< December 4 | December 6 > |
---|
The result of the debate was delete. Nandesuka 18:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of Penthouse magazine in late 1970, and Google appears to have nothing ("Heidi Mann" as this article details is lost in the background noise, "Heidi Mann" + penthouse gives 9 sites, each of which can be summed up as "This is the October 1970 issue of Penthouse. Heidi Mann is on the cover.") Saberwyn 00:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Game cruft/neologism/sub-slang Pete.Hurd 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Biography of a college junior, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO but not a speedy since it claims notability (e.g. it claims he "sold innovative business communication services to business owners and Fortune 500 companies"). Unfortunately, the verifiable claims don't seem to be notable, and the notable claims don't seem to be verifiable, so... — Haeleth Talk 00:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was that the nominator has taken this to WP:RfD, and all votes have been transferred there. — Haeleth Talk 01:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
the name with a comma (a typo -- the link (almost certainly) should not have included the comma) was linked to from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts -- additionally, as that link is no longer relevant, it was removed (rather than simply removing the comma) Alan smithee 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a non-notable paper manufacurer. I presume it was uploaded by someone who works for the firm as the logo image is described as "our free use logo image". Thryduulf 00:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
*Delete. It IS spam. User jtbobwaysf inserted an egregious link to this article in the technical article
A4 paper, and also inserted egrious links to his also-AfD's article
It's Yoga in 2 or 3 Yoga articles, and those have been his only contributions so far. Whether or not the company might be notable I don't know, but since this article is
WP:SPAM I say delete on sight.
Herostratus 18:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Oops I had already voted, sorry.
Herostratus
reply
The result of the debate was speedied as per below discussion. - Mgm| (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a spoof/attack article, the person doesn't show up on Google, and it was edited by an anonymous IP. Cmdrjameson 00:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 00:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. No references and cannot find any supporting information via Google or Google News. Did find a Paul Cisero in the IMDB, but it's not this fellow. Considered replacing article with the actor, but actor not significant enough to warrant an article in my mind (though I wouldn't argue if someone else wanted to). -- JLaTondre 00:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was that the nominator has taken this to WP:RfD, and all votes have been transferred. — Haeleth Talk 01:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
it only exists because of a (now-fixed) typo (missing right parenthesis) in a link at List of character classes Alan smithee 01:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. I know, it's early, but this is a very clear case. Friday (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Joke religion invented in 2005. Needless to say, Google's never heard of it. Does it fail WP:V more than it fails WP:NOR? Could it be a hoax, or perhaps even silly vandalism? You, dear voter, may decide. As for me, I say we should risk the wrath of Quinlivit and delete. — Haeleth Talk 01:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 19:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page would appear to be vanity for an organisation - notice a large majority of edits have been made by a user who shares a username with the subject of the article. The organisation has no hits on the first few pages of google results for both internation and UK searches. Neo 01:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
With respect to the following comments notice should be taken that User:Ashibaka had edited the page to add some silliness about the number four desiring independence from the real numbers. I have now reverted his edits to the page. The 'real' content is non trivial.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Somebody's school essay. POV. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 00:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Some kind of original research at best. -- Curps 01:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't document the importance of this organization. Delete. Catamorphism 01:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an orphaned draft of a cleanup for the active HHLV article. No activity since October. StuffOfInterest 01:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DISAMBIGUATE. — JIP | Talk 06:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
at the moment this disambiguates between a fruit in a videogame (which shuld be merged) and a person who gets 2 google hits so is very likely nn. BL kiss the lizard 01:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam-like advertising for a "free-for-all" web forum. Suggest deletion. 69.236.184.108 01:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 04:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of Penthouse magazine in December 1970. Google for "Jennifer Jurse" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 01:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to List of Penthouse Pets. — JIP | Talk 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of Penthouse magazine in December 1970. Google for "Franca Petrov" gives a short list of sites detailing vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article about an unknown and unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Saberwyn 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
And, of course, there's the fact that such a novel conclusion is almost certainly wrong, as several editors have already pointed out. Delete. Uncle G 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 06:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Well-meaning but inappropriate invitation to use a Wikipedia page for free-form community discussion of bionicles. However, Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider; "you may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia." Also, descriptions of "your own" bionicles is essentially original research, prohibited under the no original research policy. I think it would OK for User:JMB to use his own Talk page for discussion, and invite people to do so in Talk:Bionicles. But as an article in the main namespace, this is unencyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; redirected as per Mgm. Johnleemk | Talk 10:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Tina McDowall" gives a list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. A scattering of people sharing that name also appear, but these people are even less plausible for an encyclopedia entry. Saberwyn 02:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to List of Penthouse Pets. — JIP | Talk 10:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Katherine Mannering" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. A handful of hits detail a character from a novel by the same name. Saberwyn 02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for " Tamara Santerra" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 02:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Ilse Hasek" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 02:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 14:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm sure this is organization is a worthy cause, but this page seems purely promotional Daniel Case 02:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. English-only Google for "Benedikte Andersen" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. A complete Google offers up 130 total hits, most of which are non-English, and I can't read. Saberwyn 02:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Polly Anne Pendleton" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 02:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable adult model. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in September 2005. According to Freeones, she has a handful of free online galleries, but in my personal opinion that means nothing in todays pornography industry. Saberwyn 02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Is unlinked, adds absolutely nothing to wikipedia, does not even describe the border and is misleading as the border lasted from 1920 to 1945 (at least formally) and de facto from 1919 to 1939 Halibu tt 02:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism? Only 169 google hits for this word, most of which are not about the definition used here. JeremyA 02:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 14:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
not needed - the info is already covered in homeworld, and this doesn't seem to be important enough to warrant its own page. -- Bachrach44 02:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an obscure neologism. Our article gives no citation of notable use (or of anything else). A term in contemporary American politics that only gets 138 Google hits is probably not ready for prime time, and a quick survey of several of those links does not suggest to me that they all use it to mean the same thing. It is (barely) possible that there should be an article here, and I might be convinced by some good citations; I suspect, though, that if someone does the research they will find that the particular meaning the article claims for the term is not borne out even by the bulk of the meagre collection of known uses. Jmabel | Talk 02:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I just overhauled the article, have a look. Sam Spade 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Your welcome. Sam Spade 01:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
What if we merged it w Classical_Liberalism? Sam Spade 02:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I've already voted above, but I want to reiterate: if someone can come up with more than a handful of citations that this word is used with some consistency of meaning, fine, but, otherwise, original research shouldn't be here, adn making it redirect somewhere is likely to be actively misleading, because we've already found multiple uses among the few that exist. If someone comes across a reference to paleoliberal meaning a Nixon-era neoconservative and looks up the word, it's not use to them at all to get a redirect to something else entirely. If we are going to have this in Wikipedia at all, what we need is a decently cited article on how the word has actually been used, linking to the articles that then explain the (diverse) ideologies for which this is an (uncommon) name. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising, company does not meet WP:CORP standard. Delete -- AJR | Talk 02:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Found nothing at google. Chris the speller 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn webcomic, 23 unique Google hits (Greeneyes + JetFuel) which one of the Google links calls a "Seldom-updated web comic", and which JetFuel him/herself says on http://greeneyes.metalbat.com/news.pl "I'm not sure when greeneyes will be back, but I hope that it will be someday. We're very sorry that things are so uncertain". User:Zoe| (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is the second nomination; the first, 2 months ago, was for homophobia etc. This page has none of that content; rather, it is not noteable per WP:MUSIC as the band has not yet released an album, etc. Colonel Tom 02:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Why is it that I keep getting messages about deleting of articles? I havent been doing that, nor would I know how to.
The result of the debate was No consensus; defaults to keep. Merge may or may not be preferable. Ral315 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A " talker" community of questionable notability. The assertions of notability made in the article (50 users at once) are fairly weak in and of themselves; we wouldn't let a niche IRC network of 50 users create an article on Wikipedia without exceptional additional circumastances, and I see this as being no different. A positive: the addition of the article seems to have brought several enthusiastic new editors to Wikipedia. The negative: these new editors brought some of the "politics" of the talker with them, and an edit war largely consiting of inneundo and arguing over minutae has commenced. (There's a request for protection in process, amazingly.) So, in short--not notable and somewhat toxic to the community. Tom Lillis 03:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Blackcat55 00:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I think that what people fail to recognise here is that a merge means that we are either biased in favour of CP, purely because they advertised people to come here and vote, which isn't the way that Wikipedia's voting process is supposed to work. This is supposed to be votes by neutral people who are not involved in it. The term "meat puppets" is used for this strategy, and ordinarily admins ignore votes made in this manner.
One big reason why not to merge is because CP is equally notable to an awful lot of places. I don't know every talker, but my understanding is that its in the order of 100 which are roughly equally as notable. Why pick one ahead of any other? I could just pluck Ancient Realms out for an example (one that I don't think deserves its own article). Ancient Realms was about from 1992 to 1996, started on ew-too but converted to nuts, and was seen as an ambassador to talkers. It was one of the first talker hosts, predating talker.com by 4 years, but it didn't charge anyone to use its space. It was run on an education server, and worked to educate students, using talkers as a medium. It influenced most of the big talkers that came out afterwards, including Oceanhome, Crossroads and Ncohafmuta. But it was never popular, never having more than 30 or 40 users on at a time. And it closed after just 4 years. The server stayed open until 1998 but without the talker on there (just other people's talkers). In a very technical sense, it was the first ever multiple worlds talker - in the sense that it called all of the talkers on its network "realms". It also used NUTS 3's linking code to link all of the talkers together. Ancient Realms still exists today, in a sense, although the original talker is long gone. It has a MUD, a MUSH and 3 educational talkers, catering for primary school aged kids.
Now that is a talker of equal notoriety to CP. Not notable enough for its own article though.
If we vote "keep" on this, then we have 100 talkers listed. If we vote "merge" then we have the talker page looking longer than anything ever imagined.
Indeed, I don't see how anyone can possibly suggest that CP is more notable than Iron Rose, the forefather of BDSM talkers.
Do we keep going on forever? Or do we appease people just because they happened to come here to vote, and just because they wrote on their message boards to come to wikipedia to vandalise pages and vote to keep this and delete poe. Is that how the process works? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
By the way, last version edited by me, prior to vandalism etc, was this one [15]. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I thought that I'd point that out so that it is *CRYSTAL CLEAR* to all voters that the article, prior to changes made by anons, was neutral. It was incomplete, and some things were not 100% factual. Whilst I appreciate the improvements with that regards, it has changed from something that was neutral to something that is a blatant advertisement. They also got rid of all claims to notoriety. Whilst the article as I wrote it did have claims to notoriety, the article as it stands now does not. That is it quite simply. Their user levels are insufficient to claim notoriety per Wikipedia standards. The controversies are sufficiently notable. If they want us to pretend that the controversies didn't happen, then that's fine, but then the article can't exist. Simple as that. There's no debate about this. No current talkers are sufficiently notable for their own article. And ridiculous notions such as CP being "the most popular talker of all time" are just stupid. Unless they had 1,000 users on at once for 4 years, they are no competition to the top 3. Its very biased POV editing with no concept of fact or reality. A lot of talkers have been written about in the media. A lot have been the subject of newspaper articles and PC Gamer magazine and the like. But CP has not. Lintilla has, Surfers has, Resort has, Foothills has. CP has not. It can't get much simpler than that really. And this whole thing has turned in to a whole "my talker is better than yours" incident which is just plain stupid.
The very definition of meat puppets is what has happened here. There was one initial editor, who was genuine, and he then got a bunch of others to come along to help out. Ergo, they cannot be considered to be neutral, and they should be considered to all be one voice, per the standards in meat puppets and sock puppets guidelines. Now, if neutral people honestly feel that this needs to be kept, then that is another matter entirely. When I wrote it I thought that it might not be suitably notable, and it turns out I was right. Not to mention that the guy who owns the talker doesn't even have a real web page, and doesn't want anyone to write anything about him at all (The entire point to this bunch of attacks on me and this article). Other than how this talker has affected others, which is solely in relation to the controversies, there is absolutely zero influence on anything. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to redirect to Rexford Guy Tugwell, merging useful external link. Rholton 05:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article lacks substance and relevance. Snorgenhorpher 03:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedied-CSD A3 - Rholton 05:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable -- hopefully this is the last one I catch; if there are more, please let me know) -- Nlu 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. The page seems like something made up by the club, which this high school kid belongs to, as a way to advertise the club. 169.231.1.49 03:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Having said that, this person appears to have been the president not of a school club, but of a nationwide student political organization, the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union. As such, there might well be significant press coverage of this person, depending from how newsworthy his political activities were. If so, then he would satisfy the criteria. Uncle G 04:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Students, students try your best,
Keep it up,
Don't give up,
True will come at last of course!
HKSSU 09:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding
unsigned comment by
219.78.21.252 (
talk •
contribs) 09:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was tardy speedy keep. AfD is not the place to go for merges; anyone who participated in this AfD is free to merge at their leisure. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Suggest that this article be merged to Catch-22 Snorgenhorpher 03:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) -- Nlu 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every high school kid. Furthermore, this page seems to be made up by the club, which this kid belong to, as a way to advertise the club. - 169.231.1.49 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Students, students try your best, Keep it up, Don't give up, True will come at last of course! HKSSU 09:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) -- Nlu 22:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every high school kid. Furthermore, this page seems to be made up by the club, which this kid belong to, as a way to advertise the club. 169.231.1.49 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Students, students try your best,
Keep it up,
Don't give up,
True will come at last of course!
HKSSU 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding
unsigned comment by
219.78.21.252 (
talk •
contribs) 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Bio of an apparently non-notable Canadian artist whose work appears to appear primarly (or only?) on the web; in about 45 google results for "Crimson avellone" I see little indication of notability. Delete. Bikeable 04:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article has been created and deleted several times, but never put through afd. Could afd voters decide once and for all if this is encyclopedic content please. -- nixie 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
National Library of Canada
NAME(S):*Keillor, Kenneth Montgomery, 1953-
TITLE(S): Post mortem : an affidavit, a resume, an autobiography / by Kenneth Montgomery Keillor PUBLISHER: Abbotsford, B.C. : K.M. Keillor Pub., c1996. DESCRIPTION: 1 v. (unpaged) : ill. ; 29 cm.
NUMBERS: Canadiana: 980054370 ISBN: 0968140602 CLASSIFICATION: LC Class no.: HE6654* Dewey: 383 13]
NAME(S):*Keillor, Kenneth Montgomery, 1953-
TITLE(S): The clawing tree : an autobiography / Kenneth Montgomery Keillor PUBLISHER: Abbotsford, BC : K.M. Keillor Pub., 1999.
NUMBERS: Canadiana: 999005596 ISBN: 0968140661 : $69.95 CLASSIFICATION: LC Call no.: FC3849 A32 Z49 1999 Dewey: 971.1/04/092 21]
SUBJECTS: Keillor, Kenneth Montgomery, 1953- British Columbia--Biography
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An apparent vanity page. - Rholton 04:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as biography with no assertion of notability. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Just 78 Google hits and it seems to be written by either Noah Sheola himself or one of his friends, judging by the NPOV comments. JHMM13 ( T | C) 04:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This was improperly marked for speedy deletion. Fails the Google test for those who care; no results on the AMG; fails all of the WP:MUSIC criteria I'm capable of easily checking. Delete. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-05 05:21:32 Z
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be very notable as an individual. If we lived in the day when the Socialist Party was a viable national organization that elected Congressmen and produced brilliant leaders like Debs, being the president of the party's youth auxiliary maybe would be inherently notable. However, we live in a day when anything to the left of the Democrats has no chance in hell at meaningful political power. He should be mentioned in the YPSL article, but that's about all. — Sesel 05:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) -- Nlu 22:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Yet another article for the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union about a non-notable person working for a notable organization. Put a list of members on the main article's page and spare us all of the mini-bios, please! Delete. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-05 05:33:41 Z
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) -- Nlu 22:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Yet another article for the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union about a non-notable person working for a notable organization. Put a list of members on the main article's page and spare us all of the mini-bios, please! Delete. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-05 05:37:25 Z
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Students, students try your best, Keep it up, Don't give up, True will come at last of course! HKSSU 09:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. "Score" is already listed at Wiktionary. There is no need for separatte entries for three score, four score, etc. Delete — Brim 05:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non-noteable, poor Alexa rating ( 25000), wholey unencylopedic. Does not meet suggested critereon in WP:WEB
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn vanity page by Lucky 6.9
Formed this year, non-notable, sounds like 3 or 4 guys that hang out. No evidence of notability. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Intro says that there's no written record of this dude, which I inferr to mean that this is original research. Could be wrong though... 68.39.174.238 06:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 01:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
9000 registered users, of which many are not active, (says so on the page) is not even remotely notable for an online game. -- Миборовский U| T| C| E| Chugoku Banzai! 06:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
In response to the above, point for point:
- Reponse again
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as A3) (particularly since author's other edit is spam as well) -- Nlu 10:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising Swamp Ig 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE nn-bio. - Splash talk 23:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist. Vanity. Delete — Brim 07:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep following expansion/rewrite; nomination withdrawn. BD2412 T 16:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
No real content except for what was copypasted directly from Fibonacci numbers. 70.110.14.164 07:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Aside from the fact that whatever minimal amount of content this article's got is POV, the website, or at least I'm assuming right-magazine.com is their website, gets no love from Alexa. JHMM13 ( T | C) 07:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This was nominated for deletion previously a couple of months ago, but it appears the nomination was never closed properly. Instead of closing it myself, I thought the proper thing to do would be to relist it. Gamaliel 07:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Jaranda wat's sup 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Alexa ranking of 397,346, and no other claims to notability. While it may not be self-promotion, it seems promotional. Locke Cole 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Taintedink, from your username it seems probable that you have direct connections with the comic. If that's the case, would you happen to be able to provide more information on its popularity? For example, traffic figures for the site that aren't distorted by Alexa's bias towards non-techie users might reveal greater popularity than is currently apparent. Review WP:WEB for the guidelines we normally follow for inclusion - though they are only guidelines rather than strict policies, you could tip the scales in the comic's favour by demonstrating that it has notability equivalent to anything on that page. — Haeleth Talk 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable portal site of little importance. Directory of 1330 pages in Santa Fe Province, Argentina. Should be deleted as per Advertising or vanity Mariano( t/ c) 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An article with no valuable content but trivia. Gtabary 08:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Amitai shenhav contains only abuse and has been deleted before. It should be speedied. I've tagged it such, but the tag was removed. I've tagged it again. Just in case the tag goes again, this. Ben Aveling 08:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be the text of a recent speech at an unidentified summit. Delete as nn, unless much greater context and explanation is given to justify. Dvyost 08:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A list of cartoon scams does not an article make. Suggest deletion. 69.236.184.108 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Dvyost 08:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity page
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Short article that is essentially a table listing facts that are already mentioned in other articles. Not encyclopedic in itself. Can be merged with another article, but I'm not sure where's the best place for it to go. Perhaps under sex assignment or somewhere in the sex article. — Brim 09:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
unecyclopedic nonsense, nn-- MONGO 09:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete, note changes.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.224.190.212 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to RuneScape. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This seems to be an article about a program for use with the online game RuneScape. It doesn't seem very notable for me. -- Ixfd64 10:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied. Intial creator blanked the article and mentioned they made a spelling error. It should've been Waking Life. Since walking and waking are two different words, I'm not leaving a redirect. - Mgm| (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not confident enough to speedy delete this, but it appears to be a highly non-notable movie and the article is not expandable due to lack of context. Stifle 10:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable: page describes subject as a struggling artist yet to achieve wide-scale acknowledgement. May be vanity/advertising - page also gives link to artist's gallery. Also, information largely duplicated on Jere Allen. Humansdorpie 10:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webcruft belonging to a random forum. If the forum turns out to be notable, merge this page to it, otherwise delete. Stifle 10:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted per CSD A1. It was a sentence fragment. - Mgm| (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I'd like to put this in speedy deletion as nonsense, but then I'm not well up on management-speak so I realize it may not make sense. Stifle 10:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Deleted at request of subject -- do not reinstate 82.3.239.4 11:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable [16]. Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 12:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising, and not a specially notable internet travel agency Zeimusu | Talk page 12:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This title seems quite inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I was planning to move it, but then wondered whether the content was worth having anyway. There are three flag proposals in the article. Flag concepts for the South Island (which the "other" refers to) includes a proposal which was seen a bit of use, but there is no indication that these flags have been used at all. So I am not sure whether to move or delete. JPD ( talk) 12:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Mys e kurity( have you seen this?) 06:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition (text is copied from public-domain Webster 1913). Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 13:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn site, most google hits are self referential; Alexa shows rank of 1,000,000+. Delete. Also delete related image. RasputinAXP talk contribs 13:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is just a stub for the AFD Silent PC Review. Removing the two self promoting links from this "article" would remove all the content. HackJandy 13:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable building. Can be merged to the city. Stifle 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (and do not transwikify). RobertG ♬ talk 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Reads like a magazine or book, transwiki to Wikibooks if eligible. Stifle 14:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment. This isn't really suitable for Wikibooks. "Wikibooks is not a place for non-fiction books on any random subject you would like." Please stop sending us stuff that is not suitable. We are looking for academic resources. Jimbo has said that he wants WB to be for textbooks only, but that policy is currently under dispute at WB. To be safe, it may be wise to hold off on transwikiing non-textbook material for the time being. I'll keep you all updated. -- LV (Dark Mark) 17:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (consensus not reached). Enochlau 01:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. No Alexa ranking. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 14:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's not actually a company, they don't sell anything. They just show images of paintball related items in a shop-like format. VanillaX
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 23:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable freeware, <300 Google hits, <1000 downloads from download.com and at least one reviewer complains of massive maware issues (in a P2P program? Who'd have thought it!); no evidence of importance or notability, apparently spam for bog-standard non-notable freeware. Anon user's sole contribution. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 14:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I reposted this article. Your comments about the software is unwelcome since this is not a spyware but a freeware. The user who reported this is a spyware obviously did not even know what he was saying as you can find by checking his other comments as well. If you go to http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/screenshots.php you can find screenshots of the program and at http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/info.html you can fine more info about the program.
There are also more papers that describe it at: http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/papers/Bottom-Up-Approach.pdf
http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/papers/HybridP2PApproach-www2006.pdf
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Although Donald Black is noteable, every term he used in an original (or non-original) way is not an "invention" of his. Fancruft. KillerChihuahua 13:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not an actual medical condition. Was already listed for speedy delete and then a merge to herpes simplex virus, but these attempts were reverted. Delete it. — Brim 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Mys e kurity( have you seen this?) 06:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article lacks sources, uses a lot of passive voice and has a lot of spelling mistakes. Delete TheRingess 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As this article stands now, the deletion is in order because it looks like a promotional page more than an encyclopaedic article. Lincher 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) -- Nlu 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every high school kid. Furthermore, this page seems to be made up by the club, which this kid belong to, as a way to advertise the club. - 169.231.1.49 03:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Students, students try your best,
Keep it up,
Don't give up,
True will come at last of course!
HKSSU 09:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding
unsigned comment by
219.78.21.252 (
talk •
contribs) 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No content, but some significance
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is a neologism and failed the google test. KarmaKameleon 11:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) This AfD nomination is KarmaKameleon ( talk · contribs)'s second edit. reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Clear case of vanity. This village is unknown and does not need a wikipedia entry. PeaSea 06:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Star is sufficient imo... plus i'm a bit concerned about this article's title... copyvio? Jackk 01:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is notable. Further, if the band formed in Nov 2005, it's dubious that they have two EPs out. Regardless of whether or not they have published, I don't think this band is sufficiently notable to have an article.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wiki page looks like a brochure. I recommend deletion. PeaSea 06:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a vanity page Knave75 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
”keep” Yves is a well known Montreal activist and published author. His books appears in numerous well known bookstores across Canada and a quick google search reveals his prolific journalism on numerous political subjects. Lastly, I think the work that he's doing is important and find it suspicious that at this particular time, during the federal election campaign period, as Yves faces charges for confronting and heckling Paul Martin abbout Canadian foreign policy in Haiti, his Wikipedia article is being dubbed a vanity site.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Either a hoax or an obscure term that doesn't seem verifiable via Google. Original creator already carried out this dubious edit (note addition of "oddball"; hoax-like name and the figures are out of place in the list). Perhaps they went in the huff after I reverted their change of "candy" to "sweet", and decided to screw things up instead? Fourohfour 15:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as per criteria A7. -- Allen3 talk 16:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a nonsense vanity page
The result of the debate was keep. NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article appears to be the charter for a group by the same name. Transwiki to wikisource or delete as per
WP:NOT. --
Allen3
talk 16:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Originally marked for moving to dictionary. Google search is unable to find the word, so I guess it is an invented word, or at best a random creative (mis)spelling of the interjection. This is not what Wiktionary is for, so delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was previously submitted along with a batch of Middle-earth related articles. At the time the group submission was generally considered to be a WP:POINT situation and all of the submissions were kept. However, 'Bellakar' is not part of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth. The name appears nowhere in his stories or notes. This is actually a fan project to 'flesh out' Middle-earth with 'additional kingdoms' which is being maintained on a restricted yahoo group. -- CBD ✉ 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:MUSIC, yet sadly no WP:CSD applies. They are 'up and coming' and 'releasing a cd on their own label' and other red flag phrases. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 17:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article lacks substance and relevance. Snorgenhorpher 17:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE junk article backing up an nn-bio qualifies as vandalism in my book. - Splash talk 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Quote from article: "Jewdauism is a relatively unknown and obscure branch of the world religion Judaism with only one known practitioner". Punkmorten 17:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Quote from article: Championships and accomplishments - None as of this writing. Also vanity. Punkmorten 17:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I think because there are no Championships won on his part is no reason to delete. It's a profile of quite possibly a future star in pro wrestling.
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This forum has 2,818 active members, less than the proposed limit of 5,000. Forumcruft. Punkmorten 17:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Lacks substance. I am also unable to find any relevant references on Google. Snorgenhorpher 17:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Don't think this is notable. There are a few relevant Google results (mostly stuff in the vein of MySpace), but a lack of an All Music Guide entry makes me suspicious. Do they even have an album or anything? 151.205.103.25 17:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Do we really need a page on a high school's JROTC program? Delete. -- Nlu 17:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising spam of non-existant (in beta) software. Orphan article. Non-noteable. KillerChihuahua 18:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A non-notable urban exploration group. Crotalus horridus 18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bio. 136.165.114.218 18:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. DJ Clayworth 18:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
With a fanbase in the 'dozens' as stated by the article, it appears to be nn. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 18:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. This page has, at most, one or two entries that are really part of "pop culture". The vast vast majority of it reads like lines that have been added by fans of the show that understand the subtle inside jokes. "My friend quotes this line all the time, so it must be pop culture" does not a valid entry make. PxT 19:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The only thing coherent about this article is its title. The page is a list of random links that are neither "Christian" nor "alternative", and often not even musical groups at all. I thought about listing for {attention} but cleaning up this list would be much harder than recreating it (assuming anyone actually wants to). I've had it marked as {disputed} for 6 weeks now and apparently no one cares enough to fix it. BrainyBroad 19:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 01:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No google hits, no sources cited, unverifiable. See also WP:MUSIC. Kappa 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE discounting anon voters. NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable.-- Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 19:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this essay. Article doesn't appear to have encyclopedic worth and cannot be refactored into a notable topic. .:. Jareth.:. babelfish 19:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Jayden54 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Second nomination (first AFD decision: Delete), blanked by anon and possibly still non-notable. Roy Boy 800 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was overwhelming keep.
Anon puts false info in article. Seigenthaler complains, false info removed. A lot of people write a lot of articles about this which all say pretty much the same things. Is this really the stuff of an encyclopedia article? Let's avoid intense self-referential navel gazing, please. This deserves nothing more than a paragraph in the Seigenthaler article. Gamaliel 20:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This should be kept. It is an event in history that occured and as such has every right to be documented, controversial or not.
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information — MESSEDROCKER ( talk) 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A mild case of working-title-itis for a holding article I admit (g). There does not appear to be a page on History of the Papacy as such - to which the second component could be added, while it might be useful to have a page on links between popes (eg the several Borgias, and the links mentioned in the first part of this piece.
Jackiespeel 14:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable site being spammed on various formula 1 articles. violet/riga (t) 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. The article comprised three things, simply copied and pasted into the article: A press release issued by Hillary Rodham Clinton, a copyrighted article published (and not licensed under the GFDL) by Enchanted Learning, and a Yahoo! mail message. At the bottom of the article it handily provided the URLs of all three. The press release is unacceptable content here anyway, but I speedily deleted the article for the inarguable copyright violation. The author's edit history comment when creating the article, which was "Drafting Mayor Rudolph W. Guiliani for President in 2008", lead me to believe that this was not an attempt to create a neutral point of view encyclopaedia article. The article remains listed on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy. Uncle G 21:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Copy and pasted news story. Also POV statements. Speedy delete. Velvetsmog 20:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
not worth an entry. -- Bachrach44 21:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.
The result of the debate was DELETE NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unknown neologism or joke. Borderline speedy, but {nonsense} wasn't quite applicable. (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 01:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Commercial site, fails WP:WEB proposal. Alexa rank of 124,943, search engine doesn't even work right now, apparently. -- W.marsh 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, a joke article without apparent meaning is a combination of simple vandalism (G3) and nonsense (A1). - Splash talk 22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense, vanity, unencyclopedaic
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Supposedly the editor of some student-run newspaper. GeeCee 21:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted as unfunny joke DS 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Google search shows that this does not exist. The writers language also seems to indicate that this is false. -- Spring Rubber 21:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Obvious spam/advertisement. Wikipedia is not self promotion. -- W.marsh 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted as advertisement.
Advertising. Unencyclopedic. -- Longhair 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is nonsense, as it descibes a "therapy" which doesn't actually exist. Presumably this, and the one supposed externally linked source on this, are written by people involved in bdsm type erotic spanking. Fictional therapies imagined by a couple people are not a candidate for a wikipedia article. Xyzzyplugh 22:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Bold text KEEP There is a usefulness to spanking therapy. From personal experience I have had a deep need for spankings for fifty years (since I was nine). It has nothing to do with BDSM although many people that need this therapy pass it off as such since BDSM seems more acceptable than the truth. ie Some people desire and need spanking for motivation and love. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.227.49 ( talk • contribs)
KEEP - It is an emerging therapy. A few users not understanding it doesn't make it imaginary. It is NOT related to BDSM or erotic spanking. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.145.76 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN (appears to only be about a Windows Workgroup) and Vanity (edit history on Image:Elvent.jpg says "This is a symbol for El Vent. I made this myself, anyone else who wants to use it please contact me.") Interiot 22:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. May the force be with you! - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A date-rapist with an university degree, this is tabloid material, not encyclopedic information. There is also a doubt whether this coverage is legal according to the Icelandic Privacy protection laws. The Google search "Stefán H. Ófeigsson" -Wikipedia yields 57 results. Bjarki 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep The article is a biographical article on Stefán H. Ófeigsson, an Icelander born on June 20, 1977. He holds a masters degree (MSc) in space engineering (one of the few, if not the only Icelander to hold such a degree). He has played an instrumental role in investigating the possibility of Iceland joining the European Space Programme for which he received approximately US$7,000 (450,000 ISK) funding in 2003 from Tæknisjóður (now Rannís, The Icelandic Centre for Research [27]).
On
November 17,
2005, he was sentenced to 2½ years in prison by the Reykjavík district court for raping an 18 year old girl in November the previous year, in a case which, upon his sentencing, was widely covered in the Icelandic media. It was covered on the front page of DV the third most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland with ~17% market share and on the opening fold (page 2) of Fréttablaðið (The Newspaper), the most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland (~65% market share).
When the case was at its peak, 7 of the 20 highest ranking queries in Ebmla, an internet search engine run by Morgunblaðið (The Morning Paper), the second most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland with ~45% market share whose website
mbl.is ranks as the second most visited website in Iceland
[28], were directly related to the case. On the web, the case has been
covered by that website, and on
December 3,
2005 by
visir.is, the most popular website in Iceland. The
article on visir.is cited the Icelandic Wikipedia article, which in itself marks a milestone for the Icelandic Wikipedia, since it had never before been cited by any mainstream news source (see
citation record).
As a space engineer, Stefán had written 16 articles for Vísindavefurinn (The Science Web) [29], a science website in Icelandic and English which ranks as the 13th most popular website in Iceland and the most popular one dealing with science. All of these answers were removed without explanation from the site; this fact is included in the article and was the subject of the article at visir.is, which cited the article on the Icelandic Wikipedia.
The person this article discusses is clearly notable in Icelandic society, every bit of information in the article is verifiable and is sourced in the References section, I therefore vote keep. — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If this is a "minor celebrity" I would hate to know their definition of non-noteable. "Danny Chambers" +happyrobot = 22 hits. Definitely NN, probably vanity also HackJandy 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Have a nice day! fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy without a reason. Is a barely non-speedy since I can determine it's a website. AfD should consider whether it is encyclopedic or not. - Splash talk 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity or joke page - information in the article is about a 32-year old with absolutely nothing special (specifically, it lists date of birth, full name, and schools attended; nothing more). A google search found nothing indicating that this Robin Jenkins is important. (The so-named person born in 1912 is another matter [a noted author] - so this page can be considered a squatter on the namespace. John Broughton 22:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted: practically just a bunch of links. Enochlau 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising for a gaming website. Listing here to see if the site is still significant enough to be worth an article. Saikiri ~ 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Borderline speedy. To quote from the talk page: "I really cant believe this confused nonsense has been here for over 6 months in this parlous state without rectification or deletion". - Splash talk 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable.--
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ) 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.
How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.
Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.
We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.
Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.
Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:
I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable.--
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ) 23:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.
How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.
Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.
We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.
Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.
Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:
I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 04:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable.--
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ) 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.
How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.
Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.
We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.
Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.
Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:
I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept.
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable.--
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ) 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Luigi30, this is four schools in a row you've nominated for deletion without providing a valid reason (notability is not a criterion for deletion). This is an extremely contentious issue, and your actions are likely to be counter-productive: every school nominated for deletion in this way is going to convince more and more inclusionists that they cannot afford to compromise. Please try reading the proposal at WP:SCH and adopting it: it is the best compromise that we who dislike non-notable school stubs are likely to get. — Haeleth Talk 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.
How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.
Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.
We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.
Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.
Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:
I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 04:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Alexa states 31k, All of 15 hits on Google, nothing noteable either (and certainly nothing in english). This is very far from the recommended guidlines of WP:WEB HackJandy 23:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as speedy, but disparaging one's subject is ok in this case if one has reliable references that you are citing. AfD should take a look to see that this isn't simply a POV screed or something of that ilk. - Splash talk 23:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete; no sources cited. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Originally posted as nationalist propaganda. Content is so profoundly banal it is not even clear whether it is worth trying to verify. Might be a candidate for Wiktionary but I almost wonder what the point would be. Twp 23:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-noteable, does not satisfy any of the recommended guidelines in WP:WEB. Alexa 1.7M, Google doesn't seem to drum up anything but other forums and the website itself claims "We have 1723 registered users" (5,000 recommend) HackJandy 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete insignificant -- Kennyisinvisible 23:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (just). It's borderline, but I don't see any point in relisting this one. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page doesn't seem to follow WWIN-Dictionary. Send it over to Wiktionary is they've not got an entry on it...which I'm sure they do. Also it's more of a name etymology article than it is a definition, which makes it somewhat worse, in my opinion. JHMM13 ( T | C) 23:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) This is not an important entry into wikepedia please consider deletion from damon reply
(Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harsh (2nd nomination) for new AFD)
The result of the debate was keep (just). fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article doesn't assert the significance of this organization. Delete. Catamorphism 23:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Google shows only 46 unique hits for "wingerized" and one for "wingerization." howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
< December 4 | December 6 > |
---|
The result of the debate was delete. Nandesuka 18:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of Penthouse magazine in late 1970, and Google appears to have nothing ("Heidi Mann" as this article details is lost in the background noise, "Heidi Mann" + penthouse gives 9 sites, each of which can be summed up as "This is the October 1970 issue of Penthouse. Heidi Mann is on the cover.") Saberwyn 00:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Game cruft/neologism/sub-slang Pete.Hurd 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Biography of a college junior, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO but not a speedy since it claims notability (e.g. it claims he "sold innovative business communication services to business owners and Fortune 500 companies"). Unfortunately, the verifiable claims don't seem to be notable, and the notable claims don't seem to be verifiable, so... — Haeleth Talk 00:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was that the nominator has taken this to WP:RfD, and all votes have been transferred there. — Haeleth Talk 01:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
the name with a comma (a typo -- the link (almost certainly) should not have included the comma) was linked to from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts -- additionally, as that link is no longer relevant, it was removed (rather than simply removing the comma) Alan smithee 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a non-notable paper manufacurer. I presume it was uploaded by someone who works for the firm as the logo image is described as "our free use logo image". Thryduulf 00:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
*Delete. It IS spam. User jtbobwaysf inserted an egregious link to this article in the technical article
A4 paper, and also inserted egrious links to his also-AfD's article
It's Yoga in 2 or 3 Yoga articles, and those have been his only contributions so far. Whether or not the company might be notable I don't know, but since this article is
WP:SPAM I say delete on sight.
Herostratus 18:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Oops I had already voted, sorry.
Herostratus
reply
The result of the debate was speedied as per below discussion. - Mgm| (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a spoof/attack article, the person doesn't show up on Google, and it was edited by an anonymous IP. Cmdrjameson 00:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 00:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. No references and cannot find any supporting information via Google or Google News. Did find a Paul Cisero in the IMDB, but it's not this fellow. Considered replacing article with the actor, but actor not significant enough to warrant an article in my mind (though I wouldn't argue if someone else wanted to). -- JLaTondre 00:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was that the nominator has taken this to WP:RfD, and all votes have been transferred. — Haeleth Talk 01:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
it only exists because of a (now-fixed) typo (missing right parenthesis) in a link at List of character classes Alan smithee 01:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. I know, it's early, but this is a very clear case. Friday (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Joke religion invented in 2005. Needless to say, Google's never heard of it. Does it fail WP:V more than it fails WP:NOR? Could it be a hoax, or perhaps even silly vandalism? You, dear voter, may decide. As for me, I say we should risk the wrath of Quinlivit and delete. — Haeleth Talk 01:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 19:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page would appear to be vanity for an organisation - notice a large majority of edits have been made by a user who shares a username with the subject of the article. The organisation has no hits on the first few pages of google results for both internation and UK searches. Neo 01:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
With respect to the following comments notice should be taken that User:Ashibaka had edited the page to add some silliness about the number four desiring independence from the real numbers. I have now reverted his edits to the page. The 'real' content is non trivial.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Somebody's school essay. POV. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 00:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Some kind of original research at best. -- Curps 01:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't document the importance of this organization. Delete. Catamorphism 01:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an orphaned draft of a cleanup for the active HHLV article. No activity since October. StuffOfInterest 01:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DISAMBIGUATE. — JIP | Talk 06:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
at the moment this disambiguates between a fruit in a videogame (which shuld be merged) and a person who gets 2 google hits so is very likely nn. BL kiss the lizard 01:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam-like advertising for a "free-for-all" web forum. Suggest deletion. 69.236.184.108 01:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 04:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of Penthouse magazine in December 1970. Google for "Jennifer Jurse" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 01:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to List of Penthouse Pets. — JIP | Talk 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of Penthouse magazine in December 1970. Google for "Franca Petrov" gives a short list of sites detailing vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article about an unknown and unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Saberwyn 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
And, of course, there's the fact that such a novel conclusion is almost certainly wrong, as several editors have already pointed out. Delete. Uncle G 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 06:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Well-meaning but inappropriate invitation to use a Wikipedia page for free-form community discussion of bionicles. However, Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider; "you may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia." Also, descriptions of "your own" bionicles is essentially original research, prohibited under the no original research policy. I think it would OK for User:JMB to use his own Talk page for discussion, and invite people to do so in Talk:Bionicles. But as an article in the main namespace, this is unencyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; redirected as per Mgm. Johnleemk | Talk 10:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Tina McDowall" gives a list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. A scattering of people sharing that name also appear, but these people are even less plausible for an encyclopedia entry. Saberwyn 02:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to List of Penthouse Pets. — JIP | Talk 10:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Katherine Mannering" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. A handful of hits detail a character from a novel by the same name. Saberwyn 02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for " Tamara Santerra" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 02:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Ilse Hasek" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 02:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 14:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm sure this is organization is a worthy cause, but this page seems purely promotional Daniel Case 02:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. English-only Google for "Benedikte Andersen" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. A complete Google offers up 130 total hits, most of which are non-English, and I can't read. Saberwyn 02:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Polly Anne Pendleton" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 02:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable adult model. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in September 2005. According to Freeones, she has a handful of free online galleries, but in my personal opinion that means nothing in todays pornography industry. Saberwyn 02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Is unlinked, adds absolutely nothing to wikipedia, does not even describe the border and is misleading as the border lasted from 1920 to 1945 (at least formally) and de facto from 1919 to 1939 Halibu tt 02:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism? Only 169 google hits for this word, most of which are not about the definition used here. JeremyA 02:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 14:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
not needed - the info is already covered in homeworld, and this doesn't seem to be important enough to warrant its own page. -- Bachrach44 02:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an obscure neologism. Our article gives no citation of notable use (or of anything else). A term in contemporary American politics that only gets 138 Google hits is probably not ready for prime time, and a quick survey of several of those links does not suggest to me that they all use it to mean the same thing. It is (barely) possible that there should be an article here, and I might be convinced by some good citations; I suspect, though, that if someone does the research they will find that the particular meaning the article claims for the term is not borne out even by the bulk of the meagre collection of known uses. Jmabel | Talk 02:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I just overhauled the article, have a look. Sam Spade 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Your welcome. Sam Spade 01:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
What if we merged it w Classical_Liberalism? Sam Spade 02:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I've already voted above, but I want to reiterate: if someone can come up with more than a handful of citations that this word is used with some consistency of meaning, fine, but, otherwise, original research shouldn't be here, adn making it redirect somewhere is likely to be actively misleading, because we've already found multiple uses among the few that exist. If someone comes across a reference to paleoliberal meaning a Nixon-era neoconservative and looks up the word, it's not use to them at all to get a redirect to something else entirely. If we are going to have this in Wikipedia at all, what we need is a decently cited article on how the word has actually been used, linking to the articles that then explain the (diverse) ideologies for which this is an (uncommon) name. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising, company does not meet WP:CORP standard. Delete -- AJR | Talk 02:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Found nothing at google. Chris the speller 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn webcomic, 23 unique Google hits (Greeneyes + JetFuel) which one of the Google links calls a "Seldom-updated web comic", and which JetFuel him/herself says on http://greeneyes.metalbat.com/news.pl "I'm not sure when greeneyes will be back, but I hope that it will be someday. We're very sorry that things are so uncertain". User:Zoe| (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is the second nomination; the first, 2 months ago, was for homophobia etc. This page has none of that content; rather, it is not noteable per WP:MUSIC as the band has not yet released an album, etc. Colonel Tom 02:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Why is it that I keep getting messages about deleting of articles? I havent been doing that, nor would I know how to.
The result of the debate was No consensus; defaults to keep. Merge may or may not be preferable. Ral315 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A " talker" community of questionable notability. The assertions of notability made in the article (50 users at once) are fairly weak in and of themselves; we wouldn't let a niche IRC network of 50 users create an article on Wikipedia without exceptional additional circumastances, and I see this as being no different. A positive: the addition of the article seems to have brought several enthusiastic new editors to Wikipedia. The negative: these new editors brought some of the "politics" of the talker with them, and an edit war largely consiting of inneundo and arguing over minutae has commenced. (There's a request for protection in process, amazingly.) So, in short--not notable and somewhat toxic to the community. Tom Lillis 03:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Blackcat55 00:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I think that what people fail to recognise here is that a merge means that we are either biased in favour of CP, purely because they advertised people to come here and vote, which isn't the way that Wikipedia's voting process is supposed to work. This is supposed to be votes by neutral people who are not involved in it. The term "meat puppets" is used for this strategy, and ordinarily admins ignore votes made in this manner.
One big reason why not to merge is because CP is equally notable to an awful lot of places. I don't know every talker, but my understanding is that its in the order of 100 which are roughly equally as notable. Why pick one ahead of any other? I could just pluck Ancient Realms out for an example (one that I don't think deserves its own article). Ancient Realms was about from 1992 to 1996, started on ew-too but converted to nuts, and was seen as an ambassador to talkers. It was one of the first talker hosts, predating talker.com by 4 years, but it didn't charge anyone to use its space. It was run on an education server, and worked to educate students, using talkers as a medium. It influenced most of the big talkers that came out afterwards, including Oceanhome, Crossroads and Ncohafmuta. But it was never popular, never having more than 30 or 40 users on at a time. And it closed after just 4 years. The server stayed open until 1998 but without the talker on there (just other people's talkers). In a very technical sense, it was the first ever multiple worlds talker - in the sense that it called all of the talkers on its network "realms". It also used NUTS 3's linking code to link all of the talkers together. Ancient Realms still exists today, in a sense, although the original talker is long gone. It has a MUD, a MUSH and 3 educational talkers, catering for primary school aged kids.
Now that is a talker of equal notoriety to CP. Not notable enough for its own article though.
If we vote "keep" on this, then we have 100 talkers listed. If we vote "merge" then we have the talker page looking longer than anything ever imagined.
Indeed, I don't see how anyone can possibly suggest that CP is more notable than Iron Rose, the forefather of BDSM talkers.
Do we keep going on forever? Or do we appease people just because they happened to come here to vote, and just because they wrote on their message boards to come to wikipedia to vandalise pages and vote to keep this and delete poe. Is that how the process works? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
By the way, last version edited by me, prior to vandalism etc, was this one [15]. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I thought that I'd point that out so that it is *CRYSTAL CLEAR* to all voters that the article, prior to changes made by anons, was neutral. It was incomplete, and some things were not 100% factual. Whilst I appreciate the improvements with that regards, it has changed from something that was neutral to something that is a blatant advertisement. They also got rid of all claims to notoriety. Whilst the article as I wrote it did have claims to notoriety, the article as it stands now does not. That is it quite simply. Their user levels are insufficient to claim notoriety per Wikipedia standards. The controversies are sufficiently notable. If they want us to pretend that the controversies didn't happen, then that's fine, but then the article can't exist. Simple as that. There's no debate about this. No current talkers are sufficiently notable for their own article. And ridiculous notions such as CP being "the most popular talker of all time" are just stupid. Unless they had 1,000 users on at once for 4 years, they are no competition to the top 3. Its very biased POV editing with no concept of fact or reality. A lot of talkers have been written about in the media. A lot have been the subject of newspaper articles and PC Gamer magazine and the like. But CP has not. Lintilla has, Surfers has, Resort has, Foothills has. CP has not. It can't get much simpler than that really. And this whole thing has turned in to a whole "my talker is better than yours" incident which is just plain stupid.
The very definition of meat puppets is what has happened here. There was one initial editor, who was genuine, and he then got a bunch of others to come along to help out. Ergo, they cannot be considered to be neutral, and they should be considered to all be one voice, per the standards in meat puppets and sock puppets guidelines. Now, if neutral people honestly feel that this needs to be kept, then that is another matter entirely. When I wrote it I thought that it might not be suitably notable, and it turns out I was right. Not to mention that the guy who owns the talker doesn't even have a real web page, and doesn't want anyone to write anything about him at all (The entire point to this bunch of attacks on me and this article). Other than how this talker has affected others, which is solely in relation to the controversies, there is absolutely zero influence on anything. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to redirect to Rexford Guy Tugwell, merging useful external link. Rholton 05:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article lacks substance and relevance. Snorgenhorpher 03:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedied-CSD A3 - Rholton 05:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable -- hopefully this is the last one I catch; if there are more, please let me know) -- Nlu 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. The page seems like something made up by the club, which this high school kid belongs to, as a way to advertise the club. 169.231.1.49 03:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Having said that, this person appears to have been the president not of a school club, but of a nationwide student political organization, the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union. As such, there might well be significant press coverage of this person, depending from how newsworthy his political activities were. If so, then he would satisfy the criteria. Uncle G 04:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Students, students try your best,
Keep it up,
Don't give up,
True will come at last of course!
HKSSU 09:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding
unsigned comment by
219.78.21.252 (
talk •
contribs) 09:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was tardy speedy keep. AfD is not the place to go for merges; anyone who participated in this AfD is free to merge at their leisure. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Suggest that this article be merged to Catch-22 Snorgenhorpher 03:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) -- Nlu 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every high school kid. Furthermore, this page seems to be made up by the club, which this kid belong to, as a way to advertise the club. - 169.231.1.49 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Students, students try your best, Keep it up, Don't give up, True will come at last of course! HKSSU 09:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) -- Nlu 22:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every high school kid. Furthermore, this page seems to be made up by the club, which this kid belong to, as a way to advertise the club. 169.231.1.49 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Students, students try your best,
Keep it up,
Don't give up,
True will come at last of course!
HKSSU 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding
unsigned comment by
219.78.21.252 (
talk •
contribs) 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Bio of an apparently non-notable Canadian artist whose work appears to appear primarly (or only?) on the web; in about 45 google results for "Crimson avellone" I see little indication of notability. Delete. Bikeable 04:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article has been created and deleted several times, but never put through afd. Could afd voters decide once and for all if this is encyclopedic content please. -- nixie 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
National Library of Canada
NAME(S):*Keillor, Kenneth Montgomery, 1953-
TITLE(S): Post mortem : an affidavit, a resume, an autobiography / by Kenneth Montgomery Keillor PUBLISHER: Abbotsford, B.C. : K.M. Keillor Pub., c1996. DESCRIPTION: 1 v. (unpaged) : ill. ; 29 cm.
NUMBERS: Canadiana: 980054370 ISBN: 0968140602 CLASSIFICATION: LC Class no.: HE6654* Dewey: 383 13]
NAME(S):*Keillor, Kenneth Montgomery, 1953-
TITLE(S): The clawing tree : an autobiography / Kenneth Montgomery Keillor PUBLISHER: Abbotsford, BC : K.M. Keillor Pub., 1999.
NUMBERS: Canadiana: 999005596 ISBN: 0968140661 : $69.95 CLASSIFICATION: LC Call no.: FC3849 A32 Z49 1999 Dewey: 971.1/04/092 21]
SUBJECTS: Keillor, Kenneth Montgomery, 1953- British Columbia--Biography
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An apparent vanity page. - Rholton 04:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as biography with no assertion of notability. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Just 78 Google hits and it seems to be written by either Noah Sheola himself or one of his friends, judging by the NPOV comments. JHMM13 ( T | C) 04:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This was improperly marked for speedy deletion. Fails the Google test for those who care; no results on the AMG; fails all of the WP:MUSIC criteria I'm capable of easily checking. Delete. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-05 05:21:32 Z
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be very notable as an individual. If we lived in the day when the Socialist Party was a viable national organization that elected Congressmen and produced brilliant leaders like Debs, being the president of the party's youth auxiliary maybe would be inherently notable. However, we live in a day when anything to the left of the Democrats has no chance in hell at meaningful political power. He should be mentioned in the YPSL article, but that's about all. — Sesel 05:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) -- Nlu 22:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Yet another article for the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union about a non-notable person working for a notable organization. Put a list of members on the main article's page and spare us all of the mini-bios, please! Delete. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-05 05:33:41 Z
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) -- Nlu 22:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Yet another article for the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union about a non-notable person working for a notable organization. Put a list of members on the main article's page and spare us all of the mini-bios, please! Delete. — HorsePunchKid→ 龜 2005-12-05 05:37:25 Z
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Students, students try your best, Keep it up, Don't give up, True will come at last of course! HKSSU 09:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. "Score" is already listed at Wiktionary. There is no need for separatte entries for three score, four score, etc. Delete — Brim 05:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
non-noteable, poor Alexa rating ( 25000), wholey unencylopedic. Does not meet suggested critereon in WP:WEB
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn vanity page by Lucky 6.9
Formed this year, non-notable, sounds like 3 or 4 guys that hang out. No evidence of notability. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Intro says that there's no written record of this dude, which I inferr to mean that this is original research. Could be wrong though... 68.39.174.238 06:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 01:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
9000 registered users, of which many are not active, (says so on the page) is not even remotely notable for an online game. -- Миборовский U| T| C| E| Chugoku Banzai! 06:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
In response to the above, point for point:
- Reponse again
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as A3) (particularly since author's other edit is spam as well) -- Nlu 10:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising Swamp Ig 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE nn-bio. - Splash talk 23:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist. Vanity. Delete — Brim 07:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep following expansion/rewrite; nomination withdrawn. BD2412 T 16:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
No real content except for what was copypasted directly from Fibonacci numbers. 70.110.14.164 07:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Aside from the fact that whatever minimal amount of content this article's got is POV, the website, or at least I'm assuming right-magazine.com is their website, gets no love from Alexa. JHMM13 ( T | C) 07:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This was nominated for deletion previously a couple of months ago, but it appears the nomination was never closed properly. Instead of closing it myself, I thought the proper thing to do would be to relist it. Gamaliel 07:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Jaranda wat's sup 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Alexa ranking of 397,346, and no other claims to notability. While it may not be self-promotion, it seems promotional. Locke Cole 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Taintedink, from your username it seems probable that you have direct connections with the comic. If that's the case, would you happen to be able to provide more information on its popularity? For example, traffic figures for the site that aren't distorted by Alexa's bias towards non-techie users might reveal greater popularity than is currently apparent. Review WP:WEB for the guidelines we normally follow for inclusion - though they are only guidelines rather than strict policies, you could tip the scales in the comic's favour by demonstrating that it has notability equivalent to anything on that page. — Haeleth Talk 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable portal site of little importance. Directory of 1330 pages in Santa Fe Province, Argentina. Should be deleted as per Advertising or vanity Mariano( t/ c) 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
An article with no valuable content but trivia. Gtabary 08:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Amitai shenhav contains only abuse and has been deleted before. It should be speedied. I've tagged it such, but the tag was removed. I've tagged it again. Just in case the tag goes again, this. Ben Aveling 08:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be the text of a recent speech at an unidentified summit. Delete as nn, unless much greater context and explanation is given to justify. Dvyost 08:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A list of cartoon scams does not an article make. Suggest deletion. 69.236.184.108 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Dvyost 08:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity page
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Short article that is essentially a table listing facts that are already mentioned in other articles. Not encyclopedic in itself. Can be merged with another article, but I'm not sure where's the best place for it to go. Perhaps under sex assignment or somewhere in the sex article. — Brim 09:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
unecyclopedic nonsense, nn-- MONGO 09:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete, note changes.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.224.190.212 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to RuneScape. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 08:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This seems to be an article about a program for use with the online game RuneScape. It doesn't seem very notable for me. -- Ixfd64 10:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied. Intial creator blanked the article and mentioned they made a spelling error. It should've been Waking Life. Since walking and waking are two different words, I'm not leaving a redirect. - Mgm| (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not confident enough to speedy delete this, but it appears to be a highly non-notable movie and the article is not expandable due to lack of context. Stifle 10:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable: page describes subject as a struggling artist yet to achieve wide-scale acknowledgement. May be vanity/advertising - page also gives link to artist's gallery. Also, information largely duplicated on Jere Allen. Humansdorpie 10:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webcruft belonging to a random forum. If the forum turns out to be notable, merge this page to it, otherwise delete. Stifle 10:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted per CSD A1. It was a sentence fragment. - Mgm| (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I'd like to put this in speedy deletion as nonsense, but then I'm not well up on management-speak so I realize it may not make sense. Stifle 10:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Deleted at request of subject -- do not reinstate 82.3.239.4 11:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable [16]. Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 12:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising, and not a specially notable internet travel agency Zeimusu | Talk page 12:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This title seems quite inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I was planning to move it, but then wondered whether the content was worth having anyway. There are three flag proposals in the article. Flag concepts for the South Island (which the "other" refers to) includes a proposal which was seen a bit of use, but there is no indication that these flags have been used at all. So I am not sure whether to move or delete. JPD ( talk) 12:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Mys e kurity( have you seen this?) 06:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition (text is copied from public-domain Webster 1913). Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 13:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
nn site, most google hits are self referential; Alexa shows rank of 1,000,000+. Delete. Also delete related image. RasputinAXP talk contribs 13:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is just a stub for the AFD Silent PC Review. Removing the two self promoting links from this "article" would remove all the content. HackJandy 13:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable building. Can be merged to the city. Stifle 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (and do not transwikify). RobertG ♬ talk 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Reads like a magazine or book, transwiki to Wikibooks if eligible. Stifle 14:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment. This isn't really suitable for Wikibooks. "Wikibooks is not a place for non-fiction books on any random subject you would like." Please stop sending us stuff that is not suitable. We are looking for academic resources. Jimbo has said that he wants WB to be for textbooks only, but that policy is currently under dispute at WB. To be safe, it may be wise to hold off on transwikiing non-textbook material for the time being. I'll keep you all updated. -- LV (Dark Mark) 17:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (consensus not reached). Enochlau 01:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. No Alexa ranking. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 14:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
It's not actually a company, they don't sell anything. They just show images of paintball related items in a shop-like format. VanillaX
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[ talk] 23:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable freeware, <300 Google hits, <1000 downloads from download.com and at least one reviewer complains of massive maware issues (in a P2P program? Who'd have thought it!); no evidence of importance or notability, apparently spam for bog-standard non-notable freeware. Anon user's sole contribution. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 14:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I reposted this article. Your comments about the software is unwelcome since this is not a spyware but a freeware. The user who reported this is a spyware obviously did not even know what he was saying as you can find by checking his other comments as well. If you go to http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/screenshots.php you can find screenshots of the program and at http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/info.html you can fine more info about the program.
There are also more papers that describe it at: http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/papers/Bottom-Up-Approach.pdf
http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/papers/HybridP2PApproach-www2006.pdf
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Although Donald Black is noteable, every term he used in an original (or non-original) way is not an "invention" of his. Fancruft. KillerChihuahua 13:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Not an actual medical condition. Was already listed for speedy delete and then a merge to herpes simplex virus, but these attempts were reverted. Delete it. — Brim 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Mys e kurity( have you seen this?) 06:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article lacks sources, uses a lot of passive voice and has a lot of spelling mistakes. Delete TheRingess 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
As this article stands now, the deletion is in order because it looks like a promotional page more than an encyclopaedic article. Lincher 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) -- Nlu 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every high school kid. Furthermore, this page seems to be made up by the club, which this kid belong to, as a way to advertise the club. - 169.231.1.49 03:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!
Students, students try your best,
Keep it up,
Don't give up,
True will come at last of course!
HKSSU 09:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding
unsigned comment by
219.78.21.252 (
talk •
contribs) 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No content, but some significance
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is a neologism and failed the google test. KarmaKameleon 11:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) This AfD nomination is KarmaKameleon ( talk · contribs)'s second edit. reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Clear case of vanity. This village is unknown and does not need a wikipedia entry. PeaSea 06:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Star is sufficient imo... plus i'm a bit concerned about this article's title... copyvio? Jackk 01:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is notable. Further, if the band formed in Nov 2005, it's dubious that they have two EPs out. Regardless of whether or not they have published, I don't think this band is sufficiently notable to have an article.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wiki page looks like a brochure. I recommend deletion. PeaSea 06:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a vanity page Knave75 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
”keep” Yves is a well known Montreal activist and published author. His books appears in numerous well known bookstores across Canada and a quick google search reveals his prolific journalism on numerous political subjects. Lastly, I think the work that he's doing is important and find it suspicious that at this particular time, during the federal election campaign period, as Yves faces charges for confronting and heckling Paul Martin abbout Canadian foreign policy in Haiti, his Wikipedia article is being dubbed a vanity site.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Either a hoax or an obscure term that doesn't seem verifiable via Google. Original creator already carried out this dubious edit (note addition of "oddball"; hoax-like name and the figures are out of place in the list). Perhaps they went in the huff after I reverted their change of "candy" to "sweet", and decided to screw things up instead? Fourohfour 15:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as per criteria A7. -- Allen3 talk 16:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a nonsense vanity page
The result of the debate was keep. NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The article appears to be the charter for a group by the same name. Transwiki to wikisource or delete as per
WP:NOT. --
Allen3
talk 16:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Originally marked for moving to dictionary. Google search is unable to find the word, so I guess it is an invented word, or at best a random creative (mis)spelling of the interjection. This is not what Wiktionary is for, so delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page was previously submitted along with a batch of Middle-earth related articles. At the time the group submission was generally considered to be a WP:POINT situation and all of the submissions were kept. However, 'Bellakar' is not part of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth. The name appears nowhere in his stories or notes. This is actually a fan project to 'flesh out' Middle-earth with 'additional kingdoms' which is being maintained on a restricted yahoo group. -- CBD ✉ 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:MUSIC, yet sadly no WP:CSD applies. They are 'up and coming' and 'releasing a cd on their own label' and other red flag phrases. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 17:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article lacks substance and relevance. Snorgenhorpher 17:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE junk article backing up an nn-bio qualifies as vandalism in my book. - Splash talk 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Quote from article: "Jewdauism is a relatively unknown and obscure branch of the world religion Judaism with only one known practitioner". Punkmorten 17:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Quote from article: Championships and accomplishments - None as of this writing. Also vanity. Punkmorten 17:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I think because there are no Championships won on his part is no reason to delete. It's a profile of quite possibly a future star in pro wrestling.
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This forum has 2,818 active members, less than the proposed limit of 5,000. Forumcruft. Punkmorten 17:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Lacks substance. I am also unable to find any relevant references on Google. Snorgenhorpher 17:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Don't think this is notable. There are a few relevant Google results (mostly stuff in the vein of MySpace), but a lack of an All Music Guide entry makes me suspicious. Do they even have an album or anything? 151.205.103.25 17:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Do we really need a page on a high school's JROTC program? Delete. -- Nlu 17:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising spam of non-existant (in beta) software. Orphan article. Non-noteable. KillerChihuahua 18:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A non-notable urban exploration group. Crotalus horridus 18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bio. 136.165.114.218 18:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. DJ Clayworth 18:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
With a fanbase in the 'dozens' as stated by the article, it appears to be nn. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 18:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. This page has, at most, one or two entries that are really part of "pop culture". The vast vast majority of it reads like lines that have been added by fans of the show that understand the subtle inside jokes. "My friend quotes this line all the time, so it must be pop culture" does not a valid entry make. PxT 19:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The only thing coherent about this article is its title. The page is a list of random links that are neither "Christian" nor "alternative", and often not even musical groups at all. I thought about listing for {attention} but cleaning up this list would be much harder than recreating it (assuming anyone actually wants to). I've had it marked as {disputed} for 6 weeks now and apparently no one cares enough to fix it. BrainyBroad 19:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 01:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
No google hits, no sources cited, unverifiable. See also WP:MUSIC. Kappa 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE discounting anon voters. NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable.-- Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 19:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this essay. Article doesn't appear to have encyclopedic worth and cannot be refactored into a notable topic. .:. Jareth.:. babelfish 19:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Jayden54 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Second nomination (first AFD decision: Delete), blanked by anon and possibly still non-notable. Roy Boy 800 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was overwhelming keep.
Anon puts false info in article. Seigenthaler complains, false info removed. A lot of people write a lot of articles about this which all say pretty much the same things. Is this really the stuff of an encyclopedia article? Let's avoid intense self-referential navel gazing, please. This deserves nothing more than a paragraph in the Seigenthaler article. Gamaliel 20:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This should be kept. It is an event in history that occured and as such has every right to be documented, controversial or not.
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information — MESSEDROCKER ( talk) 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A mild case of working-title-itis for a holding article I admit (g). There does not appear to be a page on History of the Papacy as such - to which the second component could be added, while it might be useful to have a page on links between popes (eg the several Borgias, and the links mentioned in the first part of this piece.
Jackiespeel 14:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable site being spammed on various formula 1 articles. violet/riga (t) 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. The article comprised three things, simply copied and pasted into the article: A press release issued by Hillary Rodham Clinton, a copyrighted article published (and not licensed under the GFDL) by Enchanted Learning, and a Yahoo! mail message. At the bottom of the article it handily provided the URLs of all three. The press release is unacceptable content here anyway, but I speedily deleted the article for the inarguable copyright violation. The author's edit history comment when creating the article, which was "Drafting Mayor Rudolph W. Guiliani for President in 2008", lead me to believe that this was not an attempt to create a neutral point of view encyclopaedia article. The article remains listed on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy. Uncle G 21:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Copy and pasted news story. Also POV statements. Speedy delete. Velvetsmog 20:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply
not worth an entry. -- Bachrach44 21:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.
The result of the debate was DELETE NSLE ( T+ C+ CVU) 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Unknown neologism or joke. Borderline speedy, but {nonsense} wasn't quite applicable. (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 01:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Commercial site, fails WP:WEB proposal. Alexa rank of 124,943, search engine doesn't even work right now, apparently. -- W.marsh 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, a joke article without apparent meaning is a combination of simple vandalism (G3) and nonsense (A1). - Splash talk 22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense, vanity, unencyclopedaic
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Supposedly the editor of some student-run newspaper. GeeCee 21:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted as unfunny joke DS 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Google search shows that this does not exist. The writers language also seems to indicate that this is false. -- Spring Rubber 21:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Obvious spam/advertisement. Wikipedia is not self promotion. -- W.marsh 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted as advertisement.
Advertising. Unencyclopedic. -- Longhair 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is nonsense, as it descibes a "therapy" which doesn't actually exist. Presumably this, and the one supposed externally linked source on this, are written by people involved in bdsm type erotic spanking. Fictional therapies imagined by a couple people are not a candidate for a wikipedia article. Xyzzyplugh 22:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Bold text KEEP There is a usefulness to spanking therapy. From personal experience I have had a deep need for spankings for fifty years (since I was nine). It has nothing to do with BDSM although many people that need this therapy pass it off as such since BDSM seems more acceptable than the truth. ie Some people desire and need spanking for motivation and love. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.227.49 ( talk • contribs)
KEEP - It is an emerging therapy. A few users not understanding it doesn't make it imaginary. It is NOT related to BDSM or erotic spanking. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.145.76 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
NN (appears to only be about a Windows Workgroup) and Vanity (edit history on Image:Elvent.jpg says "This is a symbol for El Vent. I made this myself, anyone else who wants to use it please contact me.") Interiot 22:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. May the force be with you! - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
A date-rapist with an university degree, this is tabloid material, not encyclopedic information. There is also a doubt whether this coverage is legal according to the Icelandic Privacy protection laws. The Google search "Stefán H. Ófeigsson" -Wikipedia yields 57 results. Bjarki 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep The article is a biographical article on Stefán H. Ófeigsson, an Icelander born on June 20, 1977. He holds a masters degree (MSc) in space engineering (one of the few, if not the only Icelander to hold such a degree). He has played an instrumental role in investigating the possibility of Iceland joining the European Space Programme for which he received approximately US$7,000 (450,000 ISK) funding in 2003 from Tæknisjóður (now Rannís, The Icelandic Centre for Research [27]).
On
November 17,
2005, he was sentenced to 2½ years in prison by the Reykjavík district court for raping an 18 year old girl in November the previous year, in a case which, upon his sentencing, was widely covered in the Icelandic media. It was covered on the front page of DV the third most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland with ~17% market share and on the opening fold (page 2) of Fréttablaðið (The Newspaper), the most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland (~65% market share).
When the case was at its peak, 7 of the 20 highest ranking queries in Ebmla, an internet search engine run by Morgunblaðið (The Morning Paper), the second most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland with ~45% market share whose website
mbl.is ranks as the second most visited website in Iceland
[28], were directly related to the case. On the web, the case has been
covered by that website, and on
December 3,
2005 by
visir.is, the most popular website in Iceland. The
article on visir.is cited the Icelandic Wikipedia article, which in itself marks a milestone for the Icelandic Wikipedia, since it had never before been cited by any mainstream news source (see
citation record).
As a space engineer, Stefán had written 16 articles for Vísindavefurinn (The Science Web) [29], a science website in Icelandic and English which ranks as the 13th most popular website in Iceland and the most popular one dealing with science. All of these answers were removed without explanation from the site; this fact is included in the article and was the subject of the article at visir.is, which cited the article on the Icelandic Wikipedia.
The person this article discusses is clearly notable in Icelandic society, every bit of information in the article is verifiable and is sourced in the References section, I therefore vote keep. — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
If this is a "minor celebrity" I would hate to know their definition of non-noteable. "Danny Chambers" +happyrobot = 22 hits. Definitely NN, probably vanity also HackJandy 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Have a nice day! fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy without a reason. Is a barely non-speedy since I can determine it's a website. AfD should consider whether it is encyclopedic or not. - Splash talk 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity or joke page - information in the article is about a 32-year old with absolutely nothing special (specifically, it lists date of birth, full name, and schools attended; nothing more). A google search found nothing indicating that this Robin Jenkins is important. (The so-named person born in 1912 is another matter [a noted author] - so this page can be considered a squatter on the namespace. John Broughton 22:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted: practically just a bunch of links. Enochlau 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising for a gaming website. Listing here to see if the site is still significant enough to be worth an article. Saikiri ~ 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Borderline speedy. To quote from the talk page: "I really cant believe this confused nonsense has been here for over 6 months in this parlous state without rectification or deletion". - Splash talk 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable.--
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ) 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.
How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.
Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.
We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.
Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.
Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:
I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable.--
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ) 23:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.
How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.
Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.
We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.
Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.
Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:
I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 04:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable.--
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ) 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.
How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.
Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.
We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.
Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.
Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:
I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept.
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable.--
Luigi30 (
Ταλκ) 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Luigi30, this is four schools in a row you've nominated for deletion without providing a valid reason (notability is not a criterion for deletion). This is an extremely contentious issue, and your actions are likely to be counter-productive: every school nominated for deletion in this way is going to convince more and more inclusionists that they cannot afford to compromise. Please try reading the proposal at WP:SCH and adopting it: it is the best compromise that we who dislike non-notable school stubs are likely to get. — Haeleth Talk 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.
How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.
Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.
We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.
Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.
Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:
I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept. Luigi30 ( Ταλκ) 04:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Alexa states 31k, All of 15 hits on Google, nothing noteable either (and certainly nothing in english). This is very far from the recommended guidlines of WP:WEB HackJandy 23:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as speedy, but disparaging one's subject is ok in this case if one has reliable references that you are citing. AfD should take a look to see that this isn't simply a POV screed or something of that ilk. - Splash talk 23:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete; no sources cited. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Originally posted as nationalist propaganda. Content is so profoundly banal it is not even clear whether it is worth trying to verify. Might be a candidate for Wiktionary but I almost wonder what the point would be. Twp 23:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-noteable, does not satisfy any of the recommended guidelines in WP:WEB. Alexa 1.7M, Google doesn't seem to drum up anything but other forums and the website itself claims "We have 1723 registered users" (5,000 recommend) HackJandy 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete insignificant -- Kennyisinvisible 23:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (just). It's borderline, but I don't see any point in relisting this one. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
This page doesn't seem to follow WWIN-Dictionary. Send it over to Wiktionary is they've not got an entry on it...which I'm sure they do. Also it's more of a name etymology article than it is a definition, which makes it somewhat worse, in my opinion. JHMM13 ( T | C) 23:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) This is not an important entry into wikepedia please consider deletion from damon reply
(Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harsh (2nd nomination) for new AFD)
The result of the debate was keep (just). fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Article doesn't assert the significance of this organization. Delete. Catamorphism 23:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Google shows only 46 unique hits for "wingerized" and one for "wingerization." howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply