation. An article was already started at
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell 4 anyway. Both of which may fall under crystal ball. Since posting on AFD, it has been confirmed
[15]. I performed a move/delete of Splinter Cell 4 to this page. Change vote to Speedy keep.
K1Bond007 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a twofer - Clancruft *and* bandcruft all in one. Band has no releases and the clan has 116 Googles. Nuke it. FCYTravis 01:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An advertisement Bill 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to Gag (BDSM). Owen× ☎ 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This doesn't seem to be a term in widespread use - only 127 hits on Google for example. The page appears to have been set up purely to rant about people who make such comments about gags on discussion boards. Mdwh 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (8/1). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Obscure, possible vanity, orphan Mecanismo 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Kobra's Realm ( AfD discussion), Crossed Realmz 4 ( AfD discussion), and this were created by VoodooKobra ( talk · contribs) and are about xyr web site, xyr unreleased game, and a fictional place in xyr unreleased game respectively. As I noted in the first AFD discussion, everything about the game is written by the author xyrself. No-one else has published anything about it at all. There is no independent evidence, apart from the author's sole word (see also this edit and these edits), that the game even exists, let alone what the details of its geography are. Uncle G 01:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This, Crossed Realmz 4 ( AfD discussion), and Crossed Realmz Echo Realm ( AfD discussion) were created by VoodooKobra ( talk · contribs) and are about xyr web site, xyr unreleased game, and a fictional place in xyr unreleased game respectively. As I noted in the first AFD discussion, everything about the game is written by the author xyrself. The same is true of this web site. No-one else has published anything about it at all. The only things written about it are trivial web directory listings such as this, which are worthless for the purposes of an encyclopaedia article. VoodooKobra stated in this edit and these edits that the reason that there are no sources for this article is because the web site is down, and that the way to verify the content of this article is to have been a "member of Kobra's Realm throughout the history of the website". Compiling a firsthand history of a web site from direct observation is original research, which is forbidden here. (The place to do it is on the web site's own "history of this web site" page.) Furthermore: Readers are not expected to have to repeat the entire research of the original author in order to verify articles. This web site thus fails to satisfy the primary WP:WEB criterion. Creating anything but a web directory entry ("Kobra's Realm is a web site with domain name D that was registered by N on Y.") for this web site is original research and unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Uncle G 01:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's an article ABOUT a website. Why did you have to type all that BS? You're looking into it too much... if there's some BS technicallity here or there: FIX IT. Don't just delete it. That's censorship. Quit being so imperialistic! Kobra 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete forked article. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a verbatim copy of the existing Andrew Orlowski article with the text of the now-deleted article Wikifiddler inserted verbatim. It is possibly the most textbook case Wikipedia has ever seen of a bad-faith POV fork; DannyWilde ( talk · contribs) did not want to abide by the consensus he thought the community might come to (which they did) to delete the contents of Wikifiddler, so he merged the contents to Andrew Orlowski. When that act was opposed, he took Andrew Orlowski (journalist), which should not have existed unless there was another notable Andrew Orlowski to differentiate from, and instead of making it a redirect, made it his own private version of the article, the way he wanted it. I have seen a number of POV forks in my time at Wikipedia, but never one so blatant, or so blatantly in bad faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Another unverifiable and non-encyclopedic gaming clan. So they participate in online games. Wow. Few relevant Googles. No assertion of broader interest. Nothing that makes them different from the eleventy trillion other clans in the universe. FCYTravis 01:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Made by owner of organization (look at the username, it's something like blabla@animalessinhogar.com), and thus invalid. YixilTesiphon Say hello 01:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: Definitely unencyclopedic and possibly advertising.
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a pointless article and is spam. -- King of Hearts 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - looks like nonsense to me. novacatz 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Website is non-notable. When I created a user account there I was user number 15 (!). Page was initially created by anon one month ago and not updated since. novacatz 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Much of the core contect is on the Daily Show article already Rx StrangeLove 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article about an intern at The Daily Show with Jon Stewart who committed suicide. Tragic, but not notable. Gets 1 google news hit. Renata3 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Bad carpet 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC - Renata3 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic, this is a vanity page. -- Aude 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Google for the 'definitive' album gives no relevant hits. Looks like vanity article novacatz 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not worth keeping -- Quarl 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN Bachrach44 02:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a howto guide Bachrach44 02:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable spam cruft novacatz 02:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Lady in the Water. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I look forward to seeing the movie when it comes out, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bachrach44 02:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. If you're oppsed to an A7, how 'bout an A1? - R. fiend 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Web presence is slim; cannot find them on AMG. Merovingian 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks to be original research by a guy from the site in question. The site isn't notable with no alexa rank and google shows no pages linking to it. If someone can get anything useful out of it, please tell.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not pass standards of WP:MUSIC. No Google results for "Covered in Dust""Jonathan LeShana". Chick Bowen 03:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable or non-existant person Catbar (Brian Rock) 03:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was speedied thrice as spam, but these speedies weren't really valid, and were reversed by WP:DRV. Since two people actually deleted it, it seems reasonable to give consideration to the deletion option here. The del review debate is here. I do not find a great many Ghits nor anything on Google News, but apparently they serve some clients you've probably heard of; whether they import notability from that or not is for AfD. - Splash talk 03:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was convert to disambiguation page. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is likely as large is it'll ever be. And I generally dispute the idea that an individual track from Mario Kart is notable. Locke Cole 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This looks like a non-notable web group. I count five active members, and the group gets less than 600 google hits. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. The group may get less than 600 google hits, but there are few people playing this game currently, as it is a "classic". more than five active members thank-you. and its forums at http://www.newjedix.com/jas serve as a hub for several groups of this specific gaming community. from the forum stats: Number of posts: 726 Posts per day: 3.37 Number of topics: 106 Topics per day: 0.20 Number of users: 36 Users per day: 0.79
the group IS active, and would like to be accessable to more people who have an interest in this game as it is increasingly diificult for newcomers to find gaming groups in this game as "Zone.com" the original multiplayer hub when the game was released was bought out by Microsoft and the websites support of the game was dropped. I believe this is worth keeping on the wiki, as a service not to the group, but simply to people looking for gaming communities of this game. Colt 38 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This reads like a get-rich-quick grow-your-our-business marketing/motivational pitch. Fplay 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Mo0[ talk] 06:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vote tally was:
This article was deleted in this AfD. A debate at WP:DRV was concerned that there might have been more particpation if this were re-listed (though note there is no quorum for AfDs). So here we are: the orignial nomination read: "Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful.".- Splash talk 03:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was boldly redirected to win-win game. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a test page, original text copied verbatim from a copyrighted weblog entry and does not describe an actual theory Rcade 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Still in need of a rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was previously deleted in this AfD. Some questions on the help desk lead to this deletion being reviewed. Some new information was found that may justify keeping the (restored) article e.g. [28] [29] [30]. - Splash talk 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Neutrality. Jamie 04:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, completely not worth moving to Wiktionary. Renata3 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN band. Jamie 04:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This ammounts to a project announcement by the Wikipedian who wrote the page. Fplay 04:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictdef Jamie 04:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Forge World. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nominating for deletion as Games Workshop-cruft. I believe this man would fail WP:BIO, even though he is one of the minds behind the Forge World modelling company. Saberwyn - 10:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. -- bainer ( talk) 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Biography of a non-notable musician from a band that does not appear to meet inclusion per WP:MUSIC. I would have nominated for speedy delete per CSD A7, however I took the assocaiation with the band The Heroin Addicts as a claim of notibility. The band is also undergoing the AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heroin Addicts). Movementarian 04:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC as far as I see. Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 04:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:FCYTravis. Jamie 06:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
wierd title, self ref and dicdef all in one go! delete! BL kiss the lizard 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 06:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Biography of a non-notable musician from a band that does not appear to meet inclusion per WP:MUSIC. I would have nominated for speedy delete per CSD A7, however I took the assocaiation with the band The Heroin Addicts as a claim of notibility. The band is also undergoing the AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heroin Addicts). Movementarian 04:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- Interiot 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, no Allmusic entry, possible hoax elements. Band does have a Website at [33]. Klaw ¡digame! 04:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Merovingian 05:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Some hacking group, but I don't know how well-known they are outside of their circle. Merovingian 05:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advert for non-notable company. Found at most 715 google hits, though "Intertech Satellite" itself gets only 98 hits. Interiot 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Band does not seem to be verifiable, at least not notable enough to be verified via Google; basically just a vanity garage band article Bumm13 05:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research, sadly (linguistics). Fplay 05:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
There's no reason why this web site should have its own article rather than being mentioned in GPL (if at all). Delete. Catamorphism 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fir e Fox 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN activist - 49 hits. Delete. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect to MuggleNet. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN fansite. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN Game in development. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN racer and web designer. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN baseball prospect. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
"Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States."
Thus, there is no specification that only major leaguers may be included in Wikipedia.
I'm not sure where the Class AA reference came from; Bard has never played in the minors. (The Cape Cod League, referenced in the article, is an amateur league.)
The original article, which I had nothing to do with, didn't particularly make a case for notability. I came across the article while scanning AfD and felt that it was an easy matter to improve the article to show it belongs in Wikipedia. Anyone who takes the time to do even a little Googling will realize that Bard is considered one of baseball's elite college players. His awards, play, and reputation among major-league scouts, front offices, and organizations such as Baseball America confirm this. Barring injury, he will likely be among the first several players chosen in the 2006 major-league draft, and he'll receive a signing bonus of likely one or two million dollars in addition to his salary. Nonnotable baseball players simply don't happen upon this type of situation.
Bard, in fact, has already been drafted once; the New York Yankees drafted him as a high-school pitcher in 2003, but he elected to attend college instead. So if having been drafted is your criterion for inclusion, he's already done that. If verifiability is your thing, every last fact in the article has, as its source, one of the accompanying links. Sawney 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:WIN a cookbook. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Drini as CSD A1.
NN marching band. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Jsu5198m 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete-- 68.253.230.111 20:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC) NN website. Delete. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN author to be (?). -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Homey 16:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN student activist. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If we're gonna include any person who founded a website that's only mediumsized, Wikipedia will soon enough have more than thousands of articles of websiteowners of whom little can be said. My opinion is that articles like this one are non-notable and should therefore be deleted. -- SoothingR( pour) 06:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Two of the three keep and expand votes were disregarded; the first one was counted, but probably shouldn't have been - it's inclusion was immaterial to the result. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nnbio on an unknown defunct band Reid A. 06:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
-*Comment-seems like sock puppets to me?- Reid A. 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dramatic movie that was written by User:Chensiyuan, who also authored the page. Not in IMDb. -- Fplay 06:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
'non-notable movie' - well, your non-notable existence is even a greater source of humour. if you're so righteous, why do you not delete your own user page and save wikipedia some funds. you pretend to administer neutrality but contribute nothing to knowledge, that is why wikipedia is suffering from an image problem. another typical bigot. 70.26.180.74 05:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I think it's fair to say the imdb tag is inaccurate. Apart from that however, I am unsure what constitutes a 'notable' movie to you. How would you know, apart from making that inference due to the fact that I come from a small country? How about you let Singaporeans decide, is that fair? Chensiyuan
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A really ugly page about a nn street gang. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A blatant shocker article with no encyclopedic value. Agamemnon2 07:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is created in respons to a revert was in the Ali article. IMHO, the article is pov in both content, form and title.
If the "Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib" article is simply NPOV, then it must be merged into the Ali article. If it is representing a pov, that being Shi'a pov, it must be merged into Shi'a view of Ali. However, it is neither, it is not representing Shi'a pov, nor is it NPOV. Nor is it the pov of anyone else. The creator of the article, and sole contributor to it is User:Zora. The article is nothing more than Zora POV.
The whole content is basicly saying this:
(a direct lie, since i have proven in many talk pages and dialogs with Zora that Sunnis belive in that also)
(Again, i direct lie, Zora presented a page she belive contained that information, but in fact, the site contradicted her by stating that there is a consensus that Ali was born in the Kaaba. No matter, the site was unprofesional and would not constitute evidence even if it contained what Zora belived it contained. Zora has not presented any source at all that has contradicted or even comments negativly on the credibility of that specific narration.)
(This part of the article is given unfairly little attention)
(Implying that Shi'a and Sunni scholars are not academics. I have proven that a Sunni scholar regarded it as authentic)
Now, compare it to this article: People reported to be born in the Kaaba.
Lastly i want to repeat myself:
If the "Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib" article is simply NPOV, then it must be merged into the Ali article. If it is representing a pov, that being Shi'a pov, it must be merged into Shi'a view of Ali. However, it is neither, it is not representing Shi'a pov, nor is it NPOV. Nor is it the pov of anyone else. The creator of the article, and sole contributor to it is User:Zora. The article is nothing more than Zora POV.
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Compare to this VfD. It is a zero sum game and either this article or that article should go. (unless of course you want both). This article combines two subjects that need not be combined. It is much better to discuss the Hakim part in the Hakim article and the Ali part in the sub-article of Ali since his article is too long. If there were hundreds of people claimed to be born in the Kaaba it would be different... but there are not. gren グレン 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I had this as a section in the Kaaba article previously, but it was sugested to be given a separate article [36], since it would take to much space in the Kaaba article. As of now, the section contains way to much information to be put back in the Kaaba article, if all the sources and views are going to be represented.-- Striver 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Zora, stop your accusing it of "it seems to be trying to reconcile Sunni and Shi'a, by accepting traditions from both." Here is how you argue:
Try this:
would a Shia say "It appears" that Ali did not take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr? Now, they would strongly claim that it was so, not try to smoothen it with some rant about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", Both Shi'a, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are unanimous in that matter, the is no "appears" or "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", that site only gives a disclaiming rant since they dont like the consensus!
Would a Shi'a say "When Abu Bakr died, Ali in the funeral oration highly praised Abu Bakr." ?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE non-sense, Sahih Muslim says "Quran and AHl al-Bayt", there is no controversy whatsoever! Now, this guys try to claim there is a controversy about the words, and try to spin it to "quran and Sunnah". Now, HERE in Ghadir Khumm you see a disclaimar abouth "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", when there is totaly concensus regarding what was said!
Is this what you call a joint Shi'a Sunni site?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
Zora, is this what you are trying to claim is a joint Shi'a-Sunni site?
The site reiterates sunni pov, and when it must sayin established sunni pov that benefits Shi'a pov, its gives disclaimers!
Zora, where did you get the idea of them being a joint Shi'a-Sunni site from? Did you even bother to look for five second around before labeling it a "joint sunni-Shi'a site"?
Again: Zora logic:
Get your head out of your bigoting ego and start doing some real reserch!
Its feels like:
She is totaly incapable of accepting a defeat or even entertain the thought of being misstaken. This is not a new argument, i have tried to make her realise that this Sunni site says he was born in the Kaaba, but she goes on with her fingers in her ears sayng it a "distinct Shi'a belief". She is truly unique... -- Striver 11:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Zora, you know that it is standard issue for the sunnis to not talk about that. They dont want to "take side", since there is only one side, only one version of the text of the event, the one saying that Muhammad left the Qura'an and Ahl al-Bayt and saying Ali is the Mawla of everyone. That is authentic by all Sunni scholars. Yet, Sunni biographies dont want to touch it. That is not NPOV, that is POV to the point that they dont even want to admit their own POV.
And further, you remeber this? [46]
A Sunni answering "somone" that asked if Sunnis belive Ali was born ther with:
Shi'a belive only Ali was born there, that sunni guy belived half the world, inclusive Ali, was born there. You know this, you have read this, yet you are doing something that can be nothing else than lying by writing thins like
Zora, stop lying. -- Striver 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 04:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable article, probable vanity. Google search turns up some related links but nothing displaying any modicum of notablity. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO standards. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep after rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable article, probable vanity. Google search turns up some related links but nothing displaying any modicum of notablity. Doesn't meet
WP:MUSIC or
WP:BIO standards. Has been deleted thrice now and been through
afd once already May the Force be with you!
Shreshth91
($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson as CSD G4
"A poorly written article that provides no references.Delete TheRingess 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was created by a new account named after the site, who has put multiple links (one main domain name and one that forwards to the first) to the article on multiple articles... It is clearly nonnotable, vanity, self-promotion spam. Besides linkfarming and now creating the pointless article, the editor also created several redirects, including CPIA, Center for paranormal and Center for paranormal investigation association. All should be deleted as an abuse of this project. DreamGuy 08:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn-bio and nonsense.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense Mreini 08:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Some kind of company of some sort. NN. Delete. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unnotable and inoperative service. Haakon 08:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nonsense, unnotable Mcfly85 08:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The contents of this article where transferred to Victory Day. The contents in the latter page are merely a copy of Victory Day(Malta). Maltesedog 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move to Soviet 4th Mechanized Corps. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Too generic article name. Difficult to merge into Battle of Stalingrad and similair. Orphan article Scoo 09:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The text below originate from my botched attempt to nominate yesterday (12 Dec 2005)
Delete, article has a too a generic name (4th Mechanized corps), the content is non-existent as of now, dubious whether enough info could be gathered for an article of its own.
Battle of Stalingrad would probably not need a list of individual participating units.
Scoo 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Have a look at these articles to see where this one would belong (the list is sketchy so far). This one should probably be renamed Soviet IV Corps or Soviet IV Mechanized Corps to be consistent with others (on the other hand, someone has linked Soviet 4th Corps). — Michael Z. 2005-12-16 16:55 Z
I've looked over my one measly source and done some Web searching. It looks like a few sources use the conventional roman numeral notation, but most would write Soviet 4th Mechanized Corps. — Michael Z. 2005-12-16 17:18 Z
The result of the debate was Delete, material is in Wikibooks. Rx StrangeLove 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article fails a number guidelines and policies. It is written in the wrong tone and it describes how to do an experiment (Wikipedia is NOT an HOWTO guide. It also doesn't explain the experiment (which would make it more encyclopedic). I've added a more general link with a number of other movies (as well as the one linked to) to Atmospheric pressure so this has no more value. Delete (perhaps transwiki to Wikibooks, but I have a feeling it's already there). - Mgm| (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unless anyone knows about a category or list of similar articles this can join, there seems to be nothing remarkable about this portable TV. Delete, as Wikipedia is not a catalogue. If there are similar articles about TV models, then that's a different matter... The JPS 10:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Punani. Owen× ☎ 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
One view of women in Trinidad and Tobago. Hoax / original research. Zero Google hits on, for example ' "pum pum" aleong'. -- RHaworth 10:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by MONGO (patent nonsense). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable person, probably vanity. Chrislee 11:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to have been created by a new user entirely to bolster a vanity/hoax article John Fullerton, currently well on the way to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fullerton. The afd has been heavily disrupted by sockpuppets defending Fullerton, a PE teacher in Ireland, as an alleged major footballing and political figure. While overhead kick and free kick obviously exist in soccer, there is no reason to link them in a single article as a joint specialism - except apparently to justify the disputed (and previously redlinked) claim that this Fullerton is one. Tearlach 11:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Delete Jamie 11:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A Google search found just one use of "paper pop", and it wasn't used as described in the article. Paper pop either doesn't exist, or it's used by an insignificant minority. SaltyWater 11:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Never heard the phrase before in my life, can't find it through Google, and it really just seems to be lumping bands together who shouldn't really be lumped together as a genre of music - although I must admit anyone who can put The Flaming Lips right next to Belle & Sebastian amuses the hell out of me. -- MullHistSoc 02:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as unverified, both as a neologism and a musical genre category. No sign of it in Newsbank (world newspaper archive) either. Tearlach 20:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is along the same lines as Hulda Clark's "Zapper." This article will probably turn into a "FDA and AMA are the devil" kind of article...if anyone works on it. CDN99 12:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Page is a set of instructions for using a particular service with a particular phone. Wikipedia is not an instructcion manual. Rholton 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Yet Another Band Vanity Article, brought to you by the same editor who gave us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suspended. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 14:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Wrong wiki, folks, the business directory is across the quad at Yellowikis. Pilatus 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I am pretty sure this is complete bollocks. I can't find any authority for it, I work in England for a ocmpany which is a global name in data centres and I've certainly never heard of it, and there's nothing significant on Google. It might be a BJAODN candidate, but I am reasonably certain it is not a valid encyclopaedia article. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 14:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect the article as necessary. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Local chapter of the Democratic Party (United States) for "Southeastern Volusia County, Florida." A search of Google finds references to the club on the clubs website, the web site for the county chapter of the Democratic Party, a listing on Wikipedia, a telephone listing, a letter to the editor by the club's president, and splattering of personal websites but no independent peer-reviewed sources to provide verification of the claims made in the article. [66] Delete as per WP:V and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. -- 207.136.10.50 15:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article should remain I take issue to this article being deleted as "propaganda". While the article currently may have a bias, it is listed as a stub and is a new article. It is hardly the only biased article on Wikipedia, and bias means the article needs improvement; not deletion. I agree that google doesn't return many results, but google is not the only source for peer reviewed information! I have edited and added to this article, and while I did reference several sites I found via google, I also live in Volusia County (the county in which the group operates) and talked with several people about the group in order to check the accuracy of the information - this included both members of the group and those not associated with it). To my knowledge the information is accurate. I would be happy to continue editing and revising this article, and hope that any bias issues can be addressed on the talk/discussion page rather than just deleting an article because of a political bias for or against the group. Datapharmer 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: article relisted on 13 December 2005. Cheers, fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 14:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to Tom Gilb. Owen× ☎ 16:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If it's not a hoax, it's certainly non-notable. You can call me Al 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisting 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is all fine and well but I can't find any verification that 'Burbler pipe' actually exists. Only hits on Google point to WP and mirrors, searches for Burbler, Vermont, etc. on other sites and newsgroups are similarly empty. Unless someone can provide a source, I think this is unverifiable. -- W.marsh 20:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisting 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to not delete the article. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect this article at their leisure. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not Notable. Paul Cyr 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a unique situation. It is a one off.
Note: relisting 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Nonsensical and no shown notability Paul Cyr 22:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (3d, 1 weak keep). Mindmatrix 15:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Obscure, orphan and possibly vanity Mecanismo 22:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep - no consensus. Fir e Fox 17:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to meet any notability requirements in WP:CORP, and is chock full o' vanity. Colonel Tom 22:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep - no consensus. Fir e Fox 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to meet any of the suggested guidelines in WP:WEB. Alexa says 30k, the number of forum members is unknown and the article still reads like an advertisement for the site even after numerous edits. HackJandy 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam article Mecanismo | Talk 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Google test returns 164 results on this book. Possible spam/vanity page. Mecanismo | Talk 21:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was band vanity. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Concerns about this article being original research are not satisfactorialy adressed because the sources provided in the article are not reliable enough (either unpublished or only published on a single, personal, website). Also, votes from entirely new users are discarded leaving only one or two valid "keep" votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose to delete this article. A google search for "ecological cognition" does not bring up any references to this guy bishop (other than his own webpage). Ecological psychology is an important branch of psychology, and there are centers devoted to it (e.g. CESPA at the university of connecticut). Ecological psychology has much to say on the subject of cognition. What is this fellow saying that has not been said by the 50 year old community of ecological psychologists, that is so important that we need a whole new "branch of cognitive psychology"?
I suspect that this article has been written by Bishop himself. What he says does seem to be related to ecological psychology, but rather superficially. You cannot just coin some phrase and then put an article up on wikipedia suggesting that you have invented a disicpline!! To make that claim, you need to have a large body of publications, and several researchers other than yourself using your ideas. This guy graduated a couple of years ago (not in psychology, neuroscience or cognitive science I might add) and has knocked together a couple of papers on E-learning. From this we are expected to regard his body of work as a discipline comparable to ecological psychology. This is the kind of stuff that puts wikipedia into disrepute.
Duracell 19:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was neologism with no google web or google groups hits. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. Could we suspend judgment until the Bocij-Holmes Law becomes part of the archive? Google is not a conduit to scholarly sources, mainly just to junk from Usenet (e.g. see Godwin's Law). But Bocij-Holmes is in fact a relatively new law and has been published in scholarly journals to which Google Scholar does not own rights. It is being given some press and we should see Google availability within 10 days.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was band vanity. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
this band is awesome I just bought their cd at zia and its amazing.
Don't delete their page, I think it is important to know about them becuase they will be hitting main stream soon
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.57.9 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Z0mb1 21:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete karmafist 23:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
How much of a punk scene can there be in Santa Clarita, that whitebread rich suburb up there in the Valley? User:Zoe| (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
that, my friend, is an opinion. this wikipedia has been exponentially fixed and added to on it's first day alone, and quickly has become a valid wikipedia for those looking on information about the band. and it's not only viewed by local people, seeing as how we have contacts with recording establishments and places looking for more information than what can be found off the less than serious website. User:Freeninja
The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not suitable for wiki, probably not even worth to be moved to wiktionary Anthony Ivanoff 13:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
To the nominator: This nomination should be withdrawn immediately because you are mistaken for a few reasons:
Thank you. IZAK 15:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was advert. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It was not implied that Parade of Death was a released film and it was stated that it was a screenplay. The listing as Film was erroneously added by another user.
*Keep - AFD is not the place to discuss editing issues. If you believe that the facts are incorrect, then fix them in the article. You are correct about the film part though, as it has no
IMDB entry.
Zordrac
(talk)
Wishy Washy
Darwikinian
Eventualist 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Since notability is subjective, how is the notability judged? Would listing the copyright information satisfy the verifiability claim? Emcnutt
The Library of Congress / WGA registration numbers have been provided as verifiable sources. -- Gkennedy34 03:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE.
Final tally at closing was: 1 Keep; 6 Delete; 6 discarded anons/socks. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
"I'm not sure how to qualify this one. It seems like a spurious essay about people in a small town in California. There is no attempt by the author to show that it is encyclopedia material.Delete TheRingess 07:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article seems fine to me. Presented in a knowledeable manner and very useful. DO NOT DELETE.
This article was right on - I grew up there and the description is perfect.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
They made a web page. Congrats! No need for a wikipedia entry, though Uucp 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already speedied. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, one-liner article. Cyde Weys talk contribs 16:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page doesn't actually make proper English sense, but even if it did I don't think I'd consider its content inherently encyclopedic. I'm not even sure the term "residence life" is used much or that we need a definition... └ UkPaolo/ TALK┐ 16:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was. Speedy merged. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 09:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't see this merits its own article (and if it did it should be called "List of...". I think notable people should be merged with George Washington University and this article deleted. └ UkPaolo/ TALK┐ 16:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was moved to Counts of Bouillon. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Listcruft, a category should suffice. Stifle 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, and little unencyclopaedic content anyway The JPS 16:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. At the moment the article is at best a dicdef and at worst an advertisement for whispernumber.com. When I placed the speedy tag on it the whispernumber.com's were linked.-- Syrthiss 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Rob 08:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a legal journal. Stifle 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
fork of United States of America Bachrach44 16:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Story. sjorford (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad for a website with no alexa rank masquerading as a neologism that no one has heard of. - Bobet 17:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
website advertising Melaen 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete for being largely identical (except with different company names) to the article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Stanley Chile S A where editors concluded that this was an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia to lend legitimacy to a fraud. Uncle G 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The only reference in the whole Internet to a company called Morgan Stanley Investments, Inc. is this Wikipedia article, entered by an anonymous user. Google references regarding the name of its chairman point to a Chilean character, once rejected as a candidate to the Senate because of not having proved completion of secondary school, and identified by several sources as a swindler. The same anonymous editor inserted false data in Morgan Stanley associating this company (and other "phantom" company called Morgan Stanley Chile S A) with the "real" Morgan Stanley. This article seems to be a candidate for speedy deletion. Cinabrium 17:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Reply to these false statements: Cinabrium in writting false statements abour Morgan Stanley Investments, and deleting without reason: It is false that " the chilean character " was rejected for senate post due to not having proved the completion of secondary school. Further, the chilean newspaper "La Tercera" published a rectification article saying that it was wrong to say that this man involved with Morgan Stanley Investments did not have proper qualifications. A Licence was issued by the chilean education authority stating that under file 05/1468/29/07/1997 was duly validated his High School Diploma issued in the U.S. on 1967. The company Morgan Stanley Chile, S.A. is a duly formed company under the chilean corporate laws, and as this article in cowardly written, we can't take Cinabrium to Court for his slander. I take full responsability of this statement as attorney at law. Signed: Jaime Ortuzar - phone 664-0000.-
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A soldier in WW1 and WW2 but not notable. "My grandpa" vanity. ( ESkog)( Talk) 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Covered by Category:Wellington_urban_districts. Barefootguru 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE.
Final tally at closing: 1 Keep; 5 Delete; 4 discarded anons/socks. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article about a message board has been tagged for speedy deletion multiple times. Its content was recently replaced with an unrelated article about trees, which was then vandalized Bill 18:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep- Results 1 - 10 of about 342,000 for ilxor. (0.08 seconds), it's been cited and discussed in newspapers like the New York Times and The Guardian, enough articles on her actually mention discussions on it (see the entries for MIA and Prolapse), I would venture as far as to say only someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia would request a deletion for this entry.
Keep or Delete, it's up to you, but if you're going to keep, then for god's sake get some better content than that in - none of the names cited are "much-loved internet personalities" they are music writers, apart from the last-named, who is a homophobic nuisance poster on the board (who is also probably responsible for putting the article up in the first place).
Is Wiki reserved for items of "cultural significance" now?
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article reads like a review. Seems to me to be an advertisement for the theater. Unless major rework is done, I vote Delete TheRingess 23:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Most likely a vanity page since the only author is User:Lojohnston. -- Quasipalm 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE (also per author's request). Owen× ☎ 16:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Already have History of Paris. No need for another one! Also bad title. -- Kilo-Lima 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; article will not be deleted. Mindmatrix 16:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
not another one. sigh. "List of $Religion/$Nationalisty $job" is just more list-cruft. (Unless we want list of Puerto Rican plumbers and List of Italian dentists.) -- Bachrach44 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Inaccurate stub, all accurate info is already at Continental Congress.
Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1775-2005. sjorford (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An Orange internet radio station. Written up in the first person with hopelessly POV content. -- RHaworth 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Two editors have suggested that the article be redirected to Flex lexical analyzer, but this seems unreasonable as Flex lexical analyzer is not (from what I gather from the article) a programming language. So why redirect a programming language of any kind to it? Just because of a similiarity in the name? That seems sub-optimal. Consequently, I am interpreting the redirect votes as "delete". If you have valid reasons why I should reconsider, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NOT notable. I have somewhat improved the original advertising article, but the language is really not notable (not to be confused with other computer related meanings of Flex), so it probably should be deleted. If not deleted, it should be improved. Kyknos 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn micronation created by a couple of high school students. Completely unverifiable. ( ESkog)( Talk) 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not instructive! Too minor aswell. If it was to stay, then it would never be complete. -- Kilo-Lima 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 20:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non-encyclopedic
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable and not fit for an encyclopedia --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyzasatya ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Saw this listed as a CSD. It's not, but it raises an interesting question: are CNN correspondents notable? I'd vote to keep but I think this deserves a fair hearing. —
Phil
Welch
Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Nomination withdrawn. Request other admin to speedy keep. —
Phil
Welch
Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as patent nonsense. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
advertisement
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An enternaimnet company, no claim to notability. Article is written in sarcastic tone, may be a joke or an attack. Couldn't find info on this company through Google (there are a host of "BDM Productions" on USA, Canada and UK). JoaoRicardo talk 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:Music, plus original research to boot. Coolgamer 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete unanimously. Looks like a hoax. Friday (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Someone nominated it inappropriately for speedy, stating it is a hoax File Éireann 20:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like a vanity page. "many, many awards" is a claim to notability, though. Austrian 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nernberg is a notable character, with many contributions to the pizza business in New Jersey and New York.
he is also most likely insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknernberg ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not an encyclopedia article. The subject is, I presume, properly dealt with in warez and related articles. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A how-to-guide for the newer Pokemon games. Punkmorten 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
neologism Austrian 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy. A good-faith effort was made to make a Wikipedia article. This article runs counter to WP:NOR, so cannot remain in article space. But I don't think anyone will have a problem with userfication (except possibly for the original author of the article). Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is not encyclopedic. Frenchgeek 21:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No Vote. I agree with Cyde Weys in that this article is of interest now and will be of interest, presumably in the future. However, micro-level detail like this may well be best on the author's own website. There is simply nothing notable about this district that would merit an encyclopaedic article. Incidentally, the arguments about the low cost of digital storage being a reason to 'Keep' are specious. All digital storage costs something, and the folk paying for it have every right to set terms of reference for its use. Eddie.willers 05:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment - is this area actually definable as a distinct neighbourhood separate from everything else around it? -- Francs 2000 14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as attack/nonsense -- Durin 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No content, just a rant about wikipedia Hirudo 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. Forum has 6 members. No mention on Amazon.com, etc. -- Durin 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE.
Final tally at close: 2 Keep; 10 Delete; 19 discarded anons/socks. Owen× ☎ 00:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
A personal essay on a supposed holiday at Harvard Law School, but this reads like a hoax to me. Why would people celebrate a guy who hasn't graduated yet? This is just nonsense in my eyes at present. Harro 5 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
To all the anon IPers; please at least attach a "~~~~" to the end of your comments. Certainly if you're capable of getting into Harvard Law School you're capable of following that basic instruction, yes? Besides, if you don't we'll do it for you and will as done below. Thank you. --
Durin 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
(The following is sorted by IP rather than date/time)
NB on "sock puppet" votes. As it turns out HLS is expensive, and as such we students like to get what are called "roomates" in the parlance of our times. this being the case, myself and my 2 roomates (as well as other apartments i might add) share the same wireless connection and (lordy!) the same IP address. Thus, any claim of "sock puppet" votes is in fact re-tahd-ed as people here would say. good day. 24.61.41.250 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (no idea what " 24.61.41.250 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)" means. reply
No, its not Nick, although Nick is quite amused by all this controversy. The section of the website, which is called the Advisor, http://internal.law.harvard.edu/adviser/2005/12/08/general.php, is protected. Hence, I can forward you the email that has the listing of titles (although the links wont work for you). The Advisor is the internal site at Harvard Law School that lists all the events and things happening on campus. Here is the email with the links: HLS Adviser: 2005-12-08
HLS Adviser: PDF
Administrative Announcements Adviser Schedule Spring 2006 T Pass Orders E-mail Alert De-Stress Exam Study Break for 2Ls and 3Ls See "Midnight Pancake Breakfast" in Events section. Resident Assistant on Duty
Career Services HLS Job Bank NEWS @ OCS International Opportunities 2006 Judicial Clerkships
Clinical and Pro Bono Programs Clinical Program Information Important Clinical Deadlines See "Death Penalty Clinical Meeting" Events section. Pro Bono Information Hurricane Relief Opportunities For Students
Competitions International Online Competition in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution Sovereignty Symposium Scholarships
Course Announcements Winter Term Courses Food and Drug Law, Winter Term (Hutt) International Law and International Relations, Winter Term (Hathaway) Winter Trial Advocacy Workshop (Murray, et. al.) Spring Term Courses Developing an Interdisciplinary Approach to Health Management for Older Adults (GR 705.40) Legal Issues: Seminar (Professors Heymann and Rosenberg) Quantitative Social Science, Law, Expert Witnesses, and Litigation: Seminar (Stephenson, Rubin--FAS, Greiner--FAS) Possible Writing Group on Human Trafficking and Involuntary Servitude (Sidel)
Events Yearbook Portraits for All Classes The Forgotten 'Refugees': Protecting People Uprooted in their Own Countries Speaker's Freedom and Maker's Knowledge: The Case of Pornography Death Penalty Clinical Meeting Auction Night--Fun and Excitement The UN and Human Rights: An Informal Conversation with the New High Commissioner DOJ Information Session for 1Ls Scales of Justice Fall Concert Why We Want Immediate Withdrawal From Iraq and You Should Too: A Lunch Discussion With HLS Peace Conversation with Congressman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Heyman Fellowship Panel: Young Alums in Federal Government Public Interest Auction 2006 Volunteer Kickoff Meeting Midnight Pancake Breakfast Catholic Mass
Fellowships Lewis and Houston Fellowships for Law Teaching Reginald Lewis International Summer 2006 Internships
Financial Aid--J.D. Students Summer Public Interest Funding December E-Bill (The "Spring" Bill) Second Semester Cash Advance Checks Outside Resources Zuckerman Fellowships Iranian-American Bar Association Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago Academic Scholarship Program The Bristol County Bar Association
General Interest Happy Nick Rose Day Holiday Gift Drive HLS Giving Tree: A Gift Drive for Homeless Children Seeking Nominations for 2006-07 Scholars at Risk Fellows
Informational Technology Services ITS Student Services Changes in Help Desk/Computer Lab Schedule Exam Quiet Hours Take-Home Exam Computer Reservation Tips for Avoiding Computer Disasters During Exams New iCommons Contact for Auditors/Cross-registered Students
Jobs Student Assistants Sought for Winter Trial Advocacy Workshop Promote Ideas of the Harvard Negotiation Project Seeking an Assistant for Student with a Disability Professors Roe and Ferrell Seek RA Professor Goldsmith Seeks Summer RA
Library Exam and Holiday Hours Westlaw Westlaw Weekly Search Tip You've Got Questions, We've Got Answers
Public Interest Walk-in Hours Brief OPIA Closings Mass Law Consortium Job Fair at Suffolk Switzer Fellowship Deadline Rebellious Lawyering Conference Deadline for SPIF Registration is tomorrow, Dec. 9. See details in the Financial Aid--J.D. section. See "Public Interest Auction 2006 Volunteer Kickoff Meeting" and "Heyman Fellowship Panel: Young Alums in Federal Government" in Events section. See "Holiday Gift Drive" in the General Interest section.
General Information
To view this week's Adviser online, visit: http://internal.law.harvard.edu/adviser/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.237.231 ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 December 2005
The anon 140.247.237.231 ( talk · contribs) defending this nonsense left a message on my Talk page. My reply to the IP talk, but reproduced here to be sure he sees it:
Nick or whomever you are:
Spare me the invitation as there is nothing to "discuss". This is not a negotiation, these are standards -- and not my standards, Wikipedia's standards -- you must meet. Don't like 'em? Go to MySpace.
Also, if you're a law student, shouldn't you:
-- Calton | Talk 05:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wow. It appears that Wikipedia is overrun by people with way too much time on their hands, something which I do not have. I can no longer fight this battle. If you want verification, I will forward you emails from a harvard law school account. I can take pictures of stuff for you. whatever you want. I can not change that fact that Harvard Law School protects that part of its site. I dont know what else you want from me. That article was written by a few students here. We are in the middle of finals here, hence the lack of careful attention to editing etc. I cant defend this anymore. If you are so nuts about deleting it then just do it. Maybe some day I wil re-post it and try and work this all out. Everything here can be verified. And no, this is not done by Nick.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.141.101 ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 December 2005
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio Jamie
Non-notable. Poorly written. Personal biography Computerjoe 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete. Vanity and non-notable KBi 21:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
677 google hits for "mechnology", the first page of which have nothing to do with this definition. It's a copy of the content of User:Mechnology (by User:Mechnology). Delete -- Quarl 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio. Jamie 23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Is this really notable? Computerjoe 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete This is not an encyclopaedia article File Éireann 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn band, no hits on google or allmusic. Delete per WP:MUSIC-- Syrthiss 21:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC. "And how shall we fuck off, O Lord?" Eddie.willers 05:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article has notability deficiency syndrome. CDN99 21:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as vanity/A4. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is about a web page started by two students, and doesn't show evidence of notability. Self-promotion/advocacy. Delete RJH 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Page is clearly promotional advertising. Delete RJH 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Orphaned AfD by anon editor 69.123.252.12. Nominator's only contribution. MCB 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 14:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
One-line, trivial, self-evident sub-stub dictionary definition; no potential for encyclopedic expansion; delete. MCB 22:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. A casual glance through Google results show that although he not unknown, I don't think there's nothing particular notable about this guy. He's just another astronomer? I'm open to be convinced otherwise of course. Enochlau 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected. A rough extrapolation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand. In the case of Wikipedia, you have to correct for your sample; the number of duplicates is so low because the pagerank of Wikipedia itself is so high. I mean honestly, did you really think that Wikipedia was only mentioned in 81 unique places??? Delete this as nn. Eusebeus 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was 'delete (2 keep, 5 delete, discounting socks). As awesome as college recruits are, wait until he's recieved the Heisman or broke a college record before reposting. - Mys e kurity( have you seen this?) 04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Because it has been unnecessarily deleted several times. (I've only submitted it once.) I was advised to add the AfD here. TexasDawg 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Matthew Stafford is the most important figure in a popular Texas high school football sub-culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.146.2 ( talk • contribs)
Or you can visit the Atlanta Journal Constitutions website and right this second you will se a picture of Matt Stafford front and center with the caption underneath that reads "QB Matthew Stafford enrolls at Georgia in January as its star recruit." http://www.ajc.com There is also a detailed in-depth story on him connected to the picture- http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/uga/1205/18stafford.html Or you could go to either of the websites devoted to covering UGA sports and ask one of the people who run the sites as their job when Stafford begins classes. You will not want to do this, however, because due to the extreme interest in the sport and UGA, these sites charge a monthly fee to read their articles and talk to their experts. You can find these sites at http://www.ugasports.com or http://www.georgia.theinsiders.com. At the very least you could go to the following page and look at the list of 50 something various articles, although you won't be able to read the content for free, that have talked about Stafford on that website alone. http://uga.rivals.com/prospectnam.asp?Type=1&Sport=1&pr_key=29228
Okay! Enrollement into the
University of Georgia is the first step. Now we are waiting to see if he is accepted into
Georgia Bulldogs Football. After that I think there is still a long way to go, such as being listed in this section:
Football allstars or at least the
Roster and Bio. So stilll not convinced. --
CylePat 22:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Sorry if this is off topic, but what do you mean by "sign". I dont have an account here, so my only ID is my IP address, and Im not going to sign that. I guess I'll go ahead and create an account. Sorry for my 2 poor contributions, they were a prank I pulled to make my friend laugh. It wont happen again.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I was just going to rewrite this to remove the blatant POV, but no... this term has almost never been used in the context the article describes, as far as I can tell. I found few actual uses of it amongst 1,000 Google results [freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/887160/posts], [97]. Those were the only hits I found, as for the rest, it seems this is used by someone as their handle on gaming forums, which inflates the results quite a bit. Never used in print, that I can tell. Mentioned a handful of times in political forum sites... not even in the context of the article. I think this article is more trying to coin a new phrase than define an existing one. W.marsh 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is a hoax. A Google search on "Co-dictatorship" [98] turns up only 1560 entries, none of which are relevant or even vaguely similar to the content of the article. No sources are cited in the article itself, and it appears to have been created by an anon user who wanted to coin a neologism. Delete. Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non notable bio Melaen 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: fails the google test/as per nomination. Agent Blightsoot 22:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a non-notable biography. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-16 05:59:10 Z That was the same person retard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.164.22.68 ( talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply
non-notable bio. There is a Dave Cahill on AMG, yet it is not the same person. The band FOOLZ does not have an entry on AMG either. I vote Delete Deyyaz 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actor. No google hits. Tried looking up the movie quoted in the IMDB and didn't find it. Tried him in the IMDB, couldn't find him. Ifnord 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non notability / vanity Melaen 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Liana Dabous was deleted, and this seems even more questionable. At best, it's an article about a statue at a high school, at worse, it's nonsense. Either way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Delete. Catamorphism 22:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax, no Google hits for terms like "Marz-175" and "Parlos Gentry". -- Curps 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
link to US patent for the syringe device Syringe device for physiological fluid sampling , United States Patent 4934379, co-invented by Snyder and WIllis Marolf, the name sake of MARZ-175. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4934379.html
The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 06:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No claim to notability in her field. Also, it is unlikely that any information will be available on her any time in the near future, given the secretive nature of pornographic performers. (Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can always go back and create the article when verifiable biographical information comes to light -- but right now this article is, from my perspective, porncruft.) Thus, my nomination, along with my vote to delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nomination. Lara Roxx may well be next with this precedent ;-). Eddie.willers 05:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I think the reason is selfevident from the article. Can it be speedied? It's not patent nonsense. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I disagree with "Just zis Guy, you know?"
The reason for any deletion is not self evident nor is it even discernable. I would like to know SPECIFICALLY what in the listing he found to be inaccurate or offensive and I would be happy to debate whether he is correct or not and if he is I would be happy to edit the listing appropriatly but to just "object" to the listing and not give a real reason is absurd. The account is as accurate as I can remember it to be, I have links to the Bungie website to back up that these matches did indeed take place and that the monikers of both the teams and the one team member mentioned are factual as are the dates. If in fact the person who is objecting is sexypizzaman1 and he does not want his GamerTag (which obviously is not a real name) used, then I will be more than happy to edit it out but otherwise I can see abslolutely no valid reason for this listing to be deleted. The listing refers to an actual historical event that is held quite dear to a group of people over one hundred and growing everyday,(The members of the "Married With Children" mature Xbox Live Gamers group) and is no less valid than several long standing listings that recieve no flak whatsoever.
I am the author of the listing and as I mentioned, if it is found to be in any way inaccurate, then I will be happy to modify it properly but people need to know the story and the legend of the Blue Team and why they are considered to be the Suckiest Sucks to have ever sucked at the fine game of Halo 2 online. I have several witnesses that will attest to the accuracy of the accout in the listing and links to sites to back the story up if neccesary.
Mr_Wormwood
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non notability Melaen 23:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Restourant non notability Melaen 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity Melaen 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to United States National Guard. Owen× ☎ 19:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Useless list article which is empty Mecanismo | Talk 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article about a house some college students live in, no actual claim to notability. Doesn't fall under the current criteria for speedy deletion. -- W.marsh 23:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group. Google test yields four results on three sites. Klaw ¡digame! 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
neologism / original research Melaen 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[ talk] 07:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article reads too much like spam Mecanismo | Talk 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity/advert for "The world's only private ski and golf community". Delete. MCB 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio Jamie 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Does not meet inclusion criteria at WP:BIO. — Brim 23:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio Jamie 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No mention of notability. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. — Brim 23:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is about an internet forum that isn't worth noting. Memberlist shows 7 members, 5 of whom have never posted [103]. Very little activity ever. -- PB1 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Move to Post-abortion syndrome. Rx StrangeLove 05:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This supposed syndrome doesn't need its own article, let abortion debate handle it. Google check [104] hits 258 Tznkai 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN according to WP:MUSIC Josh Parris # : 03:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a POV attack against a non-notable company. The whole thing should just be deleted. Cyde Weys talk contribs 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Fir e Fox 18:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is unsourced and full of original research. Pilatus 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NOTE The reference to the entry as being contrary to Wikipedia's political spectrum entry is accurate. Here is part of the Wikipedia entry(in the Left-Right heading):
"In modern Western countries, the political spectrum is described along left-right lines. This political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy and fascism("the Right") on one end, and socialism, communism("the Left") on the other."
There are problems here that confuse rather than clarify.Theocracy describes a particular type of political system. Socialism/communism/fascism describes particular types of economic systems that have particular types of political systems. The reference to conservatism is not clear as to the intent. Is a particular ideology based on inequality and status being determined at birth being refered to(medieval Europe)? Or is this a reference to a preference to maintain the status quo in a society; which is a rate of change measurement? Many people and societies equate a democratic political system with a market economic system(democracy=capitalism.) They also have a tendency to equate a centrally planned economic system with a totalitarian political system(socialism=totalitarianism). This ignores the fact that there are separate political and economic spectra and where a country is located on one does not necessarily dictate where a country will be located on the other. In a democratic country, the people can choose to have any type of economic system they want. If they cannot choose the economic system that they desire--it is not a democracy. Fascism has a market economic system and a totalitarian political system. Socialism(communism is one type) has a centrally planned economic system and a democratic political system. Socialism has never existed in a modern society. The USSR(nor any of the others that claimed to be) was never socialist nor communist for that reason. How does the average citizen, who looks at an encylopedia to try and makes sense of these terms, deal with the fact that there terms that have different meaning depending upon the reference? How is the term liberal being used? As a reference to a society that has an ideology based upon private ownership of property, individualism, competitive, and limited government? Or is it a reference to a measurement of being willing to accept a measure of change? Shouldn't an encylopedia try to sort all of this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby ( talk • contribs)
Command economy_______________________________________________ Market economy (planned economy) ( free market economy)
Where should the UK be placed on this spectrum? The US? Sweden? China? Haiti? Wouldn't this be valuable information for people to have access to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganbaby ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 16 December 2005
The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 18:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition combined with a little bit of unencyclopedic personal opinion - squibix 13:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Removed the unencyclopedic personal opinion. Dunno what to do about the dictionary definition part -
Scott 17:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Doing a google search on the term didn't bring up very much. I found it referenced on some sites on leadership/management ( ex. 1, ex. 2, ex. 3, ) and for video panning ( |ex. 1, |ex. 2 ) What is interesting is that in both cases they appear to use the term as if it is commonly accepted term. (i.e. they don't use expressions like "some people call this firehosing", "sometimes known as firehosing", etc.) Scott 13:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
)
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Perfect square. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article contains (almost) no information. It says that a perfect square factor is a factor that is a perfect square and it gives one example. It has no ingoing links from the main namespace and it was created on 26 September by an anonymous editor, so I don't see any potential for expansion. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 13:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Fragment of source material, delete or transwiki. +sj + 13:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No votes recorded. Relisting to generate discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Album from band not meeting WP:MUSIC The Land 14:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a gaming clan. They have an IRC channel. Wow. 175 Googles. Unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 23:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Typical AFD fodder - a non-notable high school band. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Harro 5 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Much as I would vote for you over Harper, I can't allow vanity. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Finally: "Potentially hundreds" is not the same as "hundreds". Uncle G 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As for the reference to "potentially hundreds", the election just started, and is not expected to pick up steam (so to speak) until after the holidays. Over the next few weeks, many candidates (or more likely, their supporters) will undoubtedly create additional articles on Wikipedia that will not meet WP:BIO, in addition to all those that already candidate articles that already exist. There are more than 300 ridings, at least 5 political parties contesting every riding, with numerous independent and minor party candidates. You do the math.
Finally: I am tired of the lectures of how "ill-founded" and "flawed" my opinion is, so I am changing my vote to delete. I will, as suggested, nominate other articles for afd in an attempt to maintain some neutrality during the election. Skeezix1000 22:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Secondly: Wikipedia has been been around through several major elections. (I was one of the many editors that participated in the projects to cover some of them.) Your dire predictions don't match past experience.
Finally: As any New Pages patroller who has patrolled for a significant length of time will attest, if candidates and their supporters will be creating articles on Wikipedia about themselves telling the world how great they are and about all of their hopes, aspirations, and minor achievements, they are functionally indistinguishable from the 13-year-old schoolchildren that do exactly that too. Uncle G 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted per WP:NOT. FCYTravis 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted per Cyde's astute observation. FCYTravis 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article has many anon editors, and I can't tell if there's a reasonable point to revert it to. I think possibly all the authors are just having fun with Wikipedia. Unless notability can be established for this band, the article should be deleted.- Mr Adequate 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, borderline..seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Rx StrangeLove 04:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC criteria for notability; notability is not claimed. Tempshill 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable street gang jmd 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Even namechecked in "Surf's Up: The Girl's Guide to Surfing" see [12]. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No name yet exists for this video game. This is just fan speculation. An article was already started at
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell 4 anyway. Both of which may fall under crystal ball. Since posting on AFD, it has been confirmed
[15]. I performed a move/delete of Splinter Cell 4 to this page. Change vote to Speedy keep.
K1Bond007 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a twofer - Clancruft *and* bandcruft all in one. Band has no releases and the clan has 116 Googles. Nuke it. FCYTravis 01:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An advertisement Bill 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to Gag (BDSM). Owen× ☎ 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This doesn't seem to be a term in widespread use - only 127 hits on Google for example. The page appears to have been set up purely to rant about people who make such comments about gags on discussion boards. Mdwh 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (8/1). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Obscure, possible vanity, orphan Mecanismo 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Kobra's Realm ( AfD discussion), Crossed Realmz 4 ( AfD discussion), and this were created by VoodooKobra ( talk · contribs) and are about xyr web site, xyr unreleased game, and a fictional place in xyr unreleased game respectively. As I noted in the first AFD discussion, everything about the game is written by the author xyrself. No-one else has published anything about it at all. There is no independent evidence, apart from the author's sole word (see also this edit and these edits), that the game even exists, let alone what the details of its geography are. Uncle G 01:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This, Crossed Realmz 4 ( AfD discussion), and Crossed Realmz Echo Realm ( AfD discussion) were created by VoodooKobra ( talk · contribs) and are about xyr web site, xyr unreleased game, and a fictional place in xyr unreleased game respectively. As I noted in the first AFD discussion, everything about the game is written by the author xyrself. The same is true of this web site. No-one else has published anything about it at all. The only things written about it are trivial web directory listings such as this, which are worthless for the purposes of an encyclopaedia article. VoodooKobra stated in this edit and these edits that the reason that there are no sources for this article is because the web site is down, and that the way to verify the content of this article is to have been a "member of Kobra's Realm throughout the history of the website". Compiling a firsthand history of a web site from direct observation is original research, which is forbidden here. (The place to do it is on the web site's own "history of this web site" page.) Furthermore: Readers are not expected to have to repeat the entire research of the original author in order to verify articles. This web site thus fails to satisfy the primary WP:WEB criterion. Creating anything but a web directory entry ("Kobra's Realm is a web site with domain name D that was registered by N on Y.") for this web site is original research and unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Uncle G 01:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's an article ABOUT a website. Why did you have to type all that BS? You're looking into it too much... if there's some BS technicallity here or there: FIX IT. Don't just delete it. That's censorship. Quit being so imperialistic! Kobra 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete forked article. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a verbatim copy of the existing Andrew Orlowski article with the text of the now-deleted article Wikifiddler inserted verbatim. It is possibly the most textbook case Wikipedia has ever seen of a bad-faith POV fork; DannyWilde ( talk · contribs) did not want to abide by the consensus he thought the community might come to (which they did) to delete the contents of Wikifiddler, so he merged the contents to Andrew Orlowski. When that act was opposed, he took Andrew Orlowski (journalist), which should not have existed unless there was another notable Andrew Orlowski to differentiate from, and instead of making it a redirect, made it his own private version of the article, the way he wanted it. I have seen a number of POV forks in my time at Wikipedia, but never one so blatant, or so blatantly in bad faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Another unverifiable and non-encyclopedic gaming clan. So they participate in online games. Wow. Few relevant Googles. No assertion of broader interest. Nothing that makes them different from the eleventy trillion other clans in the universe. FCYTravis 01:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Made by owner of organization (look at the username, it's something like blabla@animalessinhogar.com), and thus invalid. YixilTesiphon Say hello 01:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: Definitely unencyclopedic and possibly advertising.
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a pointless article and is spam. -- King of Hearts 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - looks like nonsense to me. novacatz 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Website is non-notable. When I created a user account there I was user number 15 (!). Page was initially created by anon one month ago and not updated since. novacatz 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Much of the core contect is on the Daily Show article already Rx StrangeLove 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article about an intern at The Daily Show with Jon Stewart who committed suicide. Tragic, but not notable. Gets 1 google news hit. Renata3 02:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Bad carpet 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC - Renata3 02:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic, this is a vanity page. -- Aude 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Google for the 'definitive' album gives no relevant hits. Looks like vanity article novacatz 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not worth keeping -- Quarl 02:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN Bachrach44 02:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a howto guide Bachrach44 02:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable spam cruft novacatz 02:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Lady in the Water. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I look forward to seeing the movie when it comes out, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bachrach44 02:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. If you're oppsed to an A7, how 'bout an A1? - R. fiend 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Web presence is slim; cannot find them on AMG. Merovingian 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks to be original research by a guy from the site in question. The site isn't notable with no alexa rank and google shows no pages linking to it. If someone can get anything useful out of it, please tell.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not pass standards of WP:MUSIC. No Google results for "Covered in Dust""Jonathan LeShana". Chick Bowen 03:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable or non-existant person Catbar (Brian Rock) 03:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was speedied thrice as spam, but these speedies weren't really valid, and were reversed by WP:DRV. Since two people actually deleted it, it seems reasonable to give consideration to the deletion option here. The del review debate is here. I do not find a great many Ghits nor anything on Google News, but apparently they serve some clients you've probably heard of; whether they import notability from that or not is for AfD. - Splash talk 03:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was convert to disambiguation page. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is likely as large is it'll ever be. And I generally dispute the idea that an individual track from Mario Kart is notable. Locke Cole 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This looks like a non-notable web group. I count five active members, and the group gets less than 600 google hits. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. The group may get less than 600 google hits, but there are few people playing this game currently, as it is a "classic". more than five active members thank-you. and its forums at http://www.newjedix.com/jas serve as a hub for several groups of this specific gaming community. from the forum stats: Number of posts: 726 Posts per day: 3.37 Number of topics: 106 Topics per day: 0.20 Number of users: 36 Users per day: 0.79
the group IS active, and would like to be accessable to more people who have an interest in this game as it is increasingly diificult for newcomers to find gaming groups in this game as "Zone.com" the original multiplayer hub when the game was released was bought out by Microsoft and the websites support of the game was dropped. I believe this is worth keeping on the wiki, as a service not to the group, but simply to people looking for gaming communities of this game. Colt 38 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This reads like a get-rich-quick grow-your-our-business marketing/motivational pitch. Fplay 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Mo0[ talk] 06:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vote tally was:
This article was deleted in this AfD. A debate at WP:DRV was concerned that there might have been more particpation if this were re-listed (though note there is no quorum for AfDs). So here we are: the orignial nomination read: "Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Minor trivia that is not useful.".- Splash talk 03:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was boldly redirected to win-win game. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a test page, original text copied verbatim from a copyrighted weblog entry and does not describe an actual theory Rcade 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Still in need of a rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was previously deleted in this AfD. Some questions on the help desk lead to this deletion being reviewed. Some new information was found that may justify keeping the (restored) article e.g. [28] [29] [30]. - Splash talk 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Neutrality. Jamie 04:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, completely not worth moving to Wiktionary. Renata3 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN band. Jamie 04:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This ammounts to a project announcement by the Wikipedian who wrote the page. Fplay 04:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictdef Jamie 04:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Forge World. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nominating for deletion as Games Workshop-cruft. I believe this man would fail WP:BIO, even though he is one of the minds behind the Forge World modelling company. Saberwyn - 10:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. -- bainer ( talk) 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Biography of a non-notable musician from a band that does not appear to meet inclusion per WP:MUSIC. I would have nominated for speedy delete per CSD A7, however I took the assocaiation with the band The Heroin Addicts as a claim of notibility. The band is also undergoing the AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heroin Addicts). Movementarian 04:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC as far as I see. Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 04:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:FCYTravis. Jamie 06:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
wierd title, self ref and dicdef all in one go! delete! BL kiss the lizard 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 06:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Biography of a non-notable musician from a band that does not appear to meet inclusion per WP:MUSIC. I would have nominated for speedy delete per CSD A7, however I took the assocaiation with the band The Heroin Addicts as a claim of notibility. The band is also undergoing the AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heroin Addicts). Movementarian 04:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- Interiot 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, no Allmusic entry, possible hoax elements. Band does have a Website at [33]. Klaw ¡digame! 04:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Merovingian 05:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Some hacking group, but I don't know how well-known they are outside of their circle. Merovingian 05:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advert for non-notable company. Found at most 715 google hits, though "Intertech Satellite" itself gets only 98 hits. Interiot 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Band does not seem to be verifiable, at least not notable enough to be verified via Google; basically just a vanity garage band article Bumm13 05:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research, sadly (linguistics). Fplay 05:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
There's no reason why this web site should have its own article rather than being mentioned in GPL (if at all). Delete. Catamorphism 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fir e Fox 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN activist - 49 hits. Delete. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect to MuggleNet. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN fansite. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN Game in development. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN racer and web designer. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN baseball prospect. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
"Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States."
Thus, there is no specification that only major leaguers may be included in Wikipedia.
I'm not sure where the Class AA reference came from; Bard has never played in the minors. (The Cape Cod League, referenced in the article, is an amateur league.)
The original article, which I had nothing to do with, didn't particularly make a case for notability. I came across the article while scanning AfD and felt that it was an easy matter to improve the article to show it belongs in Wikipedia. Anyone who takes the time to do even a little Googling will realize that Bard is considered one of baseball's elite college players. His awards, play, and reputation among major-league scouts, front offices, and organizations such as Baseball America confirm this. Barring injury, he will likely be among the first several players chosen in the 2006 major-league draft, and he'll receive a signing bonus of likely one or two million dollars in addition to his salary. Nonnotable baseball players simply don't happen upon this type of situation.
Bard, in fact, has already been drafted once; the New York Yankees drafted him as a high-school pitcher in 2003, but he elected to attend college instead. So if having been drafted is your criterion for inclusion, he's already done that. If verifiability is your thing, every last fact in the article has, as its source, one of the accompanying links. Sawney 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:WIN a cookbook. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Drini as CSD A1.
NN marching band. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Jsu5198m 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete-- 68.253.230.111 20:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC) NN website. Delete. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN author to be (?). -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Homey 16:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN student activist. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If we're gonna include any person who founded a website that's only mediumsized, Wikipedia will soon enough have more than thousands of articles of websiteowners of whom little can be said. My opinion is that articles like this one are non-notable and should therefore be deleted. -- SoothingR( pour) 06:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Two of the three keep and expand votes were disregarded; the first one was counted, but probably shouldn't have been - it's inclusion was immaterial to the result. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nnbio on an unknown defunct band Reid A. 06:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
-*Comment-seems like sock puppets to me?- Reid A. 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dramatic movie that was written by User:Chensiyuan, who also authored the page. Not in IMDb. -- Fplay 06:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
'non-notable movie' - well, your non-notable existence is even a greater source of humour. if you're so righteous, why do you not delete your own user page and save wikipedia some funds. you pretend to administer neutrality but contribute nothing to knowledge, that is why wikipedia is suffering from an image problem. another typical bigot. 70.26.180.74 05:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I think it's fair to say the imdb tag is inaccurate. Apart from that however, I am unsure what constitutes a 'notable' movie to you. How would you know, apart from making that inference due to the fact that I come from a small country? How about you let Singaporeans decide, is that fair? Chensiyuan
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A really ugly page about a nn street gang. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A blatant shocker article with no encyclopedic value. Agamemnon2 07:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is created in respons to a revert was in the Ali article. IMHO, the article is pov in both content, form and title.
If the "Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib" article is simply NPOV, then it must be merged into the Ali article. If it is representing a pov, that being Shi'a pov, it must be merged into Shi'a view of Ali. However, it is neither, it is not representing Shi'a pov, nor is it NPOV. Nor is it the pov of anyone else. The creator of the article, and sole contributor to it is User:Zora. The article is nothing more than Zora POV.
The whole content is basicly saying this:
(a direct lie, since i have proven in many talk pages and dialogs with Zora that Sunnis belive in that also)
(Again, i direct lie, Zora presented a page she belive contained that information, but in fact, the site contradicted her by stating that there is a consensus that Ali was born in the Kaaba. No matter, the site was unprofesional and would not constitute evidence even if it contained what Zora belived it contained. Zora has not presented any source at all that has contradicted or even comments negativly on the credibility of that specific narration.)
(This part of the article is given unfairly little attention)
(Implying that Shi'a and Sunni scholars are not academics. I have proven that a Sunni scholar regarded it as authentic)
Now, compare it to this article: People reported to be born in the Kaaba.
Lastly i want to repeat myself:
If the "Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib" article is simply NPOV, then it must be merged into the Ali article. If it is representing a pov, that being Shi'a pov, it must be merged into Shi'a view of Ali. However, it is neither, it is not representing Shi'a pov, nor is it NPOV. Nor is it the pov of anyone else. The creator of the article, and sole contributor to it is User:Zora. The article is nothing more than Zora POV.
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Compare to this VfD. It is a zero sum game and either this article or that article should go. (unless of course you want both). This article combines two subjects that need not be combined. It is much better to discuss the Hakim part in the Hakim article and the Ali part in the sub-article of Ali since his article is too long. If there were hundreds of people claimed to be born in the Kaaba it would be different... but there are not. gren グレン 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I had this as a section in the Kaaba article previously, but it was sugested to be given a separate article [36], since it would take to much space in the Kaaba article. As of now, the section contains way to much information to be put back in the Kaaba article, if all the sources and views are going to be represented.-- Striver 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Zora, stop your accusing it of "it seems to be trying to reconcile Sunni and Shi'a, by accepting traditions from both." Here is how you argue:
Try this:
would a Shia say "It appears" that Ali did not take the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr? Now, they would strongly claim that it was so, not try to smoothen it with some rant about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", Both Shi'a, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are unanimous in that matter, the is no "appears" or "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", that site only gives a disclaiming rant since they dont like the consensus!
Would a Shi'a say "When Abu Bakr died, Ali in the funeral oration highly praised Abu Bakr." ?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE non-sense, Sahih Muslim says "Quran and AHl al-Bayt", there is no controversy whatsoever! Now, this guys try to claim there is a controversy about the words, and try to spin it to "quran and Sunnah". Now, HERE in Ghadir Khumm you see a disclaimar abouth "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations", when there is totaly concensus regarding what was said!
Is this what you call a joint Shi'a Sunni site?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
PURE Sunni pov, nothing Shi'a in it at all. Do you see any disclaimars about "colored because of sectarian and partisan considerations" here?
Zora, is this what you are trying to claim is a joint Shi'a-Sunni site?
The site reiterates sunni pov, and when it must sayin established sunni pov that benefits Shi'a pov, its gives disclaimers!
Zora, where did you get the idea of them being a joint Shi'a-Sunni site from? Did you even bother to look for five second around before labeling it a "joint sunni-Shi'a site"?
Again: Zora logic:
Get your head out of your bigoting ego and start doing some real reserch!
Its feels like:
She is totaly incapable of accepting a defeat or even entertain the thought of being misstaken. This is not a new argument, i have tried to make her realise that this Sunni site says he was born in the Kaaba, but she goes on with her fingers in her ears sayng it a "distinct Shi'a belief". She is truly unique... -- Striver 11:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Zora, you know that it is standard issue for the sunnis to not talk about that. They dont want to "take side", since there is only one side, only one version of the text of the event, the one saying that Muhammad left the Qura'an and Ahl al-Bayt and saying Ali is the Mawla of everyone. That is authentic by all Sunni scholars. Yet, Sunni biographies dont want to touch it. That is not NPOV, that is POV to the point that they dont even want to admit their own POV.
And further, you remeber this? [46]
A Sunni answering "somone" that asked if Sunnis belive Ali was born ther with:
Shi'a belive only Ali was born there, that sunni guy belived half the world, inclusive Ali, was born there. You know this, you have read this, yet you are doing something that can be nothing else than lying by writing thins like
Zora, stop lying. -- Striver 13:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 04:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable article, probable vanity. Google search turns up some related links but nothing displaying any modicum of notablity. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO standards. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep after rewrite.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable article, probable vanity. Google search turns up some related links but nothing displaying any modicum of notablity. Doesn't meet
WP:MUSIC or
WP:BIO standards. Has been deleted thrice now and been through
afd once already May the Force be with you!
Shreshth91
($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson as CSD G4
"A poorly written article that provides no references.Delete TheRingess 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was created by a new account named after the site, who has put multiple links (one main domain name and one that forwards to the first) to the article on multiple articles... It is clearly nonnotable, vanity, self-promotion spam. Besides linkfarming and now creating the pointless article, the editor also created several redirects, including CPIA, Center for paranormal and Center for paranormal investigation association. All should be deleted as an abuse of this project. DreamGuy 08:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn-bio and nonsense.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense Mreini 08:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Some kind of company of some sort. NN. Delete. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unnotable and inoperative service. Haakon 08:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nonsense, unnotable Mcfly85 08:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The contents of this article where transferred to Victory Day. The contents in the latter page are merely a copy of Victory Day(Malta). Maltesedog 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move to Soviet 4th Mechanized Corps. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Too generic article name. Difficult to merge into Battle of Stalingrad and similair. Orphan article Scoo 09:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The text below originate from my botched attempt to nominate yesterday (12 Dec 2005)
Delete, article has a too a generic name (4th Mechanized corps), the content is non-existent as of now, dubious whether enough info could be gathered for an article of its own.
Battle of Stalingrad would probably not need a list of individual participating units.
Scoo 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Have a look at these articles to see where this one would belong (the list is sketchy so far). This one should probably be renamed Soviet IV Corps or Soviet IV Mechanized Corps to be consistent with others (on the other hand, someone has linked Soviet 4th Corps). — Michael Z. 2005-12-16 16:55 Z
I've looked over my one measly source and done some Web searching. It looks like a few sources use the conventional roman numeral notation, but most would write Soviet 4th Mechanized Corps. — Michael Z. 2005-12-16 17:18 Z
The result of the debate was Delete, material is in Wikibooks. Rx StrangeLove 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article fails a number guidelines and policies. It is written in the wrong tone and it describes how to do an experiment (Wikipedia is NOT an HOWTO guide. It also doesn't explain the experiment (which would make it more encyclopedic). I've added a more general link with a number of other movies (as well as the one linked to) to Atmospheric pressure so this has no more value. Delete (perhaps transwiki to Wikibooks, but I have a feeling it's already there). - Mgm| (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unless anyone knows about a category or list of similar articles this can join, there seems to be nothing remarkable about this portable TV. Delete, as Wikipedia is not a catalogue. If there are similar articles about TV models, then that's a different matter... The JPS 10:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Punani. Owen× ☎ 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
One view of women in Trinidad and Tobago. Hoax / original research. Zero Google hits on, for example ' "pum pum" aleong'. -- RHaworth 10:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by MONGO (patent nonsense). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable person, probably vanity. Chrislee 11:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to have been created by a new user entirely to bolster a vanity/hoax article John Fullerton, currently well on the way to deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fullerton. The afd has been heavily disrupted by sockpuppets defending Fullerton, a PE teacher in Ireland, as an alleged major footballing and political figure. While overhead kick and free kick obviously exist in soccer, there is no reason to link them in a single article as a joint specialism - except apparently to justify the disputed (and previously redlinked) claim that this Fullerton is one. Tearlach 11:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Delete Jamie 11:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A Google search found just one use of "paper pop", and it wasn't used as described in the article. Paper pop either doesn't exist, or it's used by an insignificant minority. SaltyWater 11:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Never heard the phrase before in my life, can't find it through Google, and it really just seems to be lumping bands together who shouldn't really be lumped together as a genre of music - although I must admit anyone who can put The Flaming Lips right next to Belle & Sebastian amuses the hell out of me. -- MullHistSoc 02:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as unverified, both as a neologism and a musical genre category. No sign of it in Newsbank (world newspaper archive) either. Tearlach 20:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is along the same lines as Hulda Clark's "Zapper." This article will probably turn into a "FDA and AMA are the devil" kind of article...if anyone works on it. CDN99 12:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Page is a set of instructions for using a particular service with a particular phone. Wikipedia is not an instructcion manual. Rholton 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Yet Another Band Vanity Article, brought to you by the same editor who gave us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suspended. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 14:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Wrong wiki, folks, the business directory is across the quad at Yellowikis. Pilatus 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I am pretty sure this is complete bollocks. I can't find any authority for it, I work in England for a ocmpany which is a global name in data centres and I've certainly never heard of it, and there's nothing significant on Google. It might be a BJAODN candidate, but I am reasonably certain it is not a valid encyclopaedia article. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 14:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect the article as necessary. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Local chapter of the Democratic Party (United States) for "Southeastern Volusia County, Florida." A search of Google finds references to the club on the clubs website, the web site for the county chapter of the Democratic Party, a listing on Wikipedia, a telephone listing, a letter to the editor by the club's president, and splattering of personal websites but no independent peer-reviewed sources to provide verification of the claims made in the article. [66] Delete as per WP:V and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. -- 207.136.10.50 15:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article should remain I take issue to this article being deleted as "propaganda". While the article currently may have a bias, it is listed as a stub and is a new article. It is hardly the only biased article on Wikipedia, and bias means the article needs improvement; not deletion. I agree that google doesn't return many results, but google is not the only source for peer reviewed information! I have edited and added to this article, and while I did reference several sites I found via google, I also live in Volusia County (the county in which the group operates) and talked with several people about the group in order to check the accuracy of the information - this included both members of the group and those not associated with it). To my knowledge the information is accurate. I would be happy to continue editing and revising this article, and hope that any bias issues can be addressed on the talk/discussion page rather than just deleting an article because of a political bias for or against the group. Datapharmer 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: article relisted on 13 December 2005. Cheers, fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 14:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to Tom Gilb. Owen× ☎ 16:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If it's not a hoax, it's certainly non-notable. You can call me Al 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisting 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is all fine and well but I can't find any verification that 'Burbler pipe' actually exists. Only hits on Google point to WP and mirrors, searches for Burbler, Vermont, etc. on other sites and newsgroups are similarly empty. Unless someone can provide a source, I think this is unverifiable. -- W.marsh 20:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisting 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to not delete the article. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge and redirect this article at their leisure. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not Notable. Paul Cyr 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a unique situation. It is a one off.
Note: relisting 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Nonsensical and no shown notability Paul Cyr 22:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (3d, 1 weak keep). Mindmatrix 15:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Obscure, orphan and possibly vanity Mecanismo 22:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep - no consensus. Fir e Fox 17:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to meet any notability requirements in WP:CORP, and is chock full o' vanity. Colonel Tom 22:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep - no consensus. Fir e Fox 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to meet any of the suggested guidelines in WP:WEB. Alexa says 30k, the number of forum members is unknown and the article still reads like an advertisement for the site even after numerous edits. HackJandy 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: relisted 13 December 2005. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam article Mecanismo | Talk 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Google test returns 164 results on this book. Possible spam/vanity page. Mecanismo | Talk 21:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was band vanity. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Concerns about this article being original research are not satisfactorialy adressed because the sources provided in the article are not reliable enough (either unpublished or only published on a single, personal, website). Also, votes from entirely new users are discarded leaving only one or two valid "keep" votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose to delete this article. A google search for "ecological cognition" does not bring up any references to this guy bishop (other than his own webpage). Ecological psychology is an important branch of psychology, and there are centers devoted to it (e.g. CESPA at the university of connecticut). Ecological psychology has much to say on the subject of cognition. What is this fellow saying that has not been said by the 50 year old community of ecological psychologists, that is so important that we need a whole new "branch of cognitive psychology"?
I suspect that this article has been written by Bishop himself. What he says does seem to be related to ecological psychology, but rather superficially. You cannot just coin some phrase and then put an article up on wikipedia suggesting that you have invented a disicpline!! To make that claim, you need to have a large body of publications, and several researchers other than yourself using your ideas. This guy graduated a couple of years ago (not in psychology, neuroscience or cognitive science I might add) and has knocked together a couple of papers on E-learning. From this we are expected to regard his body of work as a discipline comparable to ecological psychology. This is the kind of stuff that puts wikipedia into disrepute.
Duracell 19:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was neologism with no google web or google groups hits. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. Could we suspend judgment until the Bocij-Holmes Law becomes part of the archive? Google is not a conduit to scholarly sources, mainly just to junk from Usenet (e.g. see Godwin's Law). But Bocij-Holmes is in fact a relatively new law and has been published in scholarly journals to which Google Scholar does not own rights. It is being given some press and we should see Google availability within 10 days.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was band vanity. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
this band is awesome I just bought their cd at zia and its amazing.
Don't delete their page, I think it is important to know about them becuase they will be hitting main stream soon
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.57.9 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Z0mb1 21:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete karmafist 23:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
How much of a punk scene can there be in Santa Clarita, that whitebread rich suburb up there in the Valley? User:Zoe| (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
that, my friend, is an opinion. this wikipedia has been exponentially fixed and added to on it's first day alone, and quickly has become a valid wikipedia for those looking on information about the band. and it's not only viewed by local people, seeing as how we have contacts with recording establishments and places looking for more information than what can be found off the less than serious website. User:Freeninja
The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not suitable for wiki, probably not even worth to be moved to wiktionary Anthony Ivanoff 13:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
To the nominator: This nomination should be withdrawn immediately because you are mistaken for a few reasons:
Thank you. IZAK 15:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was advert. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It was not implied that Parade of Death was a released film and it was stated that it was a screenplay. The listing as Film was erroneously added by another user.
*Keep - AFD is not the place to discuss editing issues. If you believe that the facts are incorrect, then fix them in the article. You are correct about the film part though, as it has no
IMDB entry.
Zordrac
(talk)
Wishy Washy
Darwikinian
Eventualist 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Since notability is subjective, how is the notability judged? Would listing the copyright information satisfy the verifiability claim? Emcnutt
The Library of Congress / WGA registration numbers have been provided as verifiable sources. -- Gkennedy34 03:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE.
Final tally at closing was: 1 Keep; 6 Delete; 6 discarded anons/socks. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
"I'm not sure how to qualify this one. It seems like a spurious essay about people in a small town in California. There is no attempt by the author to show that it is encyclopedia material.Delete TheRingess 07:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article seems fine to me. Presented in a knowledeable manner and very useful. DO NOT DELETE.
This article was right on - I grew up there and the description is perfect.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
They made a web page. Congrats! No need for a wikipedia entry, though Uucp 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already speedied. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, one-liner article. Cyde Weys talk contribs 16:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page doesn't actually make proper English sense, but even if it did I don't think I'd consider its content inherently encyclopedic. I'm not even sure the term "residence life" is used much or that we need a definition... └ UkPaolo/ TALK┐ 16:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was. Speedy merged. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 09:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't see this merits its own article (and if it did it should be called "List of...". I think notable people should be merged with George Washington University and this article deleted. └ UkPaolo/ TALK┐ 16:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was moved to Counts of Bouillon. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Listcruft, a category should suffice. Stifle 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, and little unencyclopaedic content anyway The JPS 16:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. At the moment the article is at best a dicdef and at worst an advertisement for whispernumber.com. When I placed the speedy tag on it the whispernumber.com's were linked.-- Syrthiss 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Rob 08:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a legal journal. Stifle 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
fork of United States of America Bachrach44 16:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Story. sjorford (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad for a website with no alexa rank masquerading as a neologism that no one has heard of. - Bobet 17:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
website advertising Melaen 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete for being largely identical (except with different company names) to the article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Stanley Chile S A where editors concluded that this was an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia to lend legitimacy to a fraud. Uncle G 17:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The only reference in the whole Internet to a company called Morgan Stanley Investments, Inc. is this Wikipedia article, entered by an anonymous user. Google references regarding the name of its chairman point to a Chilean character, once rejected as a candidate to the Senate because of not having proved completion of secondary school, and identified by several sources as a swindler. The same anonymous editor inserted false data in Morgan Stanley associating this company (and other "phantom" company called Morgan Stanley Chile S A) with the "real" Morgan Stanley. This article seems to be a candidate for speedy deletion. Cinabrium 17:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Reply to these false statements: Cinabrium in writting false statements abour Morgan Stanley Investments, and deleting without reason: It is false that " the chilean character " was rejected for senate post due to not having proved the completion of secondary school. Further, the chilean newspaper "La Tercera" published a rectification article saying that it was wrong to say that this man involved with Morgan Stanley Investments did not have proper qualifications. A Licence was issued by the chilean education authority stating that under file 05/1468/29/07/1997 was duly validated his High School Diploma issued in the U.S. on 1967. The company Morgan Stanley Chile, S.A. is a duly formed company under the chilean corporate laws, and as this article in cowardly written, we can't take Cinabrium to Court for his slander. I take full responsability of this statement as attorney at law. Signed: Jaime Ortuzar - phone 664-0000.-
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A soldier in WW1 and WW2 but not notable. "My grandpa" vanity. ( ESkog)( Talk) 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Covered by Category:Wellington_urban_districts. Barefootguru 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE.
Final tally at closing: 1 Keep; 5 Delete; 4 discarded anons/socks. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article about a message board has been tagged for speedy deletion multiple times. Its content was recently replaced with an unrelated article about trees, which was then vandalized Bill 18:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep- Results 1 - 10 of about 342,000 for ilxor. (0.08 seconds), it's been cited and discussed in newspapers like the New York Times and The Guardian, enough articles on her actually mention discussions on it (see the entries for MIA and Prolapse), I would venture as far as to say only someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia would request a deletion for this entry.
Keep or Delete, it's up to you, but if you're going to keep, then for god's sake get some better content than that in - none of the names cited are "much-loved internet personalities" they are music writers, apart from the last-named, who is a homophobic nuisance poster on the board (who is also probably responsible for putting the article up in the first place).
Is Wiki reserved for items of "cultural significance" now?
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article reads like a review. Seems to me to be an advertisement for the theater. Unless major rework is done, I vote Delete TheRingess 23:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. Most likely a vanity page since the only author is User:Lojohnston. -- Quasipalm 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE (also per author's request). Owen× ☎ 16:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Already have History of Paris. No need for another one! Also bad title. -- Kilo-Lima 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; article will not be deleted. Mindmatrix 16:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
not another one. sigh. "List of $Religion/$Nationalisty $job" is just more list-cruft. (Unless we want list of Puerto Rican plumbers and List of Italian dentists.) -- Bachrach44 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Inaccurate stub, all accurate info is already at Continental Congress.
Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1775-2005. sjorford (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An Orange internet radio station. Written up in the first person with hopelessly POV content. -- RHaworth 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Two editors have suggested that the article be redirected to Flex lexical analyzer, but this seems unreasonable as Flex lexical analyzer is not (from what I gather from the article) a programming language. So why redirect a programming language of any kind to it? Just because of a similiarity in the name? That seems sub-optimal. Consequently, I am interpreting the redirect votes as "delete". If you have valid reasons why I should reconsider, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NOT notable. I have somewhat improved the original advertising article, but the language is really not notable (not to be confused with other computer related meanings of Flex), so it probably should be deleted. If not deleted, it should be improved. Kyknos 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn micronation created by a couple of high school students. Completely unverifiable. ( ESkog)( Talk) 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not instructive! Too minor aswell. If it was to stay, then it would never be complete. -- Kilo-Lima 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 20:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non-encyclopedic
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable and not fit for an encyclopedia --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyzasatya ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Saw this listed as a CSD. It's not, but it raises an interesting question: are CNN correspondents notable? I'd vote to keep but I think this deserves a fair hearing. —
Phil
Welch
Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Nomination withdrawn. Request other admin to speedy keep. —
Phil
Welch
Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as patent nonsense. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
advertisement
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An enternaimnet company, no claim to notability. Article is written in sarcastic tone, may be a joke or an attack. Couldn't find info on this company through Google (there are a host of "BDM Productions" on USA, Canada and UK). JoaoRicardo talk 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:Music, plus original research to boot. Coolgamer 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete unanimously. Looks like a hoax. Friday (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Someone nominated it inappropriately for speedy, stating it is a hoax File Éireann 20:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like a vanity page. "many, many awards" is a claim to notability, though. Austrian 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nernberg is a notable character, with many contributions to the pizza business in New Jersey and New York.
he is also most likely insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknernberg ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not an encyclopedia article. The subject is, I presume, properly dealt with in warez and related articles. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A how-to-guide for the newer Pokemon games. Punkmorten 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
neologism Austrian 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy. A good-faith effort was made to make a Wikipedia article. This article runs counter to WP:NOR, so cannot remain in article space. But I don't think anyone will have a problem with userfication (except possibly for the original author of the article). Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is not encyclopedic. Frenchgeek 21:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No Vote. I agree with Cyde Weys in that this article is of interest now and will be of interest, presumably in the future. However, micro-level detail like this may well be best on the author's own website. There is simply nothing notable about this district that would merit an encyclopaedic article. Incidentally, the arguments about the low cost of digital storage being a reason to 'Keep' are specious. All digital storage costs something, and the folk paying for it have every right to set terms of reference for its use. Eddie.willers 05:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment - is this area actually definable as a distinct neighbourhood separate from everything else around it? -- Francs 2000 14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as attack/nonsense -- Durin 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No content, just a rant about wikipedia Hirudo 21:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. Forum has 6 members. No mention on Amazon.com, etc. -- Durin 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE.
Final tally at close: 2 Keep; 10 Delete; 19 discarded anons/socks. Owen× ☎ 00:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
A personal essay on a supposed holiday at Harvard Law School, but this reads like a hoax to me. Why would people celebrate a guy who hasn't graduated yet? This is just nonsense in my eyes at present. Harro 5 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
To all the anon IPers; please at least attach a "~~~~" to the end of your comments. Certainly if you're capable of getting into Harvard Law School you're capable of following that basic instruction, yes? Besides, if you don't we'll do it for you and will as done below. Thank you. --
Durin 18:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
(The following is sorted by IP rather than date/time)
NB on "sock puppet" votes. As it turns out HLS is expensive, and as such we students like to get what are called "roomates" in the parlance of our times. this being the case, myself and my 2 roomates (as well as other apartments i might add) share the same wireless connection and (lordy!) the same IP address. Thus, any claim of "sock puppet" votes is in fact re-tahd-ed as people here would say. good day. 24.61.41.250 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (no idea what " 24.61.41.250 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)" means. reply
No, its not Nick, although Nick is quite amused by all this controversy. The section of the website, which is called the Advisor, http://internal.law.harvard.edu/adviser/2005/12/08/general.php, is protected. Hence, I can forward you the email that has the listing of titles (although the links wont work for you). The Advisor is the internal site at Harvard Law School that lists all the events and things happening on campus. Here is the email with the links: HLS Adviser: 2005-12-08
HLS Adviser: PDF
Administrative Announcements Adviser Schedule Spring 2006 T Pass Orders E-mail Alert De-Stress Exam Study Break for 2Ls and 3Ls See "Midnight Pancake Breakfast" in Events section. Resident Assistant on Duty
Career Services HLS Job Bank NEWS @ OCS International Opportunities 2006 Judicial Clerkships
Clinical and Pro Bono Programs Clinical Program Information Important Clinical Deadlines See "Death Penalty Clinical Meeting" Events section. Pro Bono Information Hurricane Relief Opportunities For Students
Competitions International Online Competition in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution Sovereignty Symposium Scholarships
Course Announcements Winter Term Courses Food and Drug Law, Winter Term (Hutt) International Law and International Relations, Winter Term (Hathaway) Winter Trial Advocacy Workshop (Murray, et. al.) Spring Term Courses Developing an Interdisciplinary Approach to Health Management for Older Adults (GR 705.40) Legal Issues: Seminar (Professors Heymann and Rosenberg) Quantitative Social Science, Law, Expert Witnesses, and Litigation: Seminar (Stephenson, Rubin--FAS, Greiner--FAS) Possible Writing Group on Human Trafficking and Involuntary Servitude (Sidel)
Events Yearbook Portraits for All Classes The Forgotten 'Refugees': Protecting People Uprooted in their Own Countries Speaker's Freedom and Maker's Knowledge: The Case of Pornography Death Penalty Clinical Meeting Auction Night--Fun and Excitement The UN and Human Rights: An Informal Conversation with the New High Commissioner DOJ Information Session for 1Ls Scales of Justice Fall Concert Why We Want Immediate Withdrawal From Iraq and You Should Too: A Lunch Discussion With HLS Peace Conversation with Congressman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Heyman Fellowship Panel: Young Alums in Federal Government Public Interest Auction 2006 Volunteer Kickoff Meeting Midnight Pancake Breakfast Catholic Mass
Fellowships Lewis and Houston Fellowships for Law Teaching Reginald Lewis International Summer 2006 Internships
Financial Aid--J.D. Students Summer Public Interest Funding December E-Bill (The "Spring" Bill) Second Semester Cash Advance Checks Outside Resources Zuckerman Fellowships Iranian-American Bar Association Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago Academic Scholarship Program The Bristol County Bar Association
General Interest Happy Nick Rose Day Holiday Gift Drive HLS Giving Tree: A Gift Drive for Homeless Children Seeking Nominations for 2006-07 Scholars at Risk Fellows
Informational Technology Services ITS Student Services Changes in Help Desk/Computer Lab Schedule Exam Quiet Hours Take-Home Exam Computer Reservation Tips for Avoiding Computer Disasters During Exams New iCommons Contact for Auditors/Cross-registered Students
Jobs Student Assistants Sought for Winter Trial Advocacy Workshop Promote Ideas of the Harvard Negotiation Project Seeking an Assistant for Student with a Disability Professors Roe and Ferrell Seek RA Professor Goldsmith Seeks Summer RA
Library Exam and Holiday Hours Westlaw Westlaw Weekly Search Tip You've Got Questions, We've Got Answers
Public Interest Walk-in Hours Brief OPIA Closings Mass Law Consortium Job Fair at Suffolk Switzer Fellowship Deadline Rebellious Lawyering Conference Deadline for SPIF Registration is tomorrow, Dec. 9. See details in the Financial Aid--J.D. section. See "Public Interest Auction 2006 Volunteer Kickoff Meeting" and "Heyman Fellowship Panel: Young Alums in Federal Government" in Events section. See "Holiday Gift Drive" in the General Interest section.
General Information
To view this week's Adviser online, visit: http://internal.law.harvard.edu/adviser/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.237.231 ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 December 2005
The anon 140.247.237.231 ( talk · contribs) defending this nonsense left a message on my Talk page. My reply to the IP talk, but reproduced here to be sure he sees it:
Nick or whomever you are:
Spare me the invitation as there is nothing to "discuss". This is not a negotiation, these are standards -- and not my standards, Wikipedia's standards -- you must meet. Don't like 'em? Go to MySpace.
Also, if you're a law student, shouldn't you:
-- Calton | Talk 05:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wow. It appears that Wikipedia is overrun by people with way too much time on their hands, something which I do not have. I can no longer fight this battle. If you want verification, I will forward you emails from a harvard law school account. I can take pictures of stuff for you. whatever you want. I can not change that fact that Harvard Law School protects that part of its site. I dont know what else you want from me. That article was written by a few students here. We are in the middle of finals here, hence the lack of careful attention to editing etc. I cant defend this anymore. If you are so nuts about deleting it then just do it. Maybe some day I wil re-post it and try and work this all out. Everything here can be verified. And no, this is not done by Nick.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.141.101 ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 December 2005
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio Jamie
Non-notable. Poorly written. Personal biography Computerjoe 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete. Vanity and non-notable KBi 21:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
677 google hits for "mechnology", the first page of which have nothing to do with this definition. It's a copy of the content of User:Mechnology (by User:Mechnology). Delete -- Quarl 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio. Jamie 23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Is this really notable? Computerjoe 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete This is not an encyclopaedia article File Éireann 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn band, no hits on google or allmusic. Delete per WP:MUSIC-- Syrthiss 21:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC. "And how shall we fuck off, O Lord?" Eddie.willers 05:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article has notability deficiency syndrome. CDN99 21:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as vanity/A4. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is about a web page started by two students, and doesn't show evidence of notability. Self-promotion/advocacy. Delete RJH 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Page is clearly promotional advertising. Delete RJH 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Orphaned AfD by anon editor 69.123.252.12. Nominator's only contribution. MCB 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 14:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply
One-line, trivial, self-evident sub-stub dictionary definition; no potential for encyclopedic expansion; delete. MCB 22:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. A casual glance through Google results show that although he not unknown, I don't think there's nothing particular notable about this guy. He's just another astronomer? I'm open to be convinced otherwise of course. Enochlau 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected. A rough extrapolation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand. In the case of Wikipedia, you have to correct for your sample; the number of duplicates is so low because the pagerank of Wikipedia itself is so high. I mean honestly, did you really think that Wikipedia was only mentioned in 81 unique places??? Delete this as nn. Eusebeus 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was 'delete (2 keep, 5 delete, discounting socks). As awesome as college recruits are, wait until he's recieved the Heisman or broke a college record before reposting. - Mys e kurity( have you seen this?) 04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Because it has been unnecessarily deleted several times. (I've only submitted it once.) I was advised to add the AfD here. TexasDawg 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Matthew Stafford is the most important figure in a popular Texas high school football sub-culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.146.2 ( talk • contribs)
Or you can visit the Atlanta Journal Constitutions website and right this second you will se a picture of Matt Stafford front and center with the caption underneath that reads "QB Matthew Stafford enrolls at Georgia in January as its star recruit." http://www.ajc.com There is also a detailed in-depth story on him connected to the picture- http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/uga/1205/18stafford.html Or you could go to either of the websites devoted to covering UGA sports and ask one of the people who run the sites as their job when Stafford begins classes. You will not want to do this, however, because due to the extreme interest in the sport and UGA, these sites charge a monthly fee to read their articles and talk to their experts. You can find these sites at http://www.ugasports.com or http://www.georgia.theinsiders.com. At the very least you could go to the following page and look at the list of 50 something various articles, although you won't be able to read the content for free, that have talked about Stafford on that website alone. http://uga.rivals.com/prospectnam.asp?Type=1&Sport=1&pr_key=29228
Okay! Enrollement into the
University of Georgia is the first step. Now we are waiting to see if he is accepted into
Georgia Bulldogs Football. After that I think there is still a long way to go, such as being listed in this section:
Football allstars or at least the
Roster and Bio. So stilll not convinced. --
CylePat 22:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Sorry if this is off topic, but what do you mean by "sign". I dont have an account here, so my only ID is my IP address, and Im not going to sign that. I guess I'll go ahead and create an account. Sorry for my 2 poor contributions, they were a prank I pulled to make my friend laugh. It wont happen again.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I was just going to rewrite this to remove the blatant POV, but no... this term has almost never been used in the context the article describes, as far as I can tell. I found few actual uses of it amongst 1,000 Google results [freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/887160/posts], [97]. Those were the only hits I found, as for the rest, it seems this is used by someone as their handle on gaming forums, which inflates the results quite a bit. Never used in print, that I can tell. Mentioned a handful of times in political forum sites... not even in the context of the article. I think this article is more trying to coin a new phrase than define an existing one. W.marsh 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 20:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is a hoax. A Google search on "Co-dictatorship" [98] turns up only 1560 entries, none of which are relevant or even vaguely similar to the content of the article. No sources are cited in the article itself, and it appears to have been created by an anon user who wanted to coin a neologism. Delete. Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non notable bio Melaen 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: fails the google test/as per nomination. Agent Blightsoot 22:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a non-notable biography. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-16 05:59:10 Z That was the same person retard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.164.22.68 ( talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply
non-notable bio. There is a Dave Cahill on AMG, yet it is not the same person. The band FOOLZ does not have an entry on AMG either. I vote Delete Deyyaz 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actor. No google hits. Tried looking up the movie quoted in the IMDB and didn't find it. Tried him in the IMDB, couldn't find him. Ifnord 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non notability / vanity Melaen 22:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Liana Dabous was deleted, and this seems even more questionable. At best, it's an article about a statue at a high school, at worse, it's nonsense. Either way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Delete. Catamorphism 22:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax, no Google hits for terms like "Marz-175" and "Parlos Gentry". -- Curps 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
link to US patent for the syringe device Syringe device for physiological fluid sampling , United States Patent 4934379, co-invented by Snyder and WIllis Marolf, the name sake of MARZ-175. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4934379.html
The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 06:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No claim to notability in her field. Also, it is unlikely that any information will be available on her any time in the near future, given the secretive nature of pornographic performers. (Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can always go back and create the article when verifiable biographical information comes to light -- but right now this article is, from my perspective, porncruft.) Thus, my nomination, along with my vote to delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nomination. Lara Roxx may well be next with this precedent ;-). Eddie.willers 05:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 00:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I think the reason is selfevident from the article. Can it be speedied? It's not patent nonsense. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I disagree with "Just zis Guy, you know?"
The reason for any deletion is not self evident nor is it even discernable. I would like to know SPECIFICALLY what in the listing he found to be inaccurate or offensive and I would be happy to debate whether he is correct or not and if he is I would be happy to edit the listing appropriatly but to just "object" to the listing and not give a real reason is absurd. The account is as accurate as I can remember it to be, I have links to the Bungie website to back up that these matches did indeed take place and that the monikers of both the teams and the one team member mentioned are factual as are the dates. If in fact the person who is objecting is sexypizzaman1 and he does not want his GamerTag (which obviously is not a real name) used, then I will be more than happy to edit it out but otherwise I can see abslolutely no valid reason for this listing to be deleted. The listing refers to an actual historical event that is held quite dear to a group of people over one hundred and growing everyday,(The members of the "Married With Children" mature Xbox Live Gamers group) and is no less valid than several long standing listings that recieve no flak whatsoever.
I am the author of the listing and as I mentioned, if it is found to be in any way inaccurate, then I will be happy to modify it properly but people need to know the story and the legend of the Blue Team and why they are considered to be the Suckiest Sucks to have ever sucked at the fine game of Halo 2 online. I have several witnesses that will attest to the accuracy of the accout in the listing and links to sites to back the story up if neccesary.
Mr_Wormwood
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non notability Melaen 23:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Restourant non notability Melaen 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity Melaen 23:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to United States National Guard. Owen× ☎ 19:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Useless list article which is empty Mecanismo | Talk 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article about a house some college students live in, no actual claim to notability. Doesn't fall under the current criteria for speedy deletion. -- W.marsh 23:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group. Google test yields four results on three sites. Klaw ¡digame! 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
neologism / original research Melaen 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[ talk] 07:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article reads too much like spam Mecanismo | Talk 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity/advert for "The world's only private ski and golf community". Delete. MCB 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio Jamie 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Does not meet inclusion criteria at WP:BIO. — Brim 23:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Brendanconway as nn-bio Jamie 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No mention of notability. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. — Brim 23:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is about an internet forum that isn't worth noting. Memberlist shows 7 members, 5 of whom have never posted [103]. Very little activity ever. -- PB1 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Move to Post-abortion syndrome. Rx StrangeLove 05:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This supposed syndrome doesn't need its own article, let abortion debate handle it. Google check [104] hits 258 Tznkai 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply