The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Orphan page that has no potential and is of a number that is not noteable Descendall 05:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Individual songs don't deserve a wikipedia page. (See WP:Music for more info. Also note that the band which made the song is also up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. (Both the band, the song, and other pages relating to the band were all made by one person). -- Bachrach44 14:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. 110 Google hits. Punkmorten 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a crystal ball. And this album doesn't even have a name yet. Punkmorten 23:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Somewhat unverifiable. A search for the name of the alleged founder and 'society' gets no relevent results [1]. The only thing actually calling itself '80s Preservation Society' is a Geocities webpage [2] which may or not be related, but certainly doesn't seem notable. The few other mentions I can find are jokes (in satire articles about the 1980s, joking that such a society would exist). -- W.marsh 15:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be an advert for new (created October 2005) political campaign/pressure group. No mention of any major achievements/large membership or anything else to make it notable. Hitchhiker89 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, fails WP:NMG. Verily, Allmusic knoweth them not, and Amazon refuseth to speak their name - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
more than one release (Racially Motivated Violence) on Resistance Records so they fail WP:NMG. If they had more media coverage, or web coverage that wasn't mostly auto-generated links and mirrors, that might change it. -- W.marsh 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The group had appeared on a Vh1 special about hate music--talking in variuos interviews about their views and underground music. They are one of the most controversial bands that has been popular within the white power music genre. They grew up in Detroit as the article states. When old enough, they made a rational decision to move out of the ghettos into safer northern suburbs.
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Propaganda. Seems copyvio, bbut perhaps it's too fresh for google to catch on, so I couldn't find a source. Delete-- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I confess to being mildly torn on this one. Can there be an encyclopedic article about the "basics" of a language? My initial instinct is "Yes." But how is "basic" defined? How is that definition verified with outside sources? Can the article ever be more than an attempt at a language instructional course, and should language instructional courses be something Wikipedia should include? In any case, the specific article in question is poorly formatted and possesses minimal information about the subject, so even if the answers to the above questions are positive, the current article doesn't qualify. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 13:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep and move to Behr's syndrome. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef Savant1984 22:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfied by me to User:Andrew O. Shadoura, note left on author's page explaining. Consensus is clearly delete, but userfication does no harm and may even (cross fingers) avoid hard feelings. Friday 16:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Vanity page about non-notable software [5] PhilipO 19:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
nn Polish nobleman, only one account supposedly, the source of which is not included. Zero Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school group established in 2000 ERcheck 15:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A bathhouse with no claim of notability - delete CLW 12:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily userfied to User:Bowatson. FCYTravis 10:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a vanity page. All of the edits are by User:BOwatson himself, assuming the anonymous edits are him as well. His only other edits have been on the Michigan Technological University page and were serving the same purpose as a vanity page. Recnilgiarc 08:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like a NN-Bio but wasn't completely sure. Only comes up with 2 pages of hits when you search his username on the IMDB site, doesn't seem like a lot. Fallsend 21:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep -- JAranda | watz sup 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A little known person. Should ber merged, but we can't have a list of all the people that have graduated from Arizona State. 66.177.61.78 02:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
All signs point to original research. -- Tabor 17:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre as illegal MLM scheme. -- GraemeL (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 03:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Biovanity, with no claim to notability beyond being a member of the non-notable band above... oh, and "working on a screenplay for an independant feature film he'll be co-directing in 2006." FCYTravis 00:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
No real assertions of meeting WP:MUSIC. His former band 2KORPSE is also up for deletion. Crossworm gets some google hits, but many lead to crossword and other irrelevant things. Not on AllMusic. Punkmorten 23:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus between whether to merge or keep. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism supported by a 2003 CNN article. Something Million Dollar Homepage would be two years from now. No incoming wikilinks. -- Perfecto 05:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (Non notable, vanity) Fir e Fo x -CVU- 11:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The assertion of notability is that he's the Raleigh, North Carolina expert on eBay. This is below my bar, but perhaps not that of the community. Joyous (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Unformatted, unwikified, cleanup tagged for eleven months, and I suspect it's a vanity page to start with - SoM 15:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be not-notable band. If kept, needs to be rewritten in a professional style. - David Woolley 20:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity page WriterFromAfar755 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Very non notable web forum with less than 20 active participants. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Trivia about a web forum. As with Something Awful, forums should record the fine points of their subculture on their own site, not on Wikipedia. Alexa rank is 445,831.
The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All T| @| ESP 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
(Fixing AfD nomination.) Autobiographical page; creator should make into a user page if he wants to keep the text. Delete from mainspace. Metropolitan90 18:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, hasn't played this season.
Kookykman|
(t)
(c) 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Fredrik | talk 01:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
No Google news hits either. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate wasDelete. Voice of All T| @| ESP 00:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Refer to this old revision. There's a claim of permission on the talk page, but I don't think this is material that we want to keep in any case (it's a sitcom airing only on what is apparently the University of North Texas' tv channel), so checking here first before I request confirmation of permission. — Cryptic (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I just added this for delete because there essentially no hits for the term. [10] — BenFrantzDale 17:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I say Keep. It may be very recent, so Google wouldn't find it yet. Give a chance for the bots to crawl through the blogs. Xuanwu 22:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Requested by its only author to be deleted, which falls under a speedy cat. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Article consists mainly of POV/fan opinion, what remains could probably/might already be integrated in other Avatar articles Virogtheconq 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Makes no assertion of notability; yet another non-notable band. (Note: Page on their album Really Wonderful Tonight, can be speedied once this one is deleted.) Deltabeignet 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. The high point of their musical career seems to be high school talent shows. Zero relevant Google hits. Rampart 12:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, vanity... Alai 20:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE ♠P M C♠ 05:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN Company, seems more like an advertisement. Fallsend 09:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting. Physchim62 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as single, incomplete sentence
definition. wiktionary appropriate maybe, but not here.
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition? Neologism? Redirect to propaganda? Keep and expand? You decide, I couldn't - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete as per nomination's justification - doesn't matter whether permission is given for content. - Mailer Diablo 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Refer to this old revision. Again, there's a claim of permission on the talk page, but I can't find any evidence that this company meets WP:CORP. — Cryptic (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
According to the Census Bureau, the Saint Clair County, Illinois article, and the Sheriff's website, Glenview is not a city or village in the county. I corrected this statement in the Wiki article. Rand McNally's website shows Glenview in Cook County when one types in Glenview, IL for an online map. Glenview in Saint Clair County appears to be a small area in Saint Clair County when one examines it at Mapquest. The US Postal Service also shows that Glenview in Cook County is the only place in Illinois that uses "Glenview" as the city name with respect to postal addresses. Also, Mapquest sometimes shows names for unincorporated neighborhoods that are not used and not heard of by local residents. If the article is deleted, then links must also be removed from two disambig pages. Slo-mo 04:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete as per nomination's justification - doesn't matter whether permission is given for content. - Mailer Diablo 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Please see this version. This article is a copy from another website and is currently tagged as copyvio. However, someone claims permission on the talk page. Rather than soliciting permission only for it to later be deleted, we are now posting questionable pages here before soliciting permission. (See our discussion.) This article in its current state appears to be a brief description of an non-notable non-profit. --best, kevin ··· Kzollman | Talk··· 00:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Combination original research and attempt to start a discussion board on the talk page. -- Tabor 05:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
See Below for amended view following work on article from othersNot been changed or updated since June, and no attempt to explain if this is a notable entry. Mention of this ship could be made on another article rather than a separate stub entry.
doktorb 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
What is needed is for the editors who are creating these ship articles to cite sources. None of the ones that I looked at cited any sources whatsoever. In practice, it is very rare for articles that have citations of multiple published works from independent sources to even come to AFD in the first place, let alone be deleted. Indeed, the simple act of citing such sources has on several occasions changed people's opinions from "delete" to "keep". I strongly urge the editors of these ship articles, and indeed all editors with pet projects, to cite sources in all of their articles. Uncle G 14:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a cystal ball. Lots of speculation and "not known". Let's wait till the song is released, if it ever is. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 23:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A recipe: belongs in wikibooks, not here. -- Francs 2000 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
It looks like someone's private notes for the purpose of spreading religion; original research, also Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 14:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Genre invented by Crossworm, who is up for deletion. Very few google hits (be sure to search with quotation marks). Punkmorten 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is roadcruft at its worst. Just list a bunch of interceptions. WP:NOT a road atlas Delete -- JAranda | watz sup 23:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is roadcruft on an astonishing, Borgesian scale. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, where facts are put into context and graded according to importance, WP:NOT a dumping ground for data, where every thing under the sun is left to rot. Pilatus 17:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Also see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401, of which this is the continuation.
82.26.169.95
Pilatus 18:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Some nn organization which created a yahoo group in October. Renata3 19:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE and REDIRECT to Animated cartoon. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article attempts to describe the phenomenon of animated shorts and series (chiefly Macromedia Flash animation) distributed primarily on the web. While Flash animation subculture is certainly a worthy topic, there's virtually nothing salvagable in this article. I would only see it as a cleanup candidate were it not crowned with the arbitrary and erroneous title of Internet cartoon. (Neither Internet nor cartoon is appropriate here, and the term Internet cartoon does not enjoy wide use.)
Since any objective cleanup attempt would necessitate both a page move and and a near-total rewrite, I see no reason to harbor a misinformative article in the interim. – Ringbang 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a fictional character that may appear for 4 weeks on East Enders in 2006. This is NN and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Agnte 18:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. User:Edward NZ is a sock puppet, but even ignoring his vote, the consensus is clearly keep. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
phpBB is notable, but is the founder of the project notable? Talrias ( t | e | c) 22:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn bio
political vanity page AJSingh 07:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was speedily deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven with the summary "empty". This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 00:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable 16-year old with zero google hits. No claim to notability except being a basketball player. Possible CSD. Delete. A D Monroe III 22:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is vanity, strongly suspect that it was written by the author of the website. Very NN, google shows no pages link to it [12] and only only 9 websites have ever referenced it [13] Agnte 12:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm a friend of the webmaster of jayceestudios.com, and I know the Wiki entry was made by one of her fans. The opening sentance to which you reffered was added when the wiki was taken down before for being 'nonsense'. -Mr Reaper, friend of Jaycee Pawman. (First edit from — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.146.101 ( talk • contribs) )
I'm also a friend of the webmaster of jayceestudios.com, and I also know the Wiki entry was made by one of her fans. It DID take alot of time to put together and it is a wonder website. I don't see why you are so hot to delete it. As the article said, it is not 'nonsense'. -The Flying Yoshi, friend of Jaycee Pawman. (First edit from — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.141.62 ( talk • contribs) )
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This doesn't establish notability. Talrias ( t | e | c) 22:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I can't find any outside verification of this, and the article itself reads like a joke. Joyous (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The article may read like a joke, but then like they say the truth is far stranger than fiction. I have been doing research on this guy for the past six months and I can verify every word. I'll be adding some of his most memorable quotations soon. Not sure who wrote the article but the guy's done his homework! (Professor Port Talbot Ma Bsc Phd Phd Fag)
It is written in a rather facetious manner, but then again Mr. Wellington is something of a figure of fun in South Wales and especially Port Talbot. I cannot verify the quotations attributed to him but as far as I know everything else on here is true. They can be verified by checking back copies of the South Wales Squirrel newspaper, the newspaper of the regional South Wales Anarchist Group (SWAG) who have hailed Wellington as a paragon of local democracy and free speech (Anarchism is still a living creed in some parts of the South Wales Valleys, although Wellington denies any political affiliation with SWAG). His performance on 'Question Time Wales' is nothing short of legendary in these parts. Max Boyce was reduced to a seething wreck by Wellington's continual jibes about his height.
page blanked as courtesy upon polite request-- Jimbo Wales 13:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as "vandalism" for some reason; bringing it here instead. No vote. a ndroid 79 05:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Suspected advertising Coolgamer 20:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Advert (text comes straight from here), and currently non-notable: 55 Google hits Knovi " life-long learning", the majority on the Knovi site itself. Tearlach 19:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant vanity/ad. Only about two Google hits. Superm401 | Talk 19:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam. 9cds 20:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Right, this doesn't belong in the Wikipedia, unless one of their members is rewarded a Nobel prize ;-) Robert 20:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. User:Zoe| (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is dreadful. It features on the list of most-revised articles [15], which is pretty bad for an article which is a list of supposed facts - 2928 revisions suggests something is wrong. It is pretty much permanently erroneous - fans put bands such as Led Zeppelin at the top of the list, then someone else puts The Beatles there. There is one user who simply replaces the band name with Cher.
Most of the sales figures are pretty much worthless guesses, based on original research - a quote by some lazy music journalist saying so-and-so has sold 100,000,000 albums in 1996, so let's randomly add 100,000,000 to an arbitrary guess at how many singles they have sold.
The article is unstable, constantly changing. It is original research, and largely worthless as a reference source. The 'facts' in it change all the time. It undoubtedly excludes popular artists from areas where sales figures are poorly collated. Delete!.
87.74.12.83 11:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. (75% delete from 30 votes, and 10 keep votes). - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
non-encyclopedic listcruft with little hope of ever becoming comprehensive or maintanable → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 12:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Just proving my point, someone (Arniep) nominated a whole "list of" Jewish. Not surprisingly, the "List of Jewish Criminals" is going down in flames, while most of the rest are "speedy keep." In fact, one person who voted against "List of Jewish Bankers" voted FOR some of the other lists. This merely proves my point that reactionary politically-correct bias is operating here...I'm sure a court of law would find that since these lists were created by the same user, who has shown an intent not of anti-Semitism but Jewish identity (being Jewish), taken as a whole the lists should be equal. Remember, DISCRIMINATION is picking out one thing and applying different standards. Ryoung122 09:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
List of Jewish American academics
List of Jewish American business figures
List of Jewish American political figures
List of Jewish American scientists
List of Jewish American show business figures
List of Jewish American sport figures
List of Jewish American writers
List of Jewish Americans
List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society
List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Engineering
List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Technology
List of Jewish bankers
List of Jewish criminals
List of Jewish publishers
List of Jews
List of Jews in business
List of Jews in law
The result of the debate was keep. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Redlink infected Listcruft. This is like creating List of theatres in Miami Delete -- JAranda | watz sup 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Victims? Besides that, this is an impossible list. Far too many died. And why stop here? How about List of victims of the Hundred Years War and List of victims of the Crusades? And where does it stop? Is Abraham Lincoln a "victim" of the Civil War? How about John Wilkes Booth? User:Zoe| (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete after 2-day extension. — Cleared as filed. 15:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be band vanity, less than 150 results on Google and most not referring to him. Splintax 09:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
At best, this belongs in Wikisource. — Cryptic (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Individual songs don't deserve a wikipedia page. (See WP:Music for more info. Also note that the band which made the song is also up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. (Both the band, the song, and other pages relating to the band were all made by one person). -- Bachrach44 14:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 15:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notability Christofurio 19:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Cryptic (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre. Content blanked by author. -- GraemeL (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable website. I'm never sure where we stand on speedily deleting this cruft. -- Francs 2000 00:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
cute name, but doesn't meet WP:Music -- Bachrach44 14:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
band vanity. According to WP:Music, songs don't usually deserve pages in wikipedia. THe band itself is also up for delete. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. Also, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The song hasn't even been released yet. -- Bachrach44 14:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, Not sure on this one, but I doubt a contributor to three open source projects is notable - the projects are notable, but he is not. Perhaps he is worthy of mention in the articles about the projects, but I don't think four lines of text about him, two of which are asserting his notability, really belongs on wikipedia - Werdna648 02:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Term made out out of thin air, apparently. 32 mentions on google with one referencing this article. Vizcarra 23:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I have heard the term many times here in Europe and despite google has few entries on the subject the article should not be erased, I think. Besides it is a fact that the socalled mexipop is a huge phenomenom in many parts of the planet. And erasing the article won't stop people from using that term.
Thank you.
Bjørn Tore Nystrøm. Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.4.126 ( talk • contribs)
OK, I think I understand the point. However I have a question "and has added bits on 'Mexipop' to other pages"... was it wrong doing that? Thanks for the attention.
Should not be erased... not only because I have added a couple of details :) but seems to be a topic on its own. May the divinities consider it. AugustoRomero
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
nn Newgrounds stuff. Only 65 unique Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
patent nonsense Savant1984 21:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Article seems largely nonsensical and I can't find any verification, either at the site given or through Google. -- Tabor 03:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
band vanity. Doesn't meet WP:music -- Bachrach44 06:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Rob e rt T | @ | C 22:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band vanity. Not on allmusic.com, not on Amazon.com, apparently fails WP:NMG. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete and move Return to Eden (television) here. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The article refers to a Australian soap opera and a 1996 Annie Award nominated Michel Gagné short called "Return to Eden." The name of the short is actually "Prelude to Eden."
http://www.gagneint.com/Final%20site/misc/Prelude%20to%20Eden/Prelude.htm
Because the page now only refers to one "real" thing, the disambiguation page is not needed.
141.213.184.86 04:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge to Australian Progressive Alliance R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor political candidates for a now-defunct minor party. Polled less than 1% of the vote, and attracted approximately zero media attention. Ambi 11:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as vanity page
This is a vanity page BillC38 06:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus, will redirect to album and maybe soft merge. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A song by Eagles. The band is well-known, but the song is just another song. I spent like 1 hour looking for info to expand it, but it looks like there is nothing much else to say about it. There is completely nothing special about it. Renata3 13:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
It should be obvious to anyone familiar with Rumsfeld's speaking style and Saddam's character that this is fiction.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete; long, rambling, unencyclopedic original research and personal POV essay about matters covered in other articles on computer security. Features section headings like "Thanks California" and "Thanks USA" (author congratulating jurisdictions for legislation) and many sentences where author quotes and/or refers to himself in the third person ("The largest computer disaster of which AlMac is aware, in terms of amount of money at stake, prior to Y2K, was when the US Federal Reserve ran out of #s for issuing Bonds to finance the national debt.") Normally I would suggest or attempt cleanup but this is just a complete mess, and more importantly from an AfD point of view, is duplicated elsewhere. MCB 22:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Low content, subject covered at great length in other articles, such as Sexual dysfunction, with a misspelled title on top of it all. Jasmol 19:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as attack page. If someone wants to replace this with some content (It's a gymnasium in Lund, Sweden, apparently), feel free to call it a win or whatever on Schoolwatch. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 14:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm all for the inclusion of articles on schools, but only where they actually say something of use. This one doesn't - delete CLW 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable grocery store (unless selling cheap imported soda qualifies as notability...) Delete CLW 12:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy-delete. Page-blanked by the original author and only editor. I'm taking that as evidence that speedy case G7 applies. Rossami [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 01:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries, especially not when the author of a page is linked from it. I was tempted to speedy as an A7, but it's too much of a stretch. — Cryptic (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
band vanity. According to WP:Music, songs don't usually deserve pages in wikipedia. THe band itself is also up for delete. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two -- Bachrach44 14:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (more detailed analysis on discussion page). Rob e rt T | @ | C 22:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC) (amended by David | Talk 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)) reply
A list of people notable only for being alive. User:Zoe| (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
RETURN OF A HERO Mirror.co.uk, UK - Nov 11, 2005 It was in the dark days of 1918 when 109-year-old Henry Allingham said goodbye to France. Yesterday he went back..to remember comrades he left behind. ... Smell of death 'stays with you always' BBC News Britons fall silent for war dead BBC News A rare moment to reflect together on the price of freedom Independent BBC News - ic Wales - all 87 related »
ITN Queen will lead war dead tributes Scotsman, United Kingdom - 12 hours ago ... Henry Allingham, who at 109 is the country's oldest World War One veteran, is expected to be among the former servicemen who will gather to remember the heroes ... Queen leading war dead tributes Scotland on Sunday all 120 related »
Strong keep! Of very wide international interest (This unsigned edit from 82.221.53.156 ( talk · contribs) is the user's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Good Morning, all, I have made a some changes in line with my suggestions (see some things we need to decide?) I have moved Orin Peterson to the WW1 era category, as this seems to be the direction the evidence points. I have moved the Romanian and the anonymous French Vet to the Unvalidated category - with a note on whats "missing" as it where. My understanding of the Unvalidated category, is that unvalidated does not mean false (though some of them, noticeably the 13 year old veteran almost certainly are)rather they do not have full verification, by a sanctioned body, and none of these cases would appear to have such a verification. One final note is that I would suggest we create some sort of "pending" category for new cases, and I received a bit of support for this: thoughts anyone? SRwiki 10:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
______________________________________________________
I am just wondering why 3 of the French vets, have suddenly moved into the unverified category? After much discussion, in December I thought we had come to a reasonable consensus, about who was listed where, and my understanding was that all 3 were recognised as vets in our definition rather than the stricter (and western front orientated) French definition. The moving of the Italian vet who is living in France suggests that who-ever has taken it upon themselves to do this, doesn't understand how the page is laid out. If this vet has been moved because he has not been verified by the French Government, then there is no reason why he would be, he is a veteran of the Italian army - people do move around. Can whoever has done this moving please explain their reasoning? thanks SRwiki 18:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SRwiki"
Shouldn't Tuveri be included as a veteran of Italian army?
Greetings,
There are several issues here. First, Tuveri moved to France and is a French citizen even though an Italian vet. There is also the issue of a Canadian living in the U.S., Brits living in Australia, etc.
That is a separate issue from the 'official' French government list. For one, I don't give much credit at all the the 'official' list. As someone mentioned, it seems designed to exclude (and thus to possibly save money by denying a pension). Second, the 'official' listmakers didn't do any research (but claimed credit for 'discovering' Rene Riffaud and Francois Jaffre, who appeared on the Wiki article months earlier). Third, the Italian list also doesn't include 'official' vets, either. I think the issue of 'verification' is one of existence and service, not government sanction. Fourth, the official lists changed the rules to include Rene Riffaud (and thus the rules don't seem so important as their marketing efforts). As noted, there is at least one anonymous French veteran not yet releaved. So, the French gov't may be embarrassed if the anonymous vet outlives the three 'official' veterans.→ R Young { yakł talk} 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC) _____________________________________________________ Why is it that when we get the list in pretty good shape, someone comes along and does something totally off the wall. I was for removing the "unverified" French Vet. until a name was released. However, to remove a vet because he has not met the french requirements of so many months service is confusing and does not make sense. Please put them back in the list. As a person stated above, if you will read the comments of the other members you should understand why this is not the correct thing to do. (pershinboy) 209.240.206.201 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Greetings,
Media reports have Charles Brunier joining in 1918, aged 17, and wounded in combat in Syria. However, I'm certain he will NOT get a state funeral. His military honors were stripped in 1923 (after being convicted of murder), why would they be restored now? Further, the French gov't only recognizes "Western front" veterans (a sort of Euro-centric bias, yes). Third, because he was wounded, Brunier served only two months (less than the three-month requirement). Let's not forget that the information on Brunier came from independent sources that were not aware of this Wiki article.
The bigger question is: if the French gov't gives a funeral for the 'last' veteran and then another one emerges, what then? As stated, there is at least one remaining anonymous veteran (alive this month). However my contact dropped contact Jan 16 so I can no longer vouch for the continued existence of this person. My contact did report, for example, Rene Riffaud months before the French gov't noticed, as well as Louis Jaffre.→ R Young { yakł talk} 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Don't just delete a veteran with no explanation. Give a reason for the deletion.→ R Young { yakł talk} 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, it seems he died in 2006, not 'this years's list.' In any case, it seems the case is now resolved, but I think we should get more details about deleting someone presented as 'living' who are in fact not. Thanks.→ R Young { yakł talk} 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
With the death of Rene there is a ever growing chance murderer Charles Brunier is up for a state funeral. Will he get it?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.23 ( talk) 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC). reply
One other thing that has occured to me, is that the French Navy was one of the biggest in the world at the time. I just wonder if in the focus on the Western front, some of these sailors may have been overlooked. SRwiki 08:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
What you did above is a 'thought crime'. Killing someone in combat is NOT murder. It is self-protection.→
R Young {
yakł
talk} 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
Legally, and that is all that matters for the sake of this debate the answer is no. Being realistic, this is a rather hypothetical debate, as this will be a matter for the French government to decide. For myself I just can't see it. can you? SRwiki 07:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Right. The French Government has made a decision, and he in no way will be considered as the last, nor will they honor him. Can't blame them really.(PershinBoy) 63.3.7.1 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
A while back, a poster here (I forget the name) attacked me for the "vandalism" of removing Stephen Butcher's name, from the living veterans list, even though he was deceased (and I had seen a local newspaper's obituarys section) and demanded proof.
Aside from confirmation from Dennis Goodwin, the UK veterans "guru" as it were, then I repeat below what is held at the London Births, Marriages & Deaths Index for 2005.
Stephen Graham Butcher b. 2 Jan 1904 d. Dec 2005, Portsmouth. (volume Bon-Col Deaths 2005 p 577, entry 4971e)
I hope that now satisfies as enough proof (as I can hardly make up all that information), and with the above information a death certificate can also be obtained should there be any need.
Very shortly, the online versions of these indexes will be updated for online verification as well.
Thanks, Richard J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.144.160 ( talk) 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC). reply
M165.234.180.59 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Mathew Engh 1899 August American USA Resides in Grand Forks, North Dakota
This was posted in the Unverified section the other day incorrectly by the poster. Would someone be kind enough to format it the correct manner. Just seems to be an honest mistake. Does anyone else know anything about him or could find any further info? -- Brianmccollum 04:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Greetings,
This claim is too early to determine if its a claim or a hoax. The user who posted it appears to be an established Wikipedian...too bad no news citation was provided. However, the Jim Harrison case (1896?-2004) might be a hoax also...→ R Young { yakł talk} 08:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The Ancestry website reveals no Matthew Engh living in North Dakota or any history of a Matthew Engh. Me thinks it is a hoax........
I couldn't find anything either - no newspaper article, Ancestry listing, anything. There are 5 hits for Mattew Engh on Google but none of these could conceivably be a Vet. I would argue that this name shouldn't even be on the unvalidated list - as it doesn't even have a citiation SRwiki 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
SRwiki why bother saying that? There are higher forces over here on this page. As long as they don't agree with you, Engh's name will remain on the list and people like Mr. Young will bash at you for wanting to make the list shorter
Re the above unsigned comment, the fact that you failed to sign is an indication that what you said is just 'sour grapes,' and without merit. The name is off the list and I didn't try to restore it, did I? So you were wrong. Excuse me for supporting a little investigation. Last I checked, cases like Robley Rex are STILL unresolved. We are still waiting for someone to produce his army draft papers...→ R Young { yakł talk} 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Right, I have been through US public records & the following Engh's live in Grand Forks, North Dakota: Adam Engh, aged 28; Clarence Engh aged, 35, Robert M Engh, 82, Tim D Engh 35 and that's it.
This is clearly a fake and I shall be deleting it as such. Otherwise people will accept any old nonsense written on the site.
Mr Young can bash away if he likes - but this entry has no substance behind it AT ALL
Bart, you 'cry wolf,' writing 'vandalism' for every change you don't agree with...for example when someone deleted the redundant 'oldest woman' box from the Maria Capovilla page. Yet that was not vandalism, it was a difference of opinion.
Also, I never said it was a real case, I said we need to give time to investigate first...and a little investigation turned up no evidence of existence, so deleting was the proper recourse. That doesn't make me 'wrong' because I thought the case should be checked out thoroughly.→ R Young { yakł talk} 00:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sad to hear that Robert Meier, seeming in good health, passed away. It does seem that, finally, a LOT of big names are falling in the last 12 months...Emiliano Mercado Del Toro (115), Moses Hardy (113), George Johnson (112), Maurice Floquet (111), Ernest Pusey (111). Even the USA, Italy, and Germany are finally seeing their numbers down to 8, 7, and 6...not good...→ R Young { yakł talk} 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
That is a real tragedy for someone so old as Meier 109 yrs. to have a bad fall, Very serious, but at least he did not suffer long. (User Redpepper1952)19:14, January 30,2007
Definitely 105, but there's nothing in that news report that signifies that he is a veteran of World War I (or indeed, any war). Not every man now alive over 100 fought in WWI after all...
Cheers, Richard J
Can anyone backup his move to the 2007 deathlist and confirm his passing? I'd just like to know if it was done by a legit poster because there is no day of month or citation. I hope it is not the same person from the whole Matthew Engh nonsense. -- Brianmccollum 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Matthew Engh came from "user 165...". This came from "User 87" and appears to be legitimate.→ R Young { yakł talk} 01:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Greetings,
I have been told by a German colleague that calls to a nursing home were made, but they wouldn't release the date. This is not confirmed but it seems likely that Mr. Seim must have died recently. Notably, he would have been named the oldest man in Germany on Jan 29 2007 if still living. → R Young { yakł talk} 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That was I. I phoned the nursing home in the case of Mr. Velten, not Seim - sorry, I didn't say that clear. There was a little Note in a newspaper that he died a few days ago, We hope we can find the exact date out. Statistician 01.02.2007 10:59 (CET)
We now have a source and a date for Rudolph Seim. Please stop deleting it.
For you people who think it is equivalent to Solinski: comparing apples and oranges simply won't do. We had someone tell us that Seim had died and a phone call was made. Now, someone found the obit in the newspaper. Far more than we saw people do with the Polish cases.→ R Young { yakł talk} 05:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Robert, I must respectfully disagree on this point "Far more than we saw people do with the Polish cases" . I have made continued written enquiries about Solinski (previously, and recently again) to his local town asking for more information about him. I'm not sitting on my arse deleting Solinski & saying "I think he went in 2005", I'm trying to do something about it. I accept, and have done so from the start, Seim is dead, but please don't belittle other people's efforts simply because you don't like them.
I AM working on it & hope to produce the evidence one day to confirm it. Please give it time and please have some patience, and less of these little "asides", hmmmm?
Richard J
Afternoon All During an idle moment whilst pretending to work I Googled Gheorghe C. Panculescu and the following came up as a Wikipedia link:
General(r) Corp de Armata Gheorghe C. Panculescu(n.26 martie 1903-d.9ianuarie2007) decorat cu Ordinul Steaua Romaniei in grad de Mare Cavaler(1991) si multe ...
But the link doesn't seem to go anywhere Unfortunately my knowledge of Romanian is non-existent, so I couldn't plough through the Roimanian branch of Wikipedia to track it any further. but it does rather look as though he may have died on the 9th Jan. Has any-one else come across anything to corroborate this? Thanks SRwiki 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Who added this case in the first place? I would assume he died Jan 9 2007 unless someone else says otherwise. Also, with the claimed date of enlistment (May 1918) I think we should add him to the WWI vets who died in Jan 2007. Any objections?→ R Young { yakł talk} 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Hmmm... not certain. There's nothing in the Romanian press about this. All there is one (defunct) wikipedia page.
Not saying he's not dead, but I can't see why there's one rule for Panculescu & another for Solinski. Neither have any PROOF they are dead for certain, after all.
No one said that Solinksi was dead, no one offered a death date. They just said "we didn't see a birthday story this year." If you will, we can make a 'limbo' list for cases where deaths are unconfirmed.→ R Young { yakł talk} 01:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
One more point: the article was written in Romanian, making it less likely to be a hoax. Also, the writer of the article was apparently unaware or didn't bother to edit the USA version, again making a motive of deception less likely.→ R Young { yakł talk} 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In the France version of the Wiki you can find Naum Djordjevitch. Anybody knows if this claim is validated? Or is he dead? http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derniers_poilus#Encore_en_vie Statistician 02.02.2007 20:33 (CET)
According to some other sites, Djordjevitch died some time ago, around 1999, I believe.
Can you post one? Statistician 03.02.2007 14:32 (CET)
Mr Pierro passed away this morning, Feb 8 2007. This is confirmed.
Please update accordingly.→ R Young { yakł talk} 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Damn: exactly 1 or 2 weeks before turning 111, so another old man gone. Extremely sexy 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I believe Frank Buckles made it to France as well. I remember reading in an article this past Veterans' Day that he sailed over on the Carpathia, the ship that rescued the Titanic survivors. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ reply
The Canadian government recently announced (in reaction to an online petition) that when the last surviving Canadian WWI vet dies, he would be given a state funeral, as a way of honouring the memories and sacrifices of all the Canadians who fought in WWI. Should this be mentioned somewhere on the page, either in the header or in the Canada section right above that table? -- Maelwys 16:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is blatant vanity. It was probably intended as an advertisement. Superm401 | Talk 09:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Notable school radio show ERcheck 16:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Doc ask? 11:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research. I cannot find evidence that the term "The Great Scandal" is significantly connected to the rôle of the Roman Catholic Church in the rise of Nazism. Whether or not the rôle of the Roman Catholic Church in the rise of Nazism is sufficently presented in Wikipedia, the idea of this article is flawed. We have several articles on this epoch, events, organizations and actors ( Enabling Act, Reichskonkordat, Centre Party (Germany), Franz von Papen, Ludwig Kaas). -- Pjacobi 20:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable musicians. Google has no definitive, WP:MUSIC passing info on them. feydey 00:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
more band vanity. doesn't meet WP:Music.
The result of the debate was Delete, ignoring sockpuppets R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Overly illustrated page about a musician/composer. Creation by McMusic suggests vanity. Notability check please before I userfy it. -- RHaworth 09:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I really don't see what the fuss is all about here. Other than being unfamiliar with the artist in question...Maybe you should broaden your horizon and listen to different genres. New age is a small selective market but thousands of music lovers do appreciate it. I am sorry you don't particulary find the information interesting but many fans do. McMusic
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Editor who created this also appears to be inserting links to it into other articles such as Melbourne, Ben Lee and WaveAid - however content of article, as well as quick googling, seems to show that it's all vanity. -- Chuq 00:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers for "Todd McKinnon" achieved 1 result, a profile of a junior rugby player in the Waikato Times. No assertion that he meets any of the criteria in WP:NMG such as albums, hits or tours. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 21:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Clearly a POV insult page, but not clearly enough to be speedied. Superm401 | Talk 18:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS - default to keep Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 20:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Also, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2000, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2001, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2002, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2003 and Veterans of the First World War who died in 2005
Wikipedia is not a memorial. User:Zoe| (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was speedily deleted by User:Zoe with the summary "{{speedy}}{{db-a3}} {{afd}}he is Sooo Chan!!". This AFD is closed. encephalon 00:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
An article that wants to be a vanity page when it grows up. Corvus 17:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre as vandalism. -- GraemeL (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to be notable abakharev 01:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 11:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
No evidence that this exists. Klonimus 23:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Bandvanity, fails to meet WP:MUSIC and has just 925 Google hits. FCYTravis 00:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
del
. per nom. --
WB 22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replyThe result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A single unverifiable rumor about a corporation which apparently doesn't have an article of its own. CDC (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Blantant spam. Speedy delete if possible (although I can't find a good category for it), otherwise simple delete as soon as possible. -- Nlu 10:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Orphan page that has no potential and is of a number that is not noteable Descendall 05:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Individual songs don't deserve a wikipedia page. (See WP:Music for more info. Also note that the band which made the song is also up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. (Both the band, the song, and other pages relating to the band were all made by one person). -- Bachrach44 14:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. 110 Google hits. Punkmorten 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a crystal ball. And this album doesn't even have a name yet. Punkmorten 23:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Somewhat unverifiable. A search for the name of the alleged founder and 'society' gets no relevent results [1]. The only thing actually calling itself '80s Preservation Society' is a Geocities webpage [2] which may or not be related, but certainly doesn't seem notable. The few other mentions I can find are jokes (in satire articles about the 1980s, joking that such a society would exist). -- W.marsh 15:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to be an advert for new (created October 2005) political campaign/pressure group. No mention of any major achievements/large membership or anything else to make it notable. Hitchhiker89 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, fails WP:NMG. Verily, Allmusic knoweth them not, and Amazon refuseth to speak their name - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
more than one release (Racially Motivated Violence) on Resistance Records so they fail WP:NMG. If they had more media coverage, or web coverage that wasn't mostly auto-generated links and mirrors, that might change it. -- W.marsh 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The group had appeared on a Vh1 special about hate music--talking in variuos interviews about their views and underground music. They are one of the most controversial bands that has been popular within the white power music genre. They grew up in Detroit as the article states. When old enough, they made a rational decision to move out of the ghettos into safer northern suburbs.
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Propaganda. Seems copyvio, bbut perhaps it's too fresh for google to catch on, so I couldn't find a source. Delete-- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I confess to being mildly torn on this one. Can there be an encyclopedic article about the "basics" of a language? My initial instinct is "Yes." But how is "basic" defined? How is that definition verified with outside sources? Can the article ever be more than an attempt at a language instructional course, and should language instructional courses be something Wikipedia should include? In any case, the specific article in question is poorly formatted and possesses minimal information about the subject, so even if the answers to the above questions are positive, the current article doesn't qualify. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 13:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep and move to Behr's syndrome. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef Savant1984 22:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfied by me to User:Andrew O. Shadoura, note left on author's page explaining. Consensus is clearly delete, but userfication does no harm and may even (cross fingers) avoid hard feelings. Friday 16:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Vanity page about non-notable software [5] PhilipO 19:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
nn Polish nobleman, only one account supposedly, the source of which is not included. Zero Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school group established in 2000 ERcheck 15:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A bathhouse with no claim of notability - delete CLW 12:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily userfied to User:Bowatson. FCYTravis 10:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a vanity page. All of the edits are by User:BOwatson himself, assuming the anonymous edits are him as well. His only other edits have been on the Michigan Technological University page and were serving the same purpose as a vanity page. Recnilgiarc 08:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like a NN-Bio but wasn't completely sure. Only comes up with 2 pages of hits when you search his username on the IMDB site, doesn't seem like a lot. Fallsend 21:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep -- JAranda | watz sup 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A little known person. Should ber merged, but we can't have a list of all the people that have graduated from Arizona State. 66.177.61.78 02:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
All signs point to original research. -- Tabor 17:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre as illegal MLM scheme. -- GraemeL (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 03:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Biovanity, with no claim to notability beyond being a member of the non-notable band above... oh, and "working on a screenplay for an independant feature film he'll be co-directing in 2006." FCYTravis 00:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
No real assertions of meeting WP:MUSIC. His former band 2KORPSE is also up for deletion. Crossworm gets some google hits, but many lead to crossword and other irrelevant things. Not on AllMusic. Punkmorten 23:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus between whether to merge or keep. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism supported by a 2003 CNN article. Something Million Dollar Homepage would be two years from now. No incoming wikilinks. -- Perfecto 05:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (Non notable, vanity) Fir e Fo x -CVU- 11:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The assertion of notability is that he's the Raleigh, North Carolina expert on eBay. This is below my bar, but perhaps not that of the community. Joyous (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Unformatted, unwikified, cleanup tagged for eleven months, and I suspect it's a vanity page to start with - SoM 15:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be not-notable band. If kept, needs to be rewritten in a professional style. - David Woolley 20:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity page WriterFromAfar755 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Very non notable web forum with less than 20 active participants. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Trivia about a web forum. As with Something Awful, forums should record the fine points of their subculture on their own site, not on Wikipedia. Alexa rank is 445,831.
The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All T| @| ESP 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
(Fixing AfD nomination.) Autobiographical page; creator should make into a user page if he wants to keep the text. Delete from mainspace. Metropolitan90 18:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, hasn't played this season.
Kookykman|
(t)
(c) 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Fredrik | talk 01:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
No Google news hits either. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate wasDelete. Voice of All T| @| ESP 00:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Refer to this old revision. There's a claim of permission on the talk page, but I don't think this is material that we want to keep in any case (it's a sitcom airing only on what is apparently the University of North Texas' tv channel), so checking here first before I request confirmation of permission. — Cryptic (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I just added this for delete because there essentially no hits for the term. [10] — BenFrantzDale 17:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I say Keep. It may be very recent, so Google wouldn't find it yet. Give a chance for the bots to crawl through the blogs. Xuanwu 22:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Requested by its only author to be deleted, which falls under a speedy cat. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Article consists mainly of POV/fan opinion, what remains could probably/might already be integrated in other Avatar articles Virogtheconq 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Makes no assertion of notability; yet another non-notable band. (Note: Page on their album Really Wonderful Tonight, can be speedied once this one is deleted.) Deltabeignet 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. The high point of their musical career seems to be high school talent shows. Zero relevant Google hits. Rampart 12:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, vanity... Alai 20:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE ♠P M C♠ 05:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN Company, seems more like an advertisement. Fallsend 09:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting. Physchim62 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as single, incomplete sentence
definition. wiktionary appropriate maybe, but not here.
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition? Neologism? Redirect to propaganda? Keep and expand? You decide, I couldn't - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete as per nomination's justification - doesn't matter whether permission is given for content. - Mailer Diablo 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Refer to this old revision. Again, there's a claim of permission on the talk page, but I can't find any evidence that this company meets WP:CORP. — Cryptic (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
According to the Census Bureau, the Saint Clair County, Illinois article, and the Sheriff's website, Glenview is not a city or village in the county. I corrected this statement in the Wiki article. Rand McNally's website shows Glenview in Cook County when one types in Glenview, IL for an online map. Glenview in Saint Clair County appears to be a small area in Saint Clair County when one examines it at Mapquest. The US Postal Service also shows that Glenview in Cook County is the only place in Illinois that uses "Glenview" as the city name with respect to postal addresses. Also, Mapquest sometimes shows names for unincorporated neighborhoods that are not used and not heard of by local residents. If the article is deleted, then links must also be removed from two disambig pages. Slo-mo 04:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete as per nomination's justification - doesn't matter whether permission is given for content. - Mailer Diablo 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Please see this version. This article is a copy from another website and is currently tagged as copyvio. However, someone claims permission on the talk page. Rather than soliciting permission only for it to later be deleted, we are now posting questionable pages here before soliciting permission. (See our discussion.) This article in its current state appears to be a brief description of an non-notable non-profit. --best, kevin ··· Kzollman | Talk··· 00:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Combination original research and attempt to start a discussion board on the talk page. -- Tabor 05:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
See Below for amended view following work on article from othersNot been changed or updated since June, and no attempt to explain if this is a notable entry. Mention of this ship could be made on another article rather than a separate stub entry.
doktorb 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
What is needed is for the editors who are creating these ship articles to cite sources. None of the ones that I looked at cited any sources whatsoever. In practice, it is very rare for articles that have citations of multiple published works from independent sources to even come to AFD in the first place, let alone be deleted. Indeed, the simple act of citing such sources has on several occasions changed people's opinions from "delete" to "keep". I strongly urge the editors of these ship articles, and indeed all editors with pet projects, to cite sources in all of their articles. Uncle G 14:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a cystal ball. Lots of speculation and "not known". Let's wait till the song is released, if it ever is. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 23:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A recipe: belongs in wikibooks, not here. -- Francs 2000 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
It looks like someone's private notes for the purpose of spreading religion; original research, also Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 14:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Genre invented by Crossworm, who is up for deletion. Very few google hits (be sure to search with quotation marks). Punkmorten 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is roadcruft at its worst. Just list a bunch of interceptions. WP:NOT a road atlas Delete -- JAranda | watz sup 23:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is roadcruft on an astonishing, Borgesian scale. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, where facts are put into context and graded according to importance, WP:NOT a dumping ground for data, where every thing under the sun is left to rot. Pilatus 17:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Also see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401, of which this is the continuation.
82.26.169.95
Pilatus 18:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Some nn organization which created a yahoo group in October. Renata3 19:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE and REDIRECT to Animated cartoon. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article attempts to describe the phenomenon of animated shorts and series (chiefly Macromedia Flash animation) distributed primarily on the web. While Flash animation subculture is certainly a worthy topic, there's virtually nothing salvagable in this article. I would only see it as a cleanup candidate were it not crowned with the arbitrary and erroneous title of Internet cartoon. (Neither Internet nor cartoon is appropriate here, and the term Internet cartoon does not enjoy wide use.)
Since any objective cleanup attempt would necessitate both a page move and and a near-total rewrite, I see no reason to harbor a misinformative article in the interim. – Ringbang 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a fictional character that may appear for 4 weeks on East Enders in 2006. This is NN and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Agnte 18:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. User:Edward NZ is a sock puppet, but even ignoring his vote, the consensus is clearly keep. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
phpBB is notable, but is the founder of the project notable? Talrias ( t | e | c) 22:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn bio
political vanity page AJSingh 07:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was speedily deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven with the summary "empty". This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 00:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable 16-year old with zero google hits. No claim to notability except being a basketball player. Possible CSD. Delete. A D Monroe III 22:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is vanity, strongly suspect that it was written by the author of the website. Very NN, google shows no pages link to it [12] and only only 9 websites have ever referenced it [13] Agnte 12:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm a friend of the webmaster of jayceestudios.com, and I know the Wiki entry was made by one of her fans. The opening sentance to which you reffered was added when the wiki was taken down before for being 'nonsense'. -Mr Reaper, friend of Jaycee Pawman. (First edit from — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.146.101 ( talk • contribs) )
I'm also a friend of the webmaster of jayceestudios.com, and I also know the Wiki entry was made by one of her fans. It DID take alot of time to put together and it is a wonder website. I don't see why you are so hot to delete it. As the article said, it is not 'nonsense'. -The Flying Yoshi, friend of Jaycee Pawman. (First edit from — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.141.62 ( talk • contribs) )
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This doesn't establish notability. Talrias ( t | e | c) 22:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I can't find any outside verification of this, and the article itself reads like a joke. Joyous (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The article may read like a joke, but then like they say the truth is far stranger than fiction. I have been doing research on this guy for the past six months and I can verify every word. I'll be adding some of his most memorable quotations soon. Not sure who wrote the article but the guy's done his homework! (Professor Port Talbot Ma Bsc Phd Phd Fag)
It is written in a rather facetious manner, but then again Mr. Wellington is something of a figure of fun in South Wales and especially Port Talbot. I cannot verify the quotations attributed to him but as far as I know everything else on here is true. They can be verified by checking back copies of the South Wales Squirrel newspaper, the newspaper of the regional South Wales Anarchist Group (SWAG) who have hailed Wellington as a paragon of local democracy and free speech (Anarchism is still a living creed in some parts of the South Wales Valleys, although Wellington denies any political affiliation with SWAG). His performance on 'Question Time Wales' is nothing short of legendary in these parts. Max Boyce was reduced to a seething wreck by Wellington's continual jibes about his height.
page blanked as courtesy upon polite request-- Jimbo Wales 13:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as "vandalism" for some reason; bringing it here instead. No vote. a ndroid 79 05:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Suspected advertising Coolgamer 20:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Advert (text comes straight from here), and currently non-notable: 55 Google hits Knovi " life-long learning", the majority on the Knovi site itself. Tearlach 19:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant vanity/ad. Only about two Google hits. Superm401 | Talk 19:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam. 9cds 20:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Right, this doesn't belong in the Wikipedia, unless one of their members is rewarded a Nobel prize ;-) Robert 20:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. User:Zoe| (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is dreadful. It features on the list of most-revised articles [15], which is pretty bad for an article which is a list of supposed facts - 2928 revisions suggests something is wrong. It is pretty much permanently erroneous - fans put bands such as Led Zeppelin at the top of the list, then someone else puts The Beatles there. There is one user who simply replaces the band name with Cher.
Most of the sales figures are pretty much worthless guesses, based on original research - a quote by some lazy music journalist saying so-and-so has sold 100,000,000 albums in 1996, so let's randomly add 100,000,000 to an arbitrary guess at how many singles they have sold.
The article is unstable, constantly changing. It is original research, and largely worthless as a reference source. The 'facts' in it change all the time. It undoubtedly excludes popular artists from areas where sales figures are poorly collated. Delete!.
87.74.12.83 11:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. (75% delete from 30 votes, and 10 keep votes). - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
non-encyclopedic listcruft with little hope of ever becoming comprehensive or maintanable → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 12:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Just proving my point, someone (Arniep) nominated a whole "list of" Jewish. Not surprisingly, the "List of Jewish Criminals" is going down in flames, while most of the rest are "speedy keep." In fact, one person who voted against "List of Jewish Bankers" voted FOR some of the other lists. This merely proves my point that reactionary politically-correct bias is operating here...I'm sure a court of law would find that since these lists were created by the same user, who has shown an intent not of anti-Semitism but Jewish identity (being Jewish), taken as a whole the lists should be equal. Remember, DISCRIMINATION is picking out one thing and applying different standards. Ryoung122 09:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
List of Jewish American academics
List of Jewish American business figures
List of Jewish American political figures
List of Jewish American scientists
List of Jewish American show business figures
List of Jewish American sport figures
List of Jewish American writers
List of Jewish Americans
List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society
List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Engineering
List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Technology
List of Jewish bankers
List of Jewish criminals
List of Jewish publishers
List of Jews
List of Jews in business
List of Jews in law
The result of the debate was keep. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Redlink infected Listcruft. This is like creating List of theatres in Miami Delete -- JAranda | watz sup 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Victims? Besides that, this is an impossible list. Far too many died. And why stop here? How about List of victims of the Hundred Years War and List of victims of the Crusades? And where does it stop? Is Abraham Lincoln a "victim" of the Civil War? How about John Wilkes Booth? User:Zoe| (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete after 2-day extension. — Cleared as filed. 15:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be band vanity, less than 150 results on Google and most not referring to him. Splintax 09:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
At best, this belongs in Wikisource. — Cryptic (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Individual songs don't deserve a wikipedia page. (See WP:Music for more info. Also note that the band which made the song is also up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. (Both the band, the song, and other pages relating to the band were all made by one person). -- Bachrach44 14:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 15:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notability Christofurio 19:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Cryptic (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre. Content blanked by author. -- GraemeL (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable website. I'm never sure where we stand on speedily deleting this cruft. -- Francs 2000 00:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
cute name, but doesn't meet WP:Music -- Bachrach44 14:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
band vanity. According to WP:Music, songs don't usually deserve pages in wikipedia. THe band itself is also up for delete. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. Also, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The song hasn't even been released yet. -- Bachrach44 14:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, Not sure on this one, but I doubt a contributor to three open source projects is notable - the projects are notable, but he is not. Perhaps he is worthy of mention in the articles about the projects, but I don't think four lines of text about him, two of which are asserting his notability, really belongs on wikipedia - Werdna648 02:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 15:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Term made out out of thin air, apparently. 32 mentions on google with one referencing this article. Vizcarra 23:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I have heard the term many times here in Europe and despite google has few entries on the subject the article should not be erased, I think. Besides it is a fact that the socalled mexipop is a huge phenomenom in many parts of the planet. And erasing the article won't stop people from using that term.
Thank you.
Bjørn Tore Nystrøm. Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.4.126 ( talk • contribs)
OK, I think I understand the point. However I have a question "and has added bits on 'Mexipop' to other pages"... was it wrong doing that? Thanks for the attention.
Should not be erased... not only because I have added a couple of details :) but seems to be a topic on its own. May the divinities consider it. AugustoRomero
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
nn Newgrounds stuff. Only 65 unique Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
patent nonsense Savant1984 21:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Article seems largely nonsensical and I can't find any verification, either at the site given or through Google. -- Tabor 03:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
band vanity. Doesn't meet WP:music -- Bachrach44 06:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Rob e rt T | @ | C 22:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band vanity. Not on allmusic.com, not on Amazon.com, apparently fails WP:NMG. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 22:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete and move Return to Eden (television) here. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The article refers to a Australian soap opera and a 1996 Annie Award nominated Michel Gagné short called "Return to Eden." The name of the short is actually "Prelude to Eden."
http://www.gagneint.com/Final%20site/misc/Prelude%20to%20Eden/Prelude.htm
Because the page now only refers to one "real" thing, the disambiguation page is not needed.
141.213.184.86 04:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge to Australian Progressive Alliance R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor political candidates for a now-defunct minor party. Polled less than 1% of the vote, and attracted approximately zero media attention. Ambi 11:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as vanity page
This is a vanity page BillC38 06:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus, will redirect to album and maybe soft merge. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A song by Eagles. The band is well-known, but the song is just another song. I spent like 1 hour looking for info to expand it, but it looks like there is nothing much else to say about it. There is completely nothing special about it. Renata3 13:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
It should be obvious to anyone familiar with Rumsfeld's speaking style and Saddam's character that this is fiction.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete; long, rambling, unencyclopedic original research and personal POV essay about matters covered in other articles on computer security. Features section headings like "Thanks California" and "Thanks USA" (author congratulating jurisdictions for legislation) and many sentences where author quotes and/or refers to himself in the third person ("The largest computer disaster of which AlMac is aware, in terms of amount of money at stake, prior to Y2K, was when the US Federal Reserve ran out of #s for issuing Bonds to finance the national debt.") Normally I would suggest or attempt cleanup but this is just a complete mess, and more importantly from an AfD point of view, is duplicated elsewhere. MCB 22:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Low content, subject covered at great length in other articles, such as Sexual dysfunction, with a misspelled title on top of it all. Jasmol 19:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as attack page. If someone wants to replace this with some content (It's a gymnasium in Lund, Sweden, apparently), feel free to call it a win or whatever on Schoolwatch. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 14:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm all for the inclusion of articles on schools, but only where they actually say something of use. This one doesn't - delete CLW 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable grocery store (unless selling cheap imported soda qualifies as notability...) Delete CLW 12:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy-delete. Page-blanked by the original author and only editor. I'm taking that as evidence that speedy case G7 applies. Rossami [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 01:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries, especially not when the author of a page is linked from it. I was tempted to speedy as an A7, but it's too much of a stretch. — Cryptic (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
band vanity. According to WP:Music, songs don't usually deserve pages in wikipedia. THe band itself is also up for delete. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two -- Bachrach44 14:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (more detailed analysis on discussion page). Rob e rt T | @ | C 22:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC) (amended by David | Talk 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)) reply
A list of people notable only for being alive. User:Zoe| (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
RETURN OF A HERO Mirror.co.uk, UK - Nov 11, 2005 It was in the dark days of 1918 when 109-year-old Henry Allingham said goodbye to France. Yesterday he went back..to remember comrades he left behind. ... Smell of death 'stays with you always' BBC News Britons fall silent for war dead BBC News A rare moment to reflect together on the price of freedom Independent BBC News - ic Wales - all 87 related »
ITN Queen will lead war dead tributes Scotsman, United Kingdom - 12 hours ago ... Henry Allingham, who at 109 is the country's oldest World War One veteran, is expected to be among the former servicemen who will gather to remember the heroes ... Queen leading war dead tributes Scotland on Sunday all 120 related »
Strong keep! Of very wide international interest (This unsigned edit from 82.221.53.156 ( talk · contribs) is the user's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Good Morning, all, I have made a some changes in line with my suggestions (see some things we need to decide?) I have moved Orin Peterson to the WW1 era category, as this seems to be the direction the evidence points. I have moved the Romanian and the anonymous French Vet to the Unvalidated category - with a note on whats "missing" as it where. My understanding of the Unvalidated category, is that unvalidated does not mean false (though some of them, noticeably the 13 year old veteran almost certainly are)rather they do not have full verification, by a sanctioned body, and none of these cases would appear to have such a verification. One final note is that I would suggest we create some sort of "pending" category for new cases, and I received a bit of support for this: thoughts anyone? SRwiki 10:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
______________________________________________________
I am just wondering why 3 of the French vets, have suddenly moved into the unverified category? After much discussion, in December I thought we had come to a reasonable consensus, about who was listed where, and my understanding was that all 3 were recognised as vets in our definition rather than the stricter (and western front orientated) French definition. The moving of the Italian vet who is living in France suggests that who-ever has taken it upon themselves to do this, doesn't understand how the page is laid out. If this vet has been moved because he has not been verified by the French Government, then there is no reason why he would be, he is a veteran of the Italian army - people do move around. Can whoever has done this moving please explain their reasoning? thanks SRwiki 18:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SRwiki"
Shouldn't Tuveri be included as a veteran of Italian army?
Greetings,
There are several issues here. First, Tuveri moved to France and is a French citizen even though an Italian vet. There is also the issue of a Canadian living in the U.S., Brits living in Australia, etc.
That is a separate issue from the 'official' French government list. For one, I don't give much credit at all the the 'official' list. As someone mentioned, it seems designed to exclude (and thus to possibly save money by denying a pension). Second, the 'official' listmakers didn't do any research (but claimed credit for 'discovering' Rene Riffaud and Francois Jaffre, who appeared on the Wiki article months earlier). Third, the Italian list also doesn't include 'official' vets, either. I think the issue of 'verification' is one of existence and service, not government sanction. Fourth, the official lists changed the rules to include Rene Riffaud (and thus the rules don't seem so important as their marketing efforts). As noted, there is at least one anonymous French veteran not yet releaved. So, the French gov't may be embarrassed if the anonymous vet outlives the three 'official' veterans.→ R Young { yakł talk} 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC) _____________________________________________________ Why is it that when we get the list in pretty good shape, someone comes along and does something totally off the wall. I was for removing the "unverified" French Vet. until a name was released. However, to remove a vet because he has not met the french requirements of so many months service is confusing and does not make sense. Please put them back in the list. As a person stated above, if you will read the comments of the other members you should understand why this is not the correct thing to do. (pershinboy) 209.240.206.201 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Greetings,
Media reports have Charles Brunier joining in 1918, aged 17, and wounded in combat in Syria. However, I'm certain he will NOT get a state funeral. His military honors were stripped in 1923 (after being convicted of murder), why would they be restored now? Further, the French gov't only recognizes "Western front" veterans (a sort of Euro-centric bias, yes). Third, because he was wounded, Brunier served only two months (less than the three-month requirement). Let's not forget that the information on Brunier came from independent sources that were not aware of this Wiki article.
The bigger question is: if the French gov't gives a funeral for the 'last' veteran and then another one emerges, what then? As stated, there is at least one remaining anonymous veteran (alive this month). However my contact dropped contact Jan 16 so I can no longer vouch for the continued existence of this person. My contact did report, for example, Rene Riffaud months before the French gov't noticed, as well as Louis Jaffre.→ R Young { yakł talk} 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Don't just delete a veteran with no explanation. Give a reason for the deletion.→ R Young { yakł talk} 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, it seems he died in 2006, not 'this years's list.' In any case, it seems the case is now resolved, but I think we should get more details about deleting someone presented as 'living' who are in fact not. Thanks.→ R Young { yakł talk} 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
With the death of Rene there is a ever growing chance murderer Charles Brunier is up for a state funeral. Will he get it?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.23 ( talk) 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC). reply
One other thing that has occured to me, is that the French Navy was one of the biggest in the world at the time. I just wonder if in the focus on the Western front, some of these sailors may have been overlooked. SRwiki 08:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
What you did above is a 'thought crime'. Killing someone in combat is NOT murder. It is self-protection.→
R Young {
yakł
talk} 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
Legally, and that is all that matters for the sake of this debate the answer is no. Being realistic, this is a rather hypothetical debate, as this will be a matter for the French government to decide. For myself I just can't see it. can you? SRwiki 07:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Right. The French Government has made a decision, and he in no way will be considered as the last, nor will they honor him. Can't blame them really.(PershinBoy) 63.3.7.1 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply
A while back, a poster here (I forget the name) attacked me for the "vandalism" of removing Stephen Butcher's name, from the living veterans list, even though he was deceased (and I had seen a local newspaper's obituarys section) and demanded proof.
Aside from confirmation from Dennis Goodwin, the UK veterans "guru" as it were, then I repeat below what is held at the London Births, Marriages & Deaths Index for 2005.
Stephen Graham Butcher b. 2 Jan 1904 d. Dec 2005, Portsmouth. (volume Bon-Col Deaths 2005 p 577, entry 4971e)
I hope that now satisfies as enough proof (as I can hardly make up all that information), and with the above information a death certificate can also be obtained should there be any need.
Very shortly, the online versions of these indexes will be updated for online verification as well.
Thanks, Richard J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.144.160 ( talk) 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC). reply
M165.234.180.59 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Mathew Engh 1899 August American USA Resides in Grand Forks, North Dakota
This was posted in the Unverified section the other day incorrectly by the poster. Would someone be kind enough to format it the correct manner. Just seems to be an honest mistake. Does anyone else know anything about him or could find any further info? -- Brianmccollum 04:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Greetings,
This claim is too early to determine if its a claim or a hoax. The user who posted it appears to be an established Wikipedian...too bad no news citation was provided. However, the Jim Harrison case (1896?-2004) might be a hoax also...→ R Young { yakł talk} 08:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The Ancestry website reveals no Matthew Engh living in North Dakota or any history of a Matthew Engh. Me thinks it is a hoax........
I couldn't find anything either - no newspaper article, Ancestry listing, anything. There are 5 hits for Mattew Engh on Google but none of these could conceivably be a Vet. I would argue that this name shouldn't even be on the unvalidated list - as it doesn't even have a citiation SRwiki 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
SRwiki why bother saying that? There are higher forces over here on this page. As long as they don't agree with you, Engh's name will remain on the list and people like Mr. Young will bash at you for wanting to make the list shorter
Re the above unsigned comment, the fact that you failed to sign is an indication that what you said is just 'sour grapes,' and without merit. The name is off the list and I didn't try to restore it, did I? So you were wrong. Excuse me for supporting a little investigation. Last I checked, cases like Robley Rex are STILL unresolved. We are still waiting for someone to produce his army draft papers...→ R Young { yakł talk} 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Right, I have been through US public records & the following Engh's live in Grand Forks, North Dakota: Adam Engh, aged 28; Clarence Engh aged, 35, Robert M Engh, 82, Tim D Engh 35 and that's it.
This is clearly a fake and I shall be deleting it as such. Otherwise people will accept any old nonsense written on the site.
Mr Young can bash away if he likes - but this entry has no substance behind it AT ALL
Bart, you 'cry wolf,' writing 'vandalism' for every change you don't agree with...for example when someone deleted the redundant 'oldest woman' box from the Maria Capovilla page. Yet that was not vandalism, it was a difference of opinion.
Also, I never said it was a real case, I said we need to give time to investigate first...and a little investigation turned up no evidence of existence, so deleting was the proper recourse. That doesn't make me 'wrong' because I thought the case should be checked out thoroughly.→ R Young { yakł talk} 00:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Sad to hear that Robert Meier, seeming in good health, passed away. It does seem that, finally, a LOT of big names are falling in the last 12 months...Emiliano Mercado Del Toro (115), Moses Hardy (113), George Johnson (112), Maurice Floquet (111), Ernest Pusey (111). Even the USA, Italy, and Germany are finally seeing their numbers down to 8, 7, and 6...not good...→ R Young { yakł talk} 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
That is a real tragedy for someone so old as Meier 109 yrs. to have a bad fall, Very serious, but at least he did not suffer long. (User Redpepper1952)19:14, January 30,2007
Definitely 105, but there's nothing in that news report that signifies that he is a veteran of World War I (or indeed, any war). Not every man now alive over 100 fought in WWI after all...
Cheers, Richard J
Can anyone backup his move to the 2007 deathlist and confirm his passing? I'd just like to know if it was done by a legit poster because there is no day of month or citation. I hope it is not the same person from the whole Matthew Engh nonsense. -- Brianmccollum 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Matthew Engh came from "user 165...". This came from "User 87" and appears to be legitimate.→ R Young { yakł talk} 01:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Greetings,
I have been told by a German colleague that calls to a nursing home were made, but they wouldn't release the date. This is not confirmed but it seems likely that Mr. Seim must have died recently. Notably, he would have been named the oldest man in Germany on Jan 29 2007 if still living. → R Young { yakł talk} 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
That was I. I phoned the nursing home in the case of Mr. Velten, not Seim - sorry, I didn't say that clear. There was a little Note in a newspaper that he died a few days ago, We hope we can find the exact date out. Statistician 01.02.2007 10:59 (CET)
We now have a source and a date for Rudolph Seim. Please stop deleting it.
For you people who think it is equivalent to Solinski: comparing apples and oranges simply won't do. We had someone tell us that Seim had died and a phone call was made. Now, someone found the obit in the newspaper. Far more than we saw people do with the Polish cases.→ R Young { yakł talk} 05:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Robert, I must respectfully disagree on this point "Far more than we saw people do with the Polish cases" . I have made continued written enquiries about Solinski (previously, and recently again) to his local town asking for more information about him. I'm not sitting on my arse deleting Solinski & saying "I think he went in 2005", I'm trying to do something about it. I accept, and have done so from the start, Seim is dead, but please don't belittle other people's efforts simply because you don't like them.
I AM working on it & hope to produce the evidence one day to confirm it. Please give it time and please have some patience, and less of these little "asides", hmmmm?
Richard J
Afternoon All During an idle moment whilst pretending to work I Googled Gheorghe C. Panculescu and the following came up as a Wikipedia link:
General(r) Corp de Armata Gheorghe C. Panculescu(n.26 martie 1903-d.9ianuarie2007) decorat cu Ordinul Steaua Romaniei in grad de Mare Cavaler(1991) si multe ...
But the link doesn't seem to go anywhere Unfortunately my knowledge of Romanian is non-existent, so I couldn't plough through the Roimanian branch of Wikipedia to track it any further. but it does rather look as though he may have died on the 9th Jan. Has any-one else come across anything to corroborate this? Thanks SRwiki 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Who added this case in the first place? I would assume he died Jan 9 2007 unless someone else says otherwise. Also, with the claimed date of enlistment (May 1918) I think we should add him to the WWI vets who died in Jan 2007. Any objections?→ R Young { yakł talk} 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Hmmm... not certain. There's nothing in the Romanian press about this. All there is one (defunct) wikipedia page.
Not saying he's not dead, but I can't see why there's one rule for Panculescu & another for Solinski. Neither have any PROOF they are dead for certain, after all.
No one said that Solinksi was dead, no one offered a death date. They just said "we didn't see a birthday story this year." If you will, we can make a 'limbo' list for cases where deaths are unconfirmed.→ R Young { yakł talk} 01:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
One more point: the article was written in Romanian, making it less likely to be a hoax. Also, the writer of the article was apparently unaware or didn't bother to edit the USA version, again making a motive of deception less likely.→ R Young { yakł talk} 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
In the France version of the Wiki you can find Naum Djordjevitch. Anybody knows if this claim is validated? Or is he dead? http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derniers_poilus#Encore_en_vie Statistician 02.02.2007 20:33 (CET)
According to some other sites, Djordjevitch died some time ago, around 1999, I believe.
Can you post one? Statistician 03.02.2007 14:32 (CET)
Mr Pierro passed away this morning, Feb 8 2007. This is confirmed.
Please update accordingly.→ R Young { yakł talk} 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Damn: exactly 1 or 2 weeks before turning 111, so another old man gone. Extremely sexy 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I believe Frank Buckles made it to France as well. I remember reading in an article this past Veterans' Day that he sailed over on the Carpathia, the ship that rescued the Titanic survivors. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ reply
The Canadian government recently announced (in reaction to an online petition) that when the last surviving Canadian WWI vet dies, he would be given a state funeral, as a way of honouring the memories and sacrifices of all the Canadians who fought in WWI. Should this be mentioned somewhere on the page, either in the header or in the Canada section right above that table? -- Maelwys 16:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The article is blatant vanity. It was probably intended as an advertisement. Superm401 | Talk 09:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Notable school radio show ERcheck 16:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Doc ask? 11:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research. I cannot find evidence that the term "The Great Scandal" is significantly connected to the rôle of the Roman Catholic Church in the rise of Nazism. Whether or not the rôle of the Roman Catholic Church in the rise of Nazism is sufficently presented in Wikipedia, the idea of this article is flawed. We have several articles on this epoch, events, organizations and actors ( Enabling Act, Reichskonkordat, Centre Party (Germany), Franz von Papen, Ludwig Kaas). -- Pjacobi 20:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable musicians. Google has no definitive, WP:MUSIC passing info on them. feydey 00:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
more band vanity. doesn't meet WP:Music.
The result of the debate was Delete, ignoring sockpuppets R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Overly illustrated page about a musician/composer. Creation by McMusic suggests vanity. Notability check please before I userfy it. -- RHaworth 09:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I really don't see what the fuss is all about here. Other than being unfamiliar with the artist in question...Maybe you should broaden your horizon and listen to different genres. New age is a small selective market but thousands of music lovers do appreciate it. I am sorry you don't particulary find the information interesting but many fans do. McMusic
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Editor who created this also appears to be inserting links to it into other articles such as Melbourne, Ben Lee and WaveAid - however content of article, as well as quick googling, seems to show that it's all vanity. -- Chuq 00:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers for "Todd McKinnon" achieved 1 result, a profile of a junior rugby player in the Waikato Times. No assertion that he meets any of the criteria in WP:NMG such as albums, hits or tours. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 21:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Clearly a POV insult page, but not clearly enough to be speedied. Superm401 | Talk 18:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS - default to keep Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 20:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Also, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2000, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2001, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2002, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2003 and Veterans of the First World War who died in 2005
Wikipedia is not a memorial. User:Zoe| (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was speedily deleted by User:Zoe with the summary "{{speedy}}{{db-a3}} {{afd}}he is Sooo Chan!!". This AFD is closed. encephalon 00:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
An article that wants to be a vanity page when it grows up. Corvus 17:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre as vandalism. -- GraemeL (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to be notable abakharev 01:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 11:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
No evidence that this exists. Klonimus 23:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Bandvanity, fails to meet WP:MUSIC and has just 925 Google hits. FCYTravis 00:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
del
. per nom. --
WB 22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replyThe result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A single unverifiable rumor about a corporation which apparently doesn't have an article of its own. CDC (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt T | @ | C 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Blantant spam. Speedy delete if possible (although I can't find a good category for it), otherwise simple delete as soon as possible. -- Nlu 10:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply