The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 01:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Advert material, much of which is reproduced from the product's site. No demonstration of any particular notability either. cjllw | TALK 08:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band; no entry in All Music Guide. Jasmol 05:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Absolute threshold of hearing. Clearly not deleting outright, but obviously not keeping the content. - Splash talk 04:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Posted all in one shot by an anon editor who has not responded to a request for sources. Not one reference or source, no names of a single book or album despite claims of being a prolific artist, no links, no google hits. This looks like a hoax to me, but I dedided to put it here instead of speedy deleting it in case I am wrong. Gamaliel 18:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Self-promotion and vanity of an unknown blog author. Timecop 11:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was kind of a consensus to delete, but on the other hand there are suggestions here to redirect this to Tri-Cities, Virginia. I have looked at that article and the heading there says "also known as ... the Appomattox Basin". I am calling this a redirect there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This region is part of the Richmond-Petersburg region ( Richmond VA MSA) which already has an article. The Tri-Cities, Virginia article has significantly more information and covers the same geographic area. MPS 18:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a Wikipedia:POV fork of the evolution page written from the original research perspective of User:Ed_Poor. As such, this article does not belong in Wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 18:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN. No non-wikipedia hits. Descendall 11:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Balle Klorin was the name of a comedy show character in 70's Norway. There is no article on the actor who played him, so nowhere to redirect to. Punkmorten 21:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Advert for a shareware game. Most google results seem to be automatically generated download page mirrors. -- W.marsh 15:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 22:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable neologism... some kind of fratcruft it seems. -- W.marsh 16:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Orphaned Vanity article of a guy whose only claim to fame is writing for a website with an Alexa rank of 402,376. -- W.marsh 18:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Absolutely reads like a joke at the moment. Possibly an insult page if we knew who "Bella" is. The main problem is that I can't verify that this an actual disorder, checking with Google [4] (and other search terms) and my old Abnormal Psychology textbook. Thus it seems unverifiable. -- W.marsh 19:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. gren グレン 23:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable... the few results for "Ben Rongey" are just results of high school athletic events. The article seems to be a joke/hoax of some sort. -- W.marsh 23:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Vote count, for those interested is 12d-8k. But has anyone considered merging this somewhere? The article looks really stubby. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable schoolcruft. Apart from the table, the article's empty, so apparently even the author doesn't think it's all that notable. -- Aurochs
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bar in Croydon - I've been there and there are dozens like it within a mile, let alone in London as a whole. Mtiedemann 14:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to List of blogging terms. Deletion was the overwhelming consensus, but the redirect is not harmful and gives basically the same effect without loss of history. Friday (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable concept/dicdef Skrewler 09:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cel es tianpower háblame 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, some participants on one single web site use this protologism. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there is nothing whatsoever written on the subject of blopping which can be used as source material for an encyclopaedia article about it, partly because the word's only properly attested meaning is something completely different: spluttering. (See Krister LINDEN and Jussi PIITULAINEN (2004-05-31). "Discovering Synonyms and Other Related Words" (PDF). CompuTerm 2004 — 3rd International Workshop on Computational Terminology.).
This article is at the wrong title, per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), this meaning for this verb is a protologism, and there's apparently nothing to write about what blopping actually is. Uncle G 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Plutor. — JIP | Talk 08:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The page covers nothing about the movie, and the grammar/spelling is atrocious. It's not even long enough to be considered an article. 68.61.255.12 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A disambig page with a bunch of redlinks that don't seem notable smacks of a directory more than something that's encyclopedic. WP:NOT a directory. -- Locke Cole 02:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable. Neither of these alleged islands appears in any other standard reference works, such as the CIA World Factbook. There are no mentions of East Saarling Island, an alleged insular area of the United States, on any US government websites. The "map" of East Saarling Island looks like something I could have created using Photoshop. Both articles were created at about the same time and the users appear to be the same (although one was created using an IP address and the other using a newly-created user id). -- Russ Blau (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Sad but WP:NOT a memorial. Delete -- Jaranda( watz sup) 18:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Gamaliel 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax associated with Scott Chuss (also on Afd). Though linked to Gigli, IMDB shows no cast member by this name. JLaTondre 16:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I, the nominator, am nominating this page for DELETION for the following reasons:
IMO, this article has no value and should be deleted in short order. [[ Briguy52748 20:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)]] reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Foreign language mispellings in English are not appropriate as redirects. - Splash talk 04:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
'Crase' is a misspelling. It is the Portuguese word for 'Crasis'. Whoever wrote this entry must not have been aware of that. I have created a new stub for 'Crasis', which I have also defined more accurately and generally. I have also edited the old link to 'Crase' in the entry on the 'Grave Accent', which now directs to 'Crasis'. 193.136.232.3 12:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied, no assertion of notability. brenneman (t) (c) 06:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Bio of non-notable grade 12 student Dlyons493 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP, and move to correct spelling. Not knowing which of the two titles is more appropriate, I'll move it to Positive political theory since the rewrite chooses that as the first words of the article and create a redirect at Explanatory.... Anyone will be able to move over the redirect without being an admin, if they think the other title is better - Splash talk 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Near-contentless and two words in the article title misspelled. I'm not sure a properly spelled version would grow any larger; I leave that to AfD's discretion. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, UE. Consists of nothing more than the synopsis of the game from the maker's webpage. Apparantly not even the proper name of the game. Descendall 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity, as per WP:MUSIC. -- Aurochs
The result of the debate was that there's some things in life money can't buy, for everything else there's BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
UE nonsense, delete. ComCat 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable local pub. This was tagged as a speedy delete, but IMO did not qualify. i have remove the advertising tone, but what is left is a sub-stub. Delete. DES (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
As much as I love the browser, Firefox extensions are not encyclopedic. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article has problems: 0 hits on Google, 0 hits on a Norwegian search engine (even though he lived 100 years ago, you would expect to find something). Furthermore, the author has a dubious edit history, and he provided us with a number of non-working interwiki links to make the subject look notable. To summarize: Delete, hoax. Punkmorten 22:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I asked google and google laughed at me. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep, typoes as redirects are acceptable. Ral315 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Pointless redirect page. If we have this, why not other typoes? Why not all possible typoes for all pages? Khendon 19:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (G3). Physchim62 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Curious rant about "gold digging" women and sexually transmitted diseases. -- RHaworth 17:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
nn person spam, and Google seems to think little of him Ian 13 20:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 21:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Geogre performed the deletion. WikiFanatic 03:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to Accidents and incidents in aviation. — JIP | Talk 13:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
del events without articles are nonnotable. mikka (t) 04:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to Android16. - Splash talk 17:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is describing an event that could be easily described in the article it is linked from. The Hell's flash attack was apparently only used once. The specifics of this event don't seem deserving of an article. Also, there is only one article linking to this page. If necessary, that article could be modified to include this summary.-- Mihoshi 13:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A web site. The article presents no evidence of notability. dbenbenn | talk 01:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 04:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Even if the copyvio issue is fixed, I don't think that this book merits it's own entry. As far as I can tell, the author has one book published, and the first person tone of the entry suggests that either the entry was written by the author himself or was cut-and-pasted from elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the place to market your new book, regardless of how good it is. Jasmol 15:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete DES (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unverifiable. Probable hoax. Edwardian 07:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. This is an A1 and A3 (linkspam) speedy, and so the deleters have things heavily on their side. I am firmly discounting Hipocrite's comment: it is not an appropriate way to participate in AfD. I find Gateman1997 and Yuckfoo to have extremely weak positions having cited no reason at all for their recommendation. If either of them had put their article edits where their comments are, then things would clearly be different. Jtmichcock on the other hand at least has something to say. If Hipocrite wants a Deletion Review, s/he is free to request one himself. - Splash talk 04:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as an A7 (nn-bio) speedy delte, but IMO ther are at least arguable claims of notability here. Gets 42 google hits. Article looks like self-promotion. Indeed i ssupected a copyvio, but couldn't find an online source. Non-notable, not encyclopediac. Delete. DES (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
"Underground Cartoonist" with no claims of notability (and I can't find any buttressing evidence via google search). Likely a vanity page. A collaborator with the Anacostia Diaries blogger, whose article is also up for deletion. Anville 12:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, vanity/advertisement. This guy is a blogger, made a font, is his "Lifetime Achievement Award" some kind of plea for his notability? Skrewler 02:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, does every blogger need their own wiki article? Skrewler 02:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity article by anon user - EurekaLott 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as nn-bio and blanked by author. -- GraemeL (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Test, non-notable biography. Edwardian 07:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I am firmly discounting Hipocrite's comment again, and am pleased to see a similar one by another editor withdrawn. There are decent, if minimal, arguments made for retaining the content so there's no consensus to delete. Someone does need to fix the article and its title, though. - Splash talk 04:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax - no such footballer exists - see Google [18]. Author ( 129.67.63.12) has also added false information to Arsenal F.C. in order to justify this page's existence. Qwghlm 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was a tragic delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This young man's tragic death has gotten news coverage in the UK. He was, however, only a student, however sad his death. He was listed at Recent Deaths, where his listing was the subject of some argument. On the basis of the precedent of Ashley Burns, he has remained listed there, but now that a stub exists, I thought it should be brought. I am ambivalent about the subject personally, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was boldly redirected to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. BD2412 T 14:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable Star Wars article. -- WikiFanatic Talk Contribs 19:47, 15 November 2005 (CDT)
The result of the debate was keep, subject to review in a few months. - DS 16:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't see the value in this article. There is no information about her and apart from the tragic events of the murder it is NN. -- Kalsermar 19:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
KEEP - Since her actions were newsworthy, they are also wikiworthy.
The result of the debate was speedied, no assertion of notability. --
Phroziac(
talk)
03:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
Not notable, WP:Autobiography Dbchip 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 04:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, not notable, etc. gren グレン 22:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete advertisement. Edwardian 08:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus - default to keep 11 delete/ 3 redirect - Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 22:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The article itself mentions that several of the entries are based purely on popular hearsay. Non-comprehensive, and non-encylopedic. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 18:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 22:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a collective nomination for three "List of Catholics". Inclusion criteria are overly broad, and the faith of none of those people had an incfuence on their chosen profession. Pilatus 14:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not categorize members of the lists as Catholic unless they are prominent as followers of Catholicism. Are we going to categorize the entire cricket side of Bangladesh as Muslims, just because Bangladesh is a Muslim country? Pilatus 21:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
No reason to have this, seems like it'd only be used as anti-semetic fodder. Descendall 12:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. There is no particular support for the category suggestion, but someone can do that freely if they want to (you might need to request a temp undel). Whichever way I count things, there's more than two-thirds to delete, but I observe keep editors without any reason and another with paranoia. - Splash talk 04:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Finishing incomplete nomination Nandesuka 11:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty (cat scratches) 10:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete We don't even have a List of Recipients of the National Medal of Technology for god sakes StabRule 19:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Nominating for the same reasons as List of Jewish criminals, List of Jewish bankers, List of Jewish publishers, and so on. At their best, such lists are unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. There are, by my count, 24 subcategories similar to this under List of Jews. I'm not saying they should all be nominated right now -- I need to review them carefully -- but I think we should at least consider an omnibus AfD on this issue. Nandesuka 19:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this for the same reason the List of Catholic Athletes is up for deletion (see its AfD here).
Inclusion criteria are overly broad, and the faith of none of those people had an influence on their chosen profession. Pilatus 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Most of these, rather than being any sort of pun, are simply lame attacks on people. There are no references, no cites, and no reason to believe that this page will be anything but a dropping ground for whatever dumb nickname people come up with for the famous people they dislike. — Cleared as filed. 01:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Rename and ruthlessly purge and source. The POV explanations have to go, too. Matthew Brown 02:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I count something like 21d-15k, and serious disagreement. Those who gave no reason or whose reason was paranoia should consider themselves discounted from the debate. - Splash talk 04:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete So I suppose this is going to list all 1 billion Catholics, yea right. Delete on basis of utterly pointless lists. 65.9.112.108 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:NOT-"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." I've kind of worn myself too much in doing that, but keeping in that can be done. That said, I will put these lists in Category:Lists of Christians in case.-- T. Anthony 18:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 04:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This has no value as a navigation tool, and no useful commentary. It's hopelessly incomplete, demonstrates no trend, and has arbitrary inclusion criteria (why not 10 minutes? or 20? or 14?). This is listcruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Is there ANY possible use for this page? Seems like listcruft to me, right up there with List of songs recorded by a female artist who prefers flats to heels and List of music videos that were not recorded in Davenport but in an area that looks strikingly similar. Delete. -- InShaneee 20:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
List of terrorist incidents is an article consisting entirely of original research. Attempts have been made to cite sources and have failed. Labeling certain events "acts of terrorism" and labeling people responsible for the events "terrorists" simply because an editor wants it to be so is against Wikipedia policy.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Sounds to me like a non-notable character made of plasticine by some students. The page was originally at Loaf, so I moved it to Loaf (character) and added the AFD notice. Loaf now redirects to bread, as before. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 03:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I gues it shoulkd be deleted then...I really dont even know what I was doin I had no idea wikipedia was this strict about articles. I'm no professional writer or anything so yea this is pretty much just messing around. I was just bored and decided to immortalize Loaf on the internet. Whatever I dont have the patience to make this article perfect so...delete it I suppose.-- PureVai 03:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Punkmorten. — JIP | Talk 11:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as an A7 (nn-bio) speedy, but does not IMO quite qualify. However, does not seem notable enough for wikipedia. Delete. DES (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. The creator of the article finds this debate frivolous — but living with debate is part of knowing your article should survive. - Splash talk 04:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Is this guy really notable? I think this should redirect to 2005 Sony CD copy protection controversy. — Timwi 16:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 11:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as nn-bio. -- GraemeL (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The page seems like more of a vanity page than anything else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsmith_84 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 11:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D
ComCat
02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Metal Injection: a nonnotable video cast site - delete Spearhead 21:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Can't find evidence of this word being used as described on google. Seems like a vanity neologism to me. delete - CloudedIce 21:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was GARGLE TREE. - Splash talk 04:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Seabhcan as nonsense. -- GraemeL (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Dubious; cannot verify, perhaps a hoax. Jasmol 03:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Googling this word turned up nothing related. It appears that this is a vanity neologism. Delete. - CloudedIce 20:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Odelling is a neologism, but then so were many words we now accept as part of the standard vocabulary. Odelling is quickly becoming a regionalism. I believe the entry should stay and be expanded upon.-- Lady Erin 02:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Makes no claim of notability and I am unable to verify same as all sources appear to be in Taiwanese. A fair few mentions, but no way of telling if they apply to the subject or whether it is a generic or ambiguous term. I'm sure it would find a place on the Taiwanese Wikipedia, but in en.wikipedia I'd have to rate it unverifiable. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
minor game text consitsts of only a little more than a single link. Advertising. Zeimusu | Talk page 08:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 04:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is not an encyclopedia article, this is a memorial. The subject is not a notable person. He was involved in a notable event but does not merit an article himself.
It is right that victims should be listed somewhere but it does not expand anyone's knowledge about the attacks to know that one of the victims graduated from Joel Barlow High School in 1987.
There are similar articles for other non-notable people who died in the September 11, 2001 attacks for which the same could be said. Spondoolicks 15:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A poker blog is a blog about poker, so we need a whole article on it? Also, this violates wikipedias policy of no original research. Skrewler 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 04:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement or nonsense, I can't tell. But either way, it needs to go. -- Aurochs
The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 22:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef with no hope of expansion, bit of a neologism on the precise meaning (let's quote a work of fiction), could redirect to Supernatural or any number of real articles here DreamGuy 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
perhaps my edit will improve the much-needed disambig process. merge? redirect? i don't know: apologies for unfamiliarity with wikipedia protocols. jaqi, 19 nov 2005
Requesting to improve this seems ok to me, but trying to just outright delete it is nonsense. It's a word not used *that* often and in lieu of an improved explanation of the context this word might be used instead of 'supernatural' etc., this definition serves its purpose.
If you go deleting entire pages just because you didn't like how complete it was, how complete is that (much less). (unsigned comment by anon
User:65.219.108.116)
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 20:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable wikipediatrix 04:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy and deleted. - Mailer Diablo 23:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity article, created by User of the same name. I don't consider this architect sufficiently notable for inclusion, but didn't feel it quite met the speedy del criteria. UkPaolo 11:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Certainly would agree that not sufficiently notable at this point of time in the notable architects list and hence has been voluntarily deleted from the notable architect's list. Has maintained the article within the Indian architects category and linked to Indian people stub. Hope it is justified to be maintained in these categories.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Dare I say ... hoax? Nothing checks out, subtle attempt at humour. David | Talk 22:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research, gets a massive total of 1 Google hit. Invented meaning/hoax. Blackcap | talk 21:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This smells like a hoax. No pertinent Google hits for "Rufus Verghese" or "Tom Lensher" Fender. Pilatus 14:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as blank page, formerly biography of non-notable person. Capitalistroadster 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Request on the Helpdesk by the subject of the page, who considers this information to be of a personal nature. - Andre Engels 15:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. The first two "don't delete" votes are by users with contributions only to this article and its AfD, and the third has mainly such contributions. I also agree that Wikipedia is not a How-To. — JIP | Talk 20:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Game guide; does not belong in Wikipedia per point 8 of WP:NOT Jasmol 18:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable running club. ERcheck 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 12:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable, one sentence article Skrewler 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musicisan. Google search on name returns a plethora of results, no mention of his band. "Fragment of Infinity" return links to sermons and poems, "Sean Davey Fragment of Infinity" yields no results. Mylakovich 19:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge then delete the original articles. — Cleared as filed. 22:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Information is far too trivial. If really warranted, information could be merged into Ren and Stimpy. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
DELETE THIS!
The result of the debate was DELETE. All keep votes are by obvious sock puppets. Although all of them have user names in the signatures, none of them was added by the actual registered user. User:Tirod only has contributions to the Shaamans article, and User:Valou and User:Eddy17 don't even exist. — JIP | Talk 12:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I am from Réunion island and I can affirm that they are absolutely not reknowned. The article itself says that the band was created in 2004. By the way, the page has been deleted on French Wikipédia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thierry Caro ( talk • contribs) 02:03, November 16, 2005
Please note that the same IP voted "Keep" twice. One vote should not be accounted for. Of course, no attention should be paid to its first sentence. My proposal is neutral and my contributions valuable, at least I hope so... Thierry Caro 19:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Hall Monitor 22:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete obvious hoax. TheMidnighters 04:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all articles. - Mailer Diablo 23:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
These articles appear to be hoaxes. -- Tasty monster| Talk 07:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Per Wikipedia:Websites. Alexa rank of 17,448. Nothing links to the page. Page is nothing more than a description of the site, without any explanation of why it might be notable. Maccoinnich 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 17:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable for an encylopedia. news.google.com has a single hit about it, which is quite irrelevant. 198.129.217.154 11:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
There is no splenic cancer per se. InvictaHOG 02:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity page. I've never heard of him... -- WikiFanatic Talk Contribs
The result of the debate was No consensus - default to keep Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedied and protected as blatant copyvio by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Probably copyvio. Just the tip of an horrible iceberg: Southern Taiwan University of Technology (STUT) and College of Digital Design have been deleted and protected. But Lugee and 59.113.17.202 are reposting them and other STUT stuff under different titles. Someone please sort out this mess. -- RHaworth 00:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
First person advertising for a company making artificial gems. Was speedied in August. The person who reposted it today vandalised a couple of my pages first so I am allowing them an AfD debate to show them that it is not just my opinion. (Of course you may all vote "cleanup" - which would be equally OK.) -- RHaworth 07:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Article consists of the lyrics of a Norwegian anthem. Nothing else. Delete as non-encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 11:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable collection of films; '"tarbert hobbit"', 'tarbert "happy clan"' and '"Stuart Timmins" hobbit' all get zero google hits. - squibix 15:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity, fails WP:MUSIC -- anetode ╔╝ 12:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a review of the film (as so admitted by original editor in edit summary) and therefore original research. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied by Ingoolemo Ingoolemo talk 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research/hoax. Google turns up 41 mostly unrelated hits. Vandalism. Blackcap | talk 21:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
If this was about one person, I'd have speedied it. But, noo, it's a group, so we have to go through this. NN. Delete as quickly as possible. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Tragic, but not encyclopaedic. Pilatus 00:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (13/4).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, WP:Autobiography Dbchip 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition, move to Wiktionary and delete. -- Aurochs
The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I do not understand what this article is about, why it belongs to the section "Endurance sports" or "Literary stubs" as I find nothing literary about it. Manik Raina 14:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
While I fail to see the sense of the "Literary" stub (but somebody may- let him speak up now), I see no reason to dump any of the content, not even the literary slang I never heard about- one should never move to eliminate something because it fails to appeal to you, nor even if ou think must readers wouldn't care or it- an encyclopaedia is not meant to be readable 'from cover to cover' but as its etymology suggests to cover as much ground as reasonably possible (and our medium has the crucial advantage that it is not limited by the size and costs of every hard copy, unlike printed lexica). In the case of the competition, the very facts that an event sui generis persists for years and is made to subject of a lenghty foreign TV program indicate there clearly are people that can be interested in it. As I agree neither section is large enough to need a separate page (nor the whole page too long to read trough quickly), I wouldn't argue (yet?) for disambiguation either Fastifex 10:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
As nobody seems to find any sense in the 'literary' stub, and lack of animo for significant elaboration requires no sturring, I simply removed the mystery stub. However I read absolutely nothing that compells removing either of these items- if people delete anything they can't be bothered with, me demote Wikipedia from an alternative alongside professional encyclopaedias, abdicating the extras without a hope ever to approach the qualitative quasi-guarantee of a scientificaly edited one. Our time is far better spend contributing content, not bitching about every little bit that wouldn't make Britannica, which happily already exists (how absurd most articles from its free 1911 edition are still not being used, that alone would be superior occupational therapy for years!) Arcarius 18:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Tumwater, Washington. - Mailer Diablo 23:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delightfully poetic, but page at Tumwater, Washington already covers this and more. Alcon San Croix 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Self-promotion and vanity Timecop 12:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. Already in Wiktionary. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
University accomodation block. These have to be notable to be included. This one aint and is a badly formatted article full of student cruft. -- RHaworth 02:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
It pains me to have to vote against another YTMND page, and especially about such a great topic, but this doesn't really have any use on Wikipedia. I welcome Max to create his own Wiki (which I think would be awesome) or perhaps to host it on Wikicities. One issue I have with this article, however, is that the information contained in it could easily be found via a link from List of YTMND fads. Mys e ku rity 06:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
In response to your message to me upon the nomination of Ytmnd soundtrack for deletion, I had originally posted it as it's own article because it was not a part of YTMND or a YTMND fad, per-se. I do see your point in deleting it though, as it is a borderline vanity article (i helped distribute it, therefore i do have a bit of a vested interest in it). Would you say this information does not belong on wikipedia at all, or should i move it to the ytmnd fads article that you had highlited for me? |
- Mys e ku rity 04:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 01:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Advert material, much of which is reproduced from the product's site. No demonstration of any particular notability either. cjllw | TALK 08:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band; no entry in All Music Guide. Jasmol 05:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Absolute threshold of hearing. Clearly not deleting outright, but obviously not keeping the content. - Splash talk 04:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Posted all in one shot by an anon editor who has not responded to a request for sources. Not one reference or source, no names of a single book or album despite claims of being a prolific artist, no links, no google hits. This looks like a hoax to me, but I dedided to put it here instead of speedy deleting it in case I am wrong. Gamaliel 18:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Self-promotion and vanity of an unknown blog author. Timecop 11:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was kind of a consensus to delete, but on the other hand there are suggestions here to redirect this to Tri-Cities, Virginia. I have looked at that article and the heading there says "also known as ... the Appomattox Basin". I am calling this a redirect there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This region is part of the Richmond-Petersburg region ( Richmond VA MSA) which already has an article. The Tri-Cities, Virginia article has significantly more information and covers the same geographic area. MPS 18:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a Wikipedia:POV fork of the evolution page written from the original research perspective of User:Ed_Poor. As such, this article does not belong in Wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 18:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN. No non-wikipedia hits. Descendall 11:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Balle Klorin was the name of a comedy show character in 70's Norway. There is no article on the actor who played him, so nowhere to redirect to. Punkmorten 21:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Advert for a shareware game. Most google results seem to be automatically generated download page mirrors. -- W.marsh 15:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 22:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable neologism... some kind of fratcruft it seems. -- W.marsh 16:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Orphaned Vanity article of a guy whose only claim to fame is writing for a website with an Alexa rank of 402,376. -- W.marsh 18:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Absolutely reads like a joke at the moment. Possibly an insult page if we knew who "Bella" is. The main problem is that I can't verify that this an actual disorder, checking with Google [4] (and other search terms) and my old Abnormal Psychology textbook. Thus it seems unverifiable. -- W.marsh 19:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. gren グレン 23:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable... the few results for "Ben Rongey" are just results of high school athletic events. The article seems to be a joke/hoax of some sort. -- W.marsh 23:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Vote count, for those interested is 12d-8k. But has anyone considered merging this somewhere? The article looks really stubby. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable schoolcruft. Apart from the table, the article's empty, so apparently even the author doesn't think it's all that notable. -- Aurochs
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bar in Croydon - I've been there and there are dozens like it within a mile, let alone in London as a whole. Mtiedemann 14:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to List of blogging terms. Deletion was the overwhelming consensus, but the redirect is not harmful and gives basically the same effect without loss of history. Friday (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable concept/dicdef Skrewler 09:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cel es tianpower háblame 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, some participants on one single web site use this protologism. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there is nothing whatsoever written on the subject of blopping which can be used as source material for an encyclopaedia article about it, partly because the word's only properly attested meaning is something completely different: spluttering. (See Krister LINDEN and Jussi PIITULAINEN (2004-05-31). "Discovering Synonyms and Other Related Words" (PDF). CompuTerm 2004 — 3rd International Workshop on Computational Terminology.).
This article is at the wrong title, per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), this meaning for this verb is a protologism, and there's apparently nothing to write about what blopping actually is. Uncle G 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Plutor. — JIP | Talk 08:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The page covers nothing about the movie, and the grammar/spelling is atrocious. It's not even long enough to be considered an article. 68.61.255.12 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A disambig page with a bunch of redlinks that don't seem notable smacks of a directory more than something that's encyclopedic. WP:NOT a directory. -- Locke Cole 02:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable. Neither of these alleged islands appears in any other standard reference works, such as the CIA World Factbook. There are no mentions of East Saarling Island, an alleged insular area of the United States, on any US government websites. The "map" of East Saarling Island looks like something I could have created using Photoshop. Both articles were created at about the same time and the users appear to be the same (although one was created using an IP address and the other using a newly-created user id). -- Russ Blau (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Sad but WP:NOT a memorial. Delete -- Jaranda( watz sup) 18:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Gamaliel 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax associated with Scott Chuss (also on Afd). Though linked to Gigli, IMDB shows no cast member by this name. JLaTondre 16:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I, the nominator, am nominating this page for DELETION for the following reasons:
IMO, this article has no value and should be deleted in short order. [[ Briguy52748 20:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)]] reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Foreign language mispellings in English are not appropriate as redirects. - Splash talk 04:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
'Crase' is a misspelling. It is the Portuguese word for 'Crasis'. Whoever wrote this entry must not have been aware of that. I have created a new stub for 'Crasis', which I have also defined more accurately and generally. I have also edited the old link to 'Crase' in the entry on the 'Grave Accent', which now directs to 'Crasis'. 193.136.232.3 12:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied, no assertion of notability. brenneman (t) (c) 06:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Bio of non-notable grade 12 student Dlyons493 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP, and move to correct spelling. Not knowing which of the two titles is more appropriate, I'll move it to Positive political theory since the rewrite chooses that as the first words of the article and create a redirect at Explanatory.... Anyone will be able to move over the redirect without being an admin, if they think the other title is better - Splash talk 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Near-contentless and two words in the article title misspelled. I'm not sure a properly spelled version would grow any larger; I leave that to AfD's discretion. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, UE. Consists of nothing more than the synopsis of the game from the maker's webpage. Apparantly not even the proper name of the game. Descendall 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity, as per WP:MUSIC. -- Aurochs
The result of the debate was that there's some things in life money can't buy, for everything else there's BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
UE nonsense, delete. ComCat 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable local pub. This was tagged as a speedy delete, but IMO did not qualify. i have remove the advertising tone, but what is left is a sub-stub. Delete. DES (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
As much as I love the browser, Firefox extensions are not encyclopedic. -- howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article has problems: 0 hits on Google, 0 hits on a Norwegian search engine (even though he lived 100 years ago, you would expect to find something). Furthermore, the author has a dubious edit history, and he provided us with a number of non-working interwiki links to make the subject look notable. To summarize: Delete, hoax. Punkmorten 22:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I asked google and google laughed at me. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep, typoes as redirects are acceptable. Ral315 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Pointless redirect page. If we have this, why not other typoes? Why not all possible typoes for all pages? Khendon 19:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (G3). Physchim62 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Curious rant about "gold digging" women and sexually transmitted diseases. -- RHaworth 17:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
nn person spam, and Google seems to think little of him Ian 13 20:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 21:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Geogre performed the deletion. WikiFanatic 03:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to Accidents and incidents in aviation. — JIP | Talk 13:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
del events without articles are nonnotable. mikka (t) 04:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to Android16. - Splash talk 17:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is describing an event that could be easily described in the article it is linked from. The Hell's flash attack was apparently only used once. The specifics of this event don't seem deserving of an article. Also, there is only one article linking to this page. If necessary, that article could be modified to include this summary.-- Mihoshi 13:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A web site. The article presents no evidence of notability. dbenbenn | talk 01:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 04:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Even if the copyvio issue is fixed, I don't think that this book merits it's own entry. As far as I can tell, the author has one book published, and the first person tone of the entry suggests that either the entry was written by the author himself or was cut-and-pasted from elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the place to market your new book, regardless of how good it is. Jasmol 15:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete DES (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unverifiable. Probable hoax. Edwardian 07:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. This is an A1 and A3 (linkspam) speedy, and so the deleters have things heavily on their side. I am firmly discounting Hipocrite's comment: it is not an appropriate way to participate in AfD. I find Gateman1997 and Yuckfoo to have extremely weak positions having cited no reason at all for their recommendation. If either of them had put their article edits where their comments are, then things would clearly be different. Jtmichcock on the other hand at least has something to say. If Hipocrite wants a Deletion Review, s/he is free to request one himself. - Splash talk 04:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as an A7 (nn-bio) speedy delte, but IMO ther are at least arguable claims of notability here. Gets 42 google hits. Article looks like self-promotion. Indeed i ssupected a copyvio, but couldn't find an online source. Non-notable, not encyclopediac. Delete. DES (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
"Underground Cartoonist" with no claims of notability (and I can't find any buttressing evidence via google search). Likely a vanity page. A collaborator with the Anacostia Diaries blogger, whose article is also up for deletion. Anville 12:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, vanity/advertisement. This guy is a blogger, made a font, is his "Lifetime Achievement Award" some kind of plea for his notability? Skrewler 02:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, does every blogger need their own wiki article? Skrewler 02:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity article by anon user - EurekaLott 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as nn-bio and blanked by author. -- GraemeL (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Test, non-notable biography. Edwardian 07:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I am firmly discounting Hipocrite's comment again, and am pleased to see a similar one by another editor withdrawn. There are decent, if minimal, arguments made for retaining the content so there's no consensus to delete. Someone does need to fix the article and its title, though. - Splash talk 04:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax - no such footballer exists - see Google [18]. Author ( 129.67.63.12) has also added false information to Arsenal F.C. in order to justify this page's existence. Qwghlm 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was a tragic delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This young man's tragic death has gotten news coverage in the UK. He was, however, only a student, however sad his death. He was listed at Recent Deaths, where his listing was the subject of some argument. On the basis of the precedent of Ashley Burns, he has remained listed there, but now that a stub exists, I thought it should be brought. I am ambivalent about the subject personally, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was boldly redirected to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. BD2412 T 14:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable Star Wars article. -- WikiFanatic Talk Contribs 19:47, 15 November 2005 (CDT)
The result of the debate was keep, subject to review in a few months. - DS 16:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't see the value in this article. There is no information about her and apart from the tragic events of the murder it is NN. -- Kalsermar 19:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
KEEP - Since her actions were newsworthy, they are also wikiworthy.
The result of the debate was speedied, no assertion of notability. --
Phroziac(
talk)
03:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
Not notable, WP:Autobiography Dbchip 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 04:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, not notable, etc. gren グレン 22:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete advertisement. Edwardian 08:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus - default to keep 11 delete/ 3 redirect - Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 22:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The article itself mentions that several of the entries are based purely on popular hearsay. Non-comprehensive, and non-encylopedic. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 18:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 22:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a collective nomination for three "List of Catholics". Inclusion criteria are overly broad, and the faith of none of those people had an incfuence on their chosen profession. Pilatus 14:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not categorize members of the lists as Catholic unless they are prominent as followers of Catholicism. Are we going to categorize the entire cricket side of Bangladesh as Muslims, just because Bangladesh is a Muslim country? Pilatus 21:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
No reason to have this, seems like it'd only be used as anti-semetic fodder. Descendall 12:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. There is no particular support for the category suggestion, but someone can do that freely if they want to (you might need to request a temp undel). Whichever way I count things, there's more than two-thirds to delete, but I observe keep editors without any reason and another with paranoia. - Splash talk 04:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Finishing incomplete nomination Nandesuka 11:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty (cat scratches) 10:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete We don't even have a List of Recipients of the National Medal of Technology for god sakes StabRule 19:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Nominating for the same reasons as List of Jewish criminals, List of Jewish bankers, List of Jewish publishers, and so on. At their best, such lists are unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. There are, by my count, 24 subcategories similar to this under List of Jews. I'm not saying they should all be nominated right now -- I need to review them carefully -- but I think we should at least consider an omnibus AfD on this issue. Nandesuka 19:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this for the same reason the List of Catholic Athletes is up for deletion (see its AfD here).
Inclusion criteria are overly broad, and the faith of none of those people had an influence on their chosen profession. Pilatus 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Most of these, rather than being any sort of pun, are simply lame attacks on people. There are no references, no cites, and no reason to believe that this page will be anything but a dropping ground for whatever dumb nickname people come up with for the famous people they dislike. — Cleared as filed. 01:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Rename and ruthlessly purge and source. The POV explanations have to go, too. Matthew Brown 02:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I count something like 21d-15k, and serious disagreement. Those who gave no reason or whose reason was paranoia should consider themselves discounted from the debate. - Splash talk 04:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete So I suppose this is going to list all 1 billion Catholics, yea right. Delete on basis of utterly pointless lists. 65.9.112.108 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
From WP:NOT-"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." I've kind of worn myself too much in doing that, but keeping in that can be done. That said, I will put these lists in Category:Lists of Christians in case.-- T. Anthony 18:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 04:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This has no value as a navigation tool, and no useful commentary. It's hopelessly incomplete, demonstrates no trend, and has arbitrary inclusion criteria (why not 10 minutes? or 20? or 14?). This is listcruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Is there ANY possible use for this page? Seems like listcruft to me, right up there with List of songs recorded by a female artist who prefers flats to heels and List of music videos that were not recorded in Davenport but in an area that looks strikingly similar. Delete. -- InShaneee 20:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
List of terrorist incidents is an article consisting entirely of original research. Attempts have been made to cite sources and have failed. Labeling certain events "acts of terrorism" and labeling people responsible for the events "terrorists" simply because an editor wants it to be so is against Wikipedia policy.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Sounds to me like a non-notable character made of plasticine by some students. The page was originally at Loaf, so I moved it to Loaf (character) and added the AFD notice. Loaf now redirects to bread, as before. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 03:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I gues it shoulkd be deleted then...I really dont even know what I was doin I had no idea wikipedia was this strict about articles. I'm no professional writer or anything so yea this is pretty much just messing around. I was just bored and decided to immortalize Loaf on the internet. Whatever I dont have the patience to make this article perfect so...delete it I suppose.-- PureVai 03:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Punkmorten. — JIP | Talk 11:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged as an A7 (nn-bio) speedy, but does not IMO quite qualify. However, does not seem notable enough for wikipedia. Delete. DES (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. The creator of the article finds this debate frivolous — but living with debate is part of knowing your article should survive. - Splash talk 04:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Is this guy really notable? I think this should redirect to 2005 Sony CD copy protection controversy. — Timwi 16:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 11:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as nn-bio. -- GraemeL (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The page seems like more of a vanity page than anything else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsmith_84 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 11:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D
ComCat
02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Metal Injection: a nonnotable video cast site - delete Spearhead 21:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Can't find evidence of this word being used as described on google. Seems like a vanity neologism to me. delete - CloudedIce 21:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was GARGLE TREE. - Splash talk 04:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Seabhcan as nonsense. -- GraemeL (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Dubious; cannot verify, perhaps a hoax. Jasmol 03:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Googling this word turned up nothing related. It appears that this is a vanity neologism. Delete. - CloudedIce 20:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Odelling is a neologism, but then so were many words we now accept as part of the standard vocabulary. Odelling is quickly becoming a regionalism. I believe the entry should stay and be expanded upon.-- Lady Erin 02:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Makes no claim of notability and I am unable to verify same as all sources appear to be in Taiwanese. A fair few mentions, but no way of telling if they apply to the subject or whether it is a generic or ambiguous term. I'm sure it would find a place on the Taiwanese Wikipedia, but in en.wikipedia I'd have to rate it unverifiable. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] (W) AfD? 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
minor game text consitsts of only a little more than a single link. Advertising. Zeimusu | Talk page 08:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 04:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is not an encyclopedia article, this is a memorial. The subject is not a notable person. He was involved in a notable event but does not merit an article himself.
It is right that victims should be listed somewhere but it does not expand anyone's knowledge about the attacks to know that one of the victims graduated from Joel Barlow High School in 1987.
There are similar articles for other non-notable people who died in the September 11, 2001 attacks for which the same could be said. Spondoolicks 15:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
A poker blog is a blog about poker, so we need a whole article on it? Also, this violates wikipedias policy of no original research. Skrewler 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 04:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement or nonsense, I can't tell. But either way, it needs to go. -- Aurochs
The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 22:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef with no hope of expansion, bit of a neologism on the precise meaning (let's quote a work of fiction), could redirect to Supernatural or any number of real articles here DreamGuy 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
perhaps my edit will improve the much-needed disambig process. merge? redirect? i don't know: apologies for unfamiliarity with wikipedia protocols. jaqi, 19 nov 2005
Requesting to improve this seems ok to me, but trying to just outright delete it is nonsense. It's a word not used *that* often and in lieu of an improved explanation of the context this word might be used instead of 'supernatural' etc., this definition serves its purpose.
If you go deleting entire pages just because you didn't like how complete it was, how complete is that (much less). (unsigned comment by anon
User:65.219.108.116)
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 20:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable wikipediatrix 04:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy and deleted. - Mailer Diablo 23:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity article, created by User of the same name. I don't consider this architect sufficiently notable for inclusion, but didn't feel it quite met the speedy del criteria. UkPaolo 11:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Certainly would agree that not sufficiently notable at this point of time in the notable architects list and hence has been voluntarily deleted from the notable architect's list. Has maintained the article within the Indian architects category and linked to Indian people stub. Hope it is justified to be maintained in these categories.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Dare I say ... hoax? Nothing checks out, subtle attempt at humour. David | Talk 22:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research, gets a massive total of 1 Google hit. Invented meaning/hoax. Blackcap | talk 21:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This smells like a hoax. No pertinent Google hits for "Rufus Verghese" or "Tom Lensher" Fender. Pilatus 14:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as blank page, formerly biography of non-notable person. Capitalistroadster 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Request on the Helpdesk by the subject of the page, who considers this information to be of a personal nature. - Andre Engels 15:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. The first two "don't delete" votes are by users with contributions only to this article and its AfD, and the third has mainly such contributions. I also agree that Wikipedia is not a How-To. — JIP | Talk 20:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Game guide; does not belong in Wikipedia per point 8 of WP:NOT Jasmol 18:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable running club. ERcheck 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 12:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable, one sentence article Skrewler 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musicisan. Google search on name returns a plethora of results, no mention of his band. "Fragment of Infinity" return links to sermons and poems, "Sean Davey Fragment of Infinity" yields no results. Mylakovich 19:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge then delete the original articles. — Cleared as filed. 22:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Information is far too trivial. If really warranted, information could be merged into Ren and Stimpy. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
DELETE THIS!
The result of the debate was DELETE. All keep votes are by obvious sock puppets. Although all of them have user names in the signatures, none of them was added by the actual registered user. User:Tirod only has contributions to the Shaamans article, and User:Valou and User:Eddy17 don't even exist. — JIP | Talk 12:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I am from Réunion island and I can affirm that they are absolutely not reknowned. The article itself says that the band was created in 2004. By the way, the page has been deleted on French Wikipédia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thierry Caro ( talk • contribs) 02:03, November 16, 2005
Please note that the same IP voted "Keep" twice. One vote should not be accounted for. Of course, no attention should be paid to its first sentence. My proposal is neutral and my contributions valuable, at least I hope so... Thierry Caro 19:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Hall Monitor 22:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete obvious hoax. TheMidnighters 04:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all articles. - Mailer Diablo 23:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
These articles appear to be hoaxes. -- Tasty monster| Talk 07:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Per Wikipedia:Websites. Alexa rank of 17,448. Nothing links to the page. Page is nothing more than a description of the site, without any explanation of why it might be notable. Maccoinnich 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 17:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable for an encylopedia. news.google.com has a single hit about it, which is quite irrelevant. 198.129.217.154 11:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
There is no splenic cancer per se. InvictaHOG 02:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
nn vanity page. I've never heard of him... -- WikiFanatic Talk Contribs
The result of the debate was No consensus - default to keep Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 00:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, D ComCat 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedied and protected as blatant copyvio by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Probably copyvio. Just the tip of an horrible iceberg: Southern Taiwan University of Technology (STUT) and College of Digital Design have been deleted and protected. But Lugee and 59.113.17.202 are reposting them and other STUT stuff under different titles. Someone please sort out this mess. -- RHaworth 00:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
First person advertising for a company making artificial gems. Was speedied in August. The person who reposted it today vandalised a couple of my pages first so I am allowing them an AfD debate to show them that it is not just my opinion. (Of course you may all vote "cleanup" - which would be equally OK.) -- RHaworth 07:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Article consists of the lyrics of a Norwegian anthem. Nothing else. Delete as non-encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 11:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable collection of films; '"tarbert hobbit"', 'tarbert "happy clan"' and '"Stuart Timmins" hobbit' all get zero google hits. - squibix 15:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity, fails WP:MUSIC -- anetode ╔╝ 12:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a review of the film (as so admitted by original editor in edit summary) and therefore original research. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied by Ingoolemo Ingoolemo talk 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research/hoax. Google turns up 41 mostly unrelated hits. Vandalism. Blackcap | talk 21:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
If this was about one person, I'd have speedied it. But, noo, it's a group, so we have to go through this. NN. Delete as quickly as possible. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Tragic, but not encyclopaedic. Pilatus 00:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (13/4).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, WP:Autobiography Dbchip 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition, move to Wiktionary and delete. -- Aurochs
The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC) reply
I do not understand what this article is about, why it belongs to the section "Endurance sports" or "Literary stubs" as I find nothing literary about it. Manik Raina 14:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
While I fail to see the sense of the "Literary" stub (but somebody may- let him speak up now), I see no reason to dump any of the content, not even the literary slang I never heard about- one should never move to eliminate something because it fails to appeal to you, nor even if ou think must readers wouldn't care or it- an encyclopaedia is not meant to be readable 'from cover to cover' but as its etymology suggests to cover as much ground as reasonably possible (and our medium has the crucial advantage that it is not limited by the size and costs of every hard copy, unlike printed lexica). In the case of the competition, the very facts that an event sui generis persists for years and is made to subject of a lenghty foreign TV program indicate there clearly are people that can be interested in it. As I agree neither section is large enough to need a separate page (nor the whole page too long to read trough quickly), I wouldn't argue (yet?) for disambiguation either Fastifex 10:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply
As nobody seems to find any sense in the 'literary' stub, and lack of animo for significant elaboration requires no sturring, I simply removed the mystery stub. However I read absolutely nothing that compells removing either of these items- if people delete anything they can't be bothered with, me demote Wikipedia from an alternative alongside professional encyclopaedias, abdicating the extras without a hope ever to approach the qualitative quasi-guarantee of a scientificaly edited one. Our time is far better spend contributing content, not bitching about every little bit that wouldn't make Britannica, which happily already exists (how absurd most articles from its free 1911 edition are still not being used, that alone would be superior occupational therapy for years!) Arcarius 18:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Tumwater, Washington. - Mailer Diablo 23:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Delightfully poetic, but page at Tumwater, Washington already covers this and more. Alcon San Croix 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Self-promotion and vanity Timecop 12:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. Already in Wiktionary. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
University accomodation block. These have to be notable to be included. This one aint and is a badly formatted article full of student cruft. -- RHaworth 02:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC) reply
It pains me to have to vote against another YTMND page, and especially about such a great topic, but this doesn't really have any use on Wikipedia. I welcome Max to create his own Wiki (which I think would be awesome) or perhaps to host it on Wikicities. One issue I have with this article, however, is that the information contained in it could easily be found via a link from List of YTMND fads. Mys e ku rity 06:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC) reply
In response to your message to me upon the nomination of Ytmnd soundtrack for deletion, I had originally posted it as it's own article because it was not a part of YTMND or a YTMND fad, per-se. I do see your point in deleting it though, as it is a borderline vanity article (i helped distribute it, therefore i do have a bit of a vested interest in it). Would you say this information does not belong on wikipedia at all, or should i move it to the ytmnd fads article that you had highlited for me? |
- Mys e ku rity 04:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply