< October 21 | October 23 > |
---|
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!?) 06:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable: 1 Google hit that may or may not be the same outfit. Mwanner | Talk 14:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nonsense. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This one is strange... It's obviously not a real reasonable subject for an article, so I was going to merge it with 20th Century Fox. But the slogans include 1940: "We Get Hard", 1945: "We're Getting Round", 1960: "Never Our Way to Go". They seem really unlikely, and they get no Google hits. If anyone thinks they're for real, by all means, merge. (PS, the same anon has written four other equally strange articles, all within 20 minutes on Oct 9. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Chickety China the chinese chicken
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This must be a hoax. There's no evidence supporting the release of this album. -- Maitch 23:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef (if that) Flapdragon 20:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to delete text of Pokemon-related article. Keep recently created "possible replacement article" on abandoned ships in games in general, as no deletion debate occurred on that topic or content. Snowspinner 06:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. — RaD Man ( talk) 06:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Page is filled with nonsense, I am not a student at the institution so I can't cleanup the article, if anyone has accurate information about the school, please consider cleaning up the article. Miguelfp1 14:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Subject is not particularly notable, except for who she gave birth to. Copied from genealogy webpages. Missi 05:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Yet another fantasy team and likely vanity article, though in this case the author fails to even spell the name correctly. Chris talk back 17:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. R adiant _>|< 00:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn character in a video game Delete -- JAranda | watz sup 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
While there has been much ink spilled about AMD and Intel, I don't see how this article could be developed neutrally, benchmarks tend biased. Additionally there are many strong competitors in any marketplace, do each of those need to be listed? Ford vs GM, Microsoft vs Apple -- Reflex Reaction 16:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No real information and it looks like spam. Andreww 02:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
and Pryor is a notable comedian. Capitalistroadster 04:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (4 deletes, 1 keep).-- Scimitar parley 18:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable guy who runs a blog and is starting up a web-site. delete. — Gaff ταλκ 23:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nom&vote delete. Non-notable young digital artist with very few works in his profile and very few references to his works in the media as evidenced by poor turn-up on google search. — Gaff ταλκ 23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Fails Google test [4]. Delete. utcursch | talk 13:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
None notable webcomic, whose site seems to be down, here. A google search reveals nothing to assert notability, the top link is of some other entity named animetronic. Hahnchen 16:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I believe it to be advertising, discovered it under DotCom People category which was inappropriate and under many other inappropriate categories. From the history it appears to be the work of one user apart from some minor corrections. Not encyclopedic Jamesmorrison 21:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity, fails WP:MUSIC (demo in progres). Chris talk back 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now.
MuthuKutty's comment on tagging the article was "suspicious article, cannot find anything on Google. Wikified." What I found was this forum thread in Chinese. Scroll down to the 09-10-2005 20:12 post and we find the first half of the article, posted by the author of the paper whose abstract it is. So I'm going to call this a weak delete, not-yet notable. — Cryptic (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (5k, 2d, 1m), with a bunch of sock-puppet votes discounted.-- Scimitar parley 18:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
As much as I love the series, do we really need to have a page on here about the ship? We already have pages for every single ship that ever appeared for more then two frames of film in Star Trek or Star Wars, are we going to have pages for every single ship that ever appeared in Galactica too? Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 18:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (only vote). - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to be notable. The "great works" mentioned at the bottom only get one google hit each, the Wikipedia article... Thue | talk 20:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It seems to be a contrived term. -- Mysidia ( talk) 15:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a video game strategy book. -- Mysidia ( talk) 16:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
plus a redirect ( RHaworth 04:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)) reply
Doesn't meet definition of notability at WP:MUSIC Tempshill 23:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
KEEP. Binary Star is one of the single most important acts of the Midwest. They performed with Eminem many times and have a huge following. They, along with their lead MC OneBeLo, are one of the single highest selling acts among acts with independent distribution. They've been offered many major record deals, but choose to stay with their home base. They are simply too important a name in hip hop to be deleted. Frank Longo 03:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle; In addition, the wikimarkup source content of the article is incorrigible, with <p>'s everywhere. -- Mysidia ( talk) 16:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. -- Mysidia ( talk) 17:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. -- Mysidia ( talk) 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It seems to be a contrived term; no dictionary listing, 2 google hits. -- Mysidia ( talk) 23:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Charles Matthews as nn-bio. -- GraemeL (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a personal essay on a robot from Robot Wars. -- Carnildo 06:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable advertising for somebody wanting to become a porn star. Internet porn site advert. delete. — Gaff ταλκ 02:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this non-notable webcomic, defunct after only a year and a half (Dec. 2003 - June 2005). It has no Alexa ranking at all. A Google search reveals only 112 results, most of which seem to involve an unrelated Australian city with a horse racing track. Article itself makes no claim of notability, explaining only that this is a defunct webcomic with an author and some characters. Dragonfiend 19:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (2k, 1r, 1m).-- Scimitar parley 18:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This artice contains no new information, all information in the main Flat Earth Society Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.129.114 ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was redirected to Age of Apocalypse. This article has no useful content, and that article already mentions this (minor, alternate-universe) character. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 08:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
An X-Men storylines stub. Fubar Obfusco considered it "nonsense?". R. fiend deleted it. I consider it a valid stub and have restored it. -- RHaworth 02:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, one sentence + an external link for a company = spam in my book. — Cryptic (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Supposedly A lesser known of the large film studios. I can't make sense of it, but unknown to google spells hoax to me. -- JJay 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research +/- neologism. Ifnord 11:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep rewritten version. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. The reasons that I'm nominating this page for deletion is because it seems more of an advertisement by EXCLUSIVE WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT, then an article. NPOV, Fax Numbers, e-mail and newspaper reviews Tony the Marine 15:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This music of Puerto Rico article indicates that she is fairly significant in their music industry. [9] This Latin Beat magazine article states that she has performed overseas including in France [10]. In my view, she is notable enough under WP:music but this article is of little value in its current state. I would vote to keep a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 10:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
NN neologism. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A trolling attack on Wikipedia. Only one tiny nugget of information keeps this from being speedied, which is that it references a supposed method of trapping monkeys that has seen extensive usage over many decades as a metaphorical figure. However, this article does not cover the metaphorical usage (except employing to insult Wikipedia) and does not provide any citation for it as alleged fact. There is nothing here worth saving. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4 Google hits suggests this is not a real team. Chris talk back 17:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The text of the article is about one brand of beer, not Costa Rican beer in general. It reads like an advertisement, at that. The beer could be mentioned at Imperial#Things_and_Products, but this article should be deleted or replaced with one about beers and brewing in Costa Rica. -- Super Aardvark 19:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Cross-country equestrianism. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
OR, basic duplicate of Cross-country equestrianism User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be an alternative cosmogony created by the article's author. A Google search yeilds one hit -- a Web forum discussion where the author apparently first posted his ideas last year. The article's author and only editor has no other pages to his credit. See the Talk page for details. Shouldn't this article be moved to Wikibooks, at the very least? Ahasuerus 01:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Kmarinas86 10:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)The article Cyclic Multiverse Theory was copied into Wikibooks (page not book): http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cyclic_Multiverse_Theory reply
-- Kmarinas86 17:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Psuedoscience... ok, because I am not able to come up with actual data of my own. that's why I resort to proposing certain things in order to explain present day cosmological problems - without doing mathematics i'm not capable of, eventhough I find mathematics relatively easy. I don't see how it would become psuedo science just because it's new or presents an alternative. But I think it may be psuedoscience in any case, if no one accepts it. Or perhaps because its pseudoscience, it's not accepted. Is that almost the entirety of the criteria? It appears that's how the word psuedoscience is used. No matter the degree of it, I suppose most believe it requires "no explanation" other than that it is "original research" with no credentialed scientists involved, nor interpreted at the time of a real experiment's completion, making it "psuedoscience"..... reply
-- Kmarinas86 18:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Never mind my madness... I'm going to move it to http://academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page reply
-- 24.167.40.92 20:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)The problem is that the experiments that would have verified, parts, of it have already been done. My hypothesis so for is to be compatible with that knowledge, as if the hypothesis were decided before the experiment was done (and verified in this sense). Experiments, for example, include those about: Redshift of Distant Galaxies, Missing Mass Problem, and the Nature of Distant Galaxies. reply
-- 24.167.40.92 20:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)However, I know that not all of it is proven yet, and some of it is not provable or disprovable, yet. So is it conjecture? Yes, because some of the things it predicts haven't been seen yet. It is it a theory? It "predicts" a few things which have already shown to be the case - but that was after the fact. I haven't discovered all of its predictions though. So with time, I may be able to find more ways as to how this can be verified or debunked. reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, mostly links to author's web site Neier 11:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. While they may go far eventually, the only google hit I got was their myspace page. Delete.-- Syrthiss 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
There is also a record label of the same name which is far more present in the music industry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.66.141 ( talk) 22:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep and move to Ian Duffell. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Clearly NN. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Article gives no assertion of notability other than simply "being the wife of".
Aecis 20:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC) After MacRusgail's excellent additions to this article, I change my vote to keep. If it is possible, I would like to withdraw the nomination.
Aecis 21:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article does not make any sense to me. IMHO I don't think anybody uses the term energy spectrum in such a sense. In my opinion, energy spectrum is synonym for frequency spectrum (due to E=hν. However I am not sure that someone in some applied science does not use this term. This is the reason I didn't directly redirect this. If nobody clear this I will. Vb 09:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
An Academic Search Premier search for the term in academic papers came up with just under 1500 references. It seems that this term is in wide usage in the scientific community. 17:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I believe this article is based on facts. -- User talk:80.58.6.235 (the user that has been constantly adding nonsense to the Ephraim Ben-Uri article, as well as vandalising this page and my personal page. -- Dan East 20:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)) reply
I have submitted this article as a candidate for deletion because the article does not assert the importance of this individual. -- Dan East 21:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I've had to add the deletion template back, as it was reverted. This article is complete garbage. Take a look at the history. It did refer to an individual that was supposed to be a general, and had various activities up to the current date. Now the article is supposed to refer to someone who was killed at the age of 19, back in 1986, and who was honored by Reagan. I believe the entire article is pure fabrication. I cannot find any information whatsoever about Ephraim Ben-Uri via Google either. -- Dan East 03:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Either a test or nonsense in all revisions. - Splash talk 04:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor website...I think. Article begins EvolutionArt is both an article on the Wikipedia site, and a web-based art installation. The wiki architecture of the site means that the article can be added to, edited and reinterpreted by anyone' and then morphs into a short rambling philisophical treatise. Joyous (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Google shoots blanks, thus this supposed fish is a Hoax. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A reasonably new webcomic, found here. It's 17 user forum can be found here. No assertion of notability in the article, or can be found on google. - Hahnchen 18:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Joy Stovall as attack/A7. -- GraemeL (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax, vanity or both Naturenet | Talk 16:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Very little content; apparently created and vandalised moments later by the same user -- Gurch 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R adiant _>|< 00:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable church MacRusgail 19:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to McAfee. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This seems to be little more than a buisness card. Tom harrison 22:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This sure looks like a vanity page to me, Maybe I dont know any thing about the FSU 'gang' but I cant see any relevance Bedel23 09:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is a hoax. There are no references in either of the WWE's Tag-Team Championships of these guys winning the belts and no references of these guys ever existing elsewhere. I made a further study and noticed the author of this article also placed a link to this on the Knox Grammar School article, which was later removed by suspicion a few months back. -- Oakster 15:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
"small local band" whose CD may well not be released, according to article itself MacRusgail 17:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page with no assertion of any notability. User has removed a {{ userfy}} tag once already.
KEEP IT I don't understand why you want to delete this page.The guy is PERFECT! and above all he is a VERY GOOD scientist! Have u seen the links? For God Shake. I think you are jealus! Userfy and delete -- Tabor 16:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
tautology, just a link to a commercial site. GTBacchus 18:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It recieves no Google hits at all and so I dont believe that the conlanguage exists. Also, the information is not referenced. (Note that this is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion) -- AMorris (talk)● (contribs) 07:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page, written by editor who claims [16] to be its subject. Unusual writing style: see article. Regarding notability: 300 Google hits for subject, of which all of those I have reviewed so far appear, by writing style or contributor name, to be his own press releases and postings to various Internet forums. Delete -- The Anome 10:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fanfic that hasn't even been completed yet. Delete. H e rmione 1980 01:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Helsinki University of Technology. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Misspelled and summarized version of Helsinki University of Technology Neier 10:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, hardly any context. Naturenet | Talk 17:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was (presumed speedy as AfD tag is already removed) keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Nominating for deletion. I don't think a disamibuation page for only two people who are already easily recognizable is really necesary. --
Fallout boy 02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
A page is useful in case as it would be a commonly searched term and both sisters are well-known. Keep with possible move to Hilton sisters with Hilton twins redirecting to Hilton sisters.
Capitalistroadster 10:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be a notable program. — Gaff ταλκ 05:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (5d, 2k or 71% delete).-- Scimitar parley 18:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This does not seem to meet the proposed guidelines in Notability and Music Guidelines. Hidden tracks, and songs about suicide are perfectly common. A Google reveals mostly lyrics pages. squell 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Wisgary's comment on tagging the article was "Personal bio, recommended for deletion". Being a department chair is enough to keep me from trying to get it speedied, but no opinion on the afd; I haven't researched. — Cryptic (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
but his homepage is more forthcoming [27]. He's Professor and Chairman of Department of Computer Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute which certainly passes the average professor test. Dlyons493 Talk 13:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect (5r, 4d).-- Scimitar parley 18:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, will never be more than a dictdef, and already in Wiktionary. — Cryptic (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. A search on Google yields zero result. Delete. *drew 09:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete No context, nn. Impaciente 17:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Se7en. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article contains no information that isn't already available in the primary Se7en artice. Unless it has the potential to be expanded significantly past what is already in that article, and past the point where further information could easily be incorporated into the main article, there is no reason to have this separate article. Icarus 21:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no vote recorded. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. R adiant _>|< 00:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
At first glance, I don't know what this is supposed to be. Looks very haphazard. Could be a draft for some article that was meant to be in user namespace (as suggested by "/rough"). (But if so, why not stub?) I say userfy (if necessary) then delete. Wwwwolf 22:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus (default keep) (6d, 4k), with one keep vote discounted (anon vote).-- Scimitar parley 18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable keenspace comic, found here. Is there any sort of notability? Apart from some comments on webcomic toplists linked from the article, I can find none. I think it was one time a part of the graphicsmash community, but I'm not too sure. Google search seems to throw up a lot of random webcomic crosslinking places, and nothing else. - Hahnchen 18:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, where to begin?
All in all I propse the following:
Note that format for article is closely based on that of Count Your Sheep. Thus:
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This is just extreme trivia. Whilst a small amount of trivia is interesting I really don't see how this list could be of any use to anybody. Would someone decide to watch a film based on the criterion "title is eponymous with a character in it"? I'd say not. chowells 16:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
What is this article?? It appears to try to list everyone whose age either at the present or at death is 108 or 109 and has a large majority of the links ghost links. 66.245.118.178 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
While we're at it, can we delete THIS list too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_Veterans_of_the_Second_World_War
The number of surviving veterans of the Second World War is several MILLION. Do we really need this? 131.96.15.51 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC) reply
:*Copy vio easy to fix: take down the text at the bottom and reaarange the list. You can't copyright a list of names, can you? A bigger question is, is this list useful information for an encyclopedia? My thoughts are maybe. Keep.—
Gaff
ταλκ 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
First of all...I gave permission to use the list if the source is cited, so deleting the source is not a good solution. Second...if it's currently in order of age (109 years 364 days, 109 years 358 days etc), why not just keep it in the order that it's in?
However, the biggest argument is, if you are going to list people aged 109, why not list the 870+ people aged 110+? Ryoung122 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Then of course, maybe we could have a list of baseball pitchers who "almost" won 300 games, football teams that "almost" won the SuperBowl, people that "almost" died in the WTC. I decline to vote because I think a list in order of age wouldn't be too bad, but there should be at minimum source links and a consistent pattern of organization (either by age, by chronological order with an age minimum, or by alphabetical order with age minimum). Ryoung122 18:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
HA HA HA! Let's start listing the 100 billion people who have ever lived on this planet.
NOT!
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Listcruft. Apart from there being plenty of songs about seduction (maybe a better cat), if the list compiler(s) included Heavy Metal, punk or rap songs, this list would be unmaintainable. I'm thinking of the back catalogue of groups like NWA, Aerosmith, Whitesnake, Guns n' Roses etc etc MacRusgail 22:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Claims notability (but doesn't elaborate), google pulls zero hits. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete after excluding multiple-voters, sockpuppet and anonymous IP votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page Tom harrison 23:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does lack of fame make a vanity article?
An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.
Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.
Please heed the rules of wikipedia before deleting. Thank You. Bostonjon 01:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Please keep. My children enjoy his rap, and think he is wicked hot. We recently saw him rapping in the streets of Harvard Square and can not get him off of our mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.199 ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 25 October 2005
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax? Claims that two singles were high on billboard charts. Then why does google seach for "Ballad of a Broken Man" Meyers return no results? Delete (unless somebody can confirm this as real). I do not think its about Mike Meyers the comedian. — Gaff ταλκ 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A Keenspace hosted webcomic, found here. The site is not mentioned on the alexa report for keenspace. This is quoting the article directly, "Still, MmoB is far from being popular." No assertion of notability found anywhere. Hahnchen 18:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like vanity. By the article's own admit, this movie is in limited release and not something you'd put in an encyclopedia. Ifnord 14:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Contrary to what some people say, the Mischief Masters do exist and therefor deserve a spot in the Wikipedia. The Mischief Masters haven't reached national fame yet, but they're working very hard to do so by producing products like their movie A New Master. People who don't believe it should check their IMDB page. For further proof they could look at the biggest Dutch DVD site DVD-home since they devoted a artikel to the Masters. Doubters will see for themselves that there IS a movie made. The page is written in Dutch, but does contain screenshots. I do agree that there isn't a Mischeif Masters series since there is only one movie made with a second production coming.
The url to the article mentioned: http://www.dvd-home.nl/nieuws/oud2004.htm#8 The Masters are displayed just above the "Augustus" (August) banner.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a slang usage guide. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. The article has been deleted by User:Geogre Pilatus 12:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was apparently created by User:Francoislamini ( Contributions) about his cat. Now, I like cats, but this one is not especially notable. User has not edited since creating this article in July. Delete, along with Image:Jungle_Mooka.jpg. Joel7687 00:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is an idiosyncratic definition of a word that's a neologism anyways; Google search of nettop + "Roland Ellis" gives no results - Squibix 13:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. — RaD Man ( talk) 06:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like nonaccredited. Nn, anyway. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A webcomic, found here and its empty forums, here. No assertion of notability found in the article, and a google search also fails to find any awards/critical commentary on the thing. - Hahnchen 17:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Fantasy team, not to be confused with the real New York Stars, who have since moved on. Chris talk back 17:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
where to start? no assertion of notability anyway Flapdragon 20:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Sum total of 1 google hit, appears to be either vanity or a hoax. It also turns out that someone else has tried to nominate this, but did either didn't add the template or didn't add to the relevant daily page. The comment was:
Chris talk back 17:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No effect goes by this name. A2Kafir 22:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A flash animation cartoon that is either not yet released or not widely known. Web site is just a free host. rob 10:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus (keep) (3k, 2d).-- Scimitar parley 18:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a mildly amusing, but non-notable piece of Donald Duck fancruft. The article is also badly written, and excessively long for this piece of silliness. I have tried to prune the thing slightly, but have been prevented by the anon who acts as though he owns it, and reverts every effort to trim the article, contrary to policy. Septentrionalis 22:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
These two look like characters from a videogame programmed by the submitter.
Please see Quackoo and Pigit Bill for more characters from the same game; the AfD is here. Pilatus 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism/vanity submitted by anon. Never heard of it. Delete.-- Egil 11:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Wheee.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete "Cyber Girl of the Week" for Playboy doesnt seem notable enough. Unless they have other claims to fame, the bios for cyber girls linked from this page, and created by the same user, are not notable either Bwithh 19:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Illiterate attempt at a dicdef. There is already a perfectly good page on gnosticism. Corvus 04:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
NN sports team of some sort. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
See also Pigit Bill. delete both. This looks like advertising. I think that the submitter made up this fictional character and has posted this article here to increase publicity for a new video game. I could not find anything to support that this is a notable fictional charcter. Sorry Quackoo. — Gaff ταλκ 02:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page - the subject is entirely not notable Budgiekiller 17:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (2d, 1k or 66% delete).-- Scimitar parley 18:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as nn-bio by RHaworth. -- GraemeL (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No content, or context Robbjedi 01:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy DELETE (as per consensus). - Doc (?) 18:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Very borderline CSD case in my estimation. If enough vote speedy here it probably should be closed as that. gren グレン 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous).-- Scimitar parley 19:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity piece on the "teenage Roger Ebert" with lots of wild claims and crystal ballism. Variety.com confirms he was one of over 50 finalists in an online contest, just not sure about notability JJay 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I wrote this and I do not object to it being removed until the publication of the books. I do, however, resent the accusations that this is a "vanity piece" with "crystal ballism." I think further research would disprove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.147.119 ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 22 October 2005
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Just a platform for the external link which makes it spam which is a speedy per WP:VAND and CSD G3. Contributor has added several other articles which were patent nonsense. - Splash talk 16:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Website ad
The result of the debate was Redirect (unanimous)-- Scimitar parley 19:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable gamecruft, a clan in an MMORPG that's 2 months old and "has the hightest demi-god pkills" GTBacchus 23:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Guest:Flint Fireforge The name was mentioned because it holds conciderable sway in the game it is played. The name has a history in that MUD that spands over 5 years. Also, the person who wrote the age of the Clan is also incorrect, the Clan was created in 2003.
The result of the debate was redirect to Future tense. – Alphax τ ε χ 10:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This is simply a brief French grammar lesson, which is covered in more detail at Wikibooks. Also, we already have the French verbs and Morphology of the French verb articles.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete - page content was not encyclopedic, and was created to disparage its subject. Also deleted image which was uploaded to accompany article. -- HappyCamper 23:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Inherently unencyclopedic topic. I feel sorry for the author if this is based on his personal experiences, though... — Haeleth Talk 22:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not quite speedy: Claims notability by being a spokesperson for the Make-A-Wish Foundation, but google pulls 16 hits. Delete. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Doc (?) 11:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Mostly just finishing incomplete nomination. However, given that the entire content, once the external link and the mission statement from their website is removed, would be "Straight Way School in West Covina, California is an Islamic school and mosque on a single lot. Contact information is as follows: 1912 West Merced Ave West Covina, CA 91790", it seems to lack enough content to be worth keeping. Seems like Cleanup at the bare minimum. Waterguy 17:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was 'speedy deleted (by Bearcat). — Cryptic (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Again, give me more time. I will post proof. I spent lots of time writing up that page for our settlement and I don't want to do it again. Just let me have more time. Anyone who reads Wikipedia will be fine with it.
thanks J. Rainbow Jr.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A non notable keenspace comic, found here. It finished some time in summer, this year. However, a search on google for "Surreal U" gave no links other than random webcomic crosslinking, which you would expect to get from any webcomic out there. No assertion of notability found anywhere. Hahnchen 17:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 22:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable gaming website. It makes me wish that there was a speedy delete criterion for websites. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Maybe, but everyone has a right to know about it. It has a great community and is not 100% focused on cheating. You work for JAGeX, don't you?
Delete as per nom. CambridgeBayWeather 10:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move to wiktionary and delete. R adiant _>|< 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Very interesting perhaps, but this is really a kind of foreign language dictionary. MacRusgail 20:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be conspiracy theory with no reference or verifiability. Scott Davis Talk 00:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as unverifiable. No Google news references see [35] Less than 10 Google hits for the phrase see [36] and none of them appear to be about this supposed crime syndicate. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: no references, no evidence. Agnte 15:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate wasKept as a renomination. (If we can't argue content on Wikipedia:Deletion review for articles that got deleted, I see no reason why the querelous should be able to renominate articles that got kept until they get the desired result.) Snowspinner 04:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The last nomination resulted in no consensus. Let's see -- article that was signed until I removed the signature, about a bunch of nn fraternities and sororities. This article is longer than the article on the college itself. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The culprit for the above. A fantasy league with scant supporting evidence (Google seems to think more of the "Midwest Cyberspace Football League" than this one), suspecting vanity (and by the looks of the page, now memorial) for someone's pet hobby project. Chris talk back 18:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Metric System - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Mostly anti-metric rant from Rktect (this time appearing as his suckpuppet User:Federal Street). It does not seem there is any thing here that can be used or hasn't been said already, even in anti-metric movement, so delete. -- Egil 12:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R adiant _>|< 00:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Fan created race. Since it isn't an official race from the Warhammer 40,000 universe, it should be deleted. Kross | Talk 23:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 22:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this non-notable webcomic. Its Alexa ranking of 4,484,554 is far above the 200,000 proposed by WP:COMIC or the 100,000 suggested by Google test. A Google search reveals only 54 results, most of which look like mirrors of the wikipedia page. Article itself makes no claim on notability, explaining only that this is a webcomic with an author and some characters. Dragonfiend 18:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R adiant _>|< 00:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Trombone. H e rmione 1980 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Duplicate page, we already have an article on the Trombone Holderca1 03:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 23:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, vanity Neier 11:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, perfect match for the vanity CSD policy... Thue | talk 20:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Mindless Vanity Rjayres 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The page is a mis-interpretation of some ocean mapping, to suggest "structures" where none exist. No other references support the article's assertions apart from a single blog post. See the article's talk page for a fuller explanation. frankh 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable webcomic. Looking on Google for "urban trash" webcomic, gives 20 or so links. Alexa has zero stats for the page. - Hahnchen 17:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MOOT. The nominated article was speedy deleted. -- MarkSweep ✍ 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Original Research. Contradicts common sense. Patent nonsense. Unpatented nonsense. D. G. 05:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 23:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
NN Flapdragon 20:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, CSD A7, an nn-bio amongst the others mentioned below. - Splash talk 16:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Either vanity, a prank or user test
I agree with you. It is probably a prank. Wikifan42 16:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Splash as nonsense. -- GraemeL (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense vanity, likely a speedy Wyss 16:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
My name gets more hits [37] [38] and at least credible on-line sources like the Baptist Standard can prove that I have accomplished non-encyclopedic things. I have tried to establish the notability of this indivdual, and have found no credible independent source that can verify that he has done anything meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia. - JCarriker 09:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R adiant _>|< 00:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. At best, nn forumcruft, at worst, complete nonsense. MCB 01:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 23:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Asserts notability and imfamy, google disagrees. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
totally non-encyclopaedic, not even dicdef Flapdragon 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R adiant _>|< 00:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
mostly harmless fancruft, only "Zorin" is misspelled. Possible move to Zorin Indstries, but that should just be a redirect to the film, I would think. GTBacchus 19:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
< October 21 | October 23 > |
---|
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!?) 06:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable: 1 Google hit that may or may not be the same outfit. Mwanner | Talk 14:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nonsense. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This one is strange... It's obviously not a real reasonable subject for an article, so I was going to merge it with 20th Century Fox. But the slogans include 1940: "We Get Hard", 1945: "We're Getting Round", 1960: "Never Our Way to Go". They seem really unlikely, and they get no Google hits. If anyone thinks they're for real, by all means, merge. (PS, the same anon has written four other equally strange articles, all within 20 minutes on Oct 9. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Chickety China the chinese chicken
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This must be a hoax. There's no evidence supporting the release of this album. -- Maitch 23:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef (if that) Flapdragon 20:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to delete text of Pokemon-related article. Keep recently created "possible replacement article" on abandoned ships in games in general, as no deletion debate occurred on that topic or content. Snowspinner 06:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. — RaD Man ( talk) 06:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Page is filled with nonsense, I am not a student at the institution so I can't cleanup the article, if anyone has accurate information about the school, please consider cleaning up the article. Miguelfp1 14:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Subject is not particularly notable, except for who she gave birth to. Copied from genealogy webpages. Missi 05:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Yet another fantasy team and likely vanity article, though in this case the author fails to even spell the name correctly. Chris talk back 17:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. R adiant _>|< 00:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn character in a video game Delete -- JAranda | watz sup 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
While there has been much ink spilled about AMD and Intel, I don't see how this article could be developed neutrally, benchmarks tend biased. Additionally there are many strong competitors in any marketplace, do each of those need to be listed? Ford vs GM, Microsoft vs Apple -- Reflex Reaction 16:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No real information and it looks like spam. Andreww 02:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
and Pryor is a notable comedian. Capitalistroadster 04:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (4 deletes, 1 keep).-- Scimitar parley 18:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable guy who runs a blog and is starting up a web-site. delete. — Gaff ταλκ 23:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nom&vote delete. Non-notable young digital artist with very few works in his profile and very few references to his works in the media as evidenced by poor turn-up on google search. — Gaff ταλκ 23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Fails Google test [4]. Delete. utcursch | talk 13:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
None notable webcomic, whose site seems to be down, here. A google search reveals nothing to assert notability, the top link is of some other entity named animetronic. Hahnchen 16:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I believe it to be advertising, discovered it under DotCom People category which was inappropriate and under many other inappropriate categories. From the history it appears to be the work of one user apart from some minor corrections. Not encyclopedic Jamesmorrison 21:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity, fails WP:MUSIC (demo in progres). Chris talk back 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now.
MuthuKutty's comment on tagging the article was "suspicious article, cannot find anything on Google. Wikified." What I found was this forum thread in Chinese. Scroll down to the 09-10-2005 20:12 post and we find the first half of the article, posted by the author of the paper whose abstract it is. So I'm going to call this a weak delete, not-yet notable. — Cryptic (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (5k, 2d, 1m), with a bunch of sock-puppet votes discounted.-- Scimitar parley 18:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
As much as I love the series, do we really need to have a page on here about the ship? We already have pages for every single ship that ever appeared for more then two frames of film in Star Trek or Star Wars, are we going to have pages for every single ship that ever appeared in Galactica too? Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 18:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (only vote). - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to be notable. The "great works" mentioned at the bottom only get one google hit each, the Wikipedia article... Thue | talk 20:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It seems to be a contrived term. -- Mysidia ( talk) 15:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a video game strategy book. -- Mysidia ( talk) 16:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
plus a redirect ( RHaworth 04:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)) reply
Doesn't meet definition of notability at WP:MUSIC Tempshill 23:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
KEEP. Binary Star is one of the single most important acts of the Midwest. They performed with Eminem many times and have a huge following. They, along with their lead MC OneBeLo, are one of the single highest selling acts among acts with independent distribution. They've been offered many major record deals, but choose to stay with their home base. They are simply too important a name in hip hop to be deleted. Frank Longo 03:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle; In addition, the wikimarkup source content of the article is incorrigible, with <p>'s everywhere. -- Mysidia ( talk) 16:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. -- Mysidia ( talk) 17:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. -- Mysidia ( talk) 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It seems to be a contrived term; no dictionary listing, 2 google hits. -- Mysidia ( talk) 23:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Charles Matthews as nn-bio. -- GraemeL (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a personal essay on a robot from Robot Wars. -- Carnildo 06:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable advertising for somebody wanting to become a porn star. Internet porn site advert. delete. — Gaff ταλκ 02:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this non-notable webcomic, defunct after only a year and a half (Dec. 2003 - June 2005). It has no Alexa ranking at all. A Google search reveals only 112 results, most of which seem to involve an unrelated Australian city with a horse racing track. Article itself makes no claim of notability, explaining only that this is a defunct webcomic with an author and some characters. Dragonfiend 19:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (2k, 1r, 1m).-- Scimitar parley 18:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This artice contains no new information, all information in the main Flat Earth Society Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.129.114 ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was redirected to Age of Apocalypse. This article has no useful content, and that article already mentions this (minor, alternate-universe) character. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 08:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
An X-Men storylines stub. Fubar Obfusco considered it "nonsense?". R. fiend deleted it. I consider it a valid stub and have restored it. -- RHaworth 02:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, one sentence + an external link for a company = spam in my book. — Cryptic (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Supposedly A lesser known of the large film studios. I can't make sense of it, but unknown to google spells hoax to me. -- JJay 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research +/- neologism. Ifnord 11:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep rewritten version. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. The reasons that I'm nominating this page for deletion is because it seems more of an advertisement by EXCLUSIVE WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT, then an article. NPOV, Fax Numbers, e-mail and newspaper reviews Tony the Marine 15:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This music of Puerto Rico article indicates that she is fairly significant in their music industry. [9] This Latin Beat magazine article states that she has performed overseas including in France [10]. In my view, she is notable enough under WP:music but this article is of little value in its current state. I would vote to keep a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 10:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
NN neologism. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A trolling attack on Wikipedia. Only one tiny nugget of information keeps this from being speedied, which is that it references a supposed method of trapping monkeys that has seen extensive usage over many decades as a metaphorical figure. However, this article does not cover the metaphorical usage (except employing to insult Wikipedia) and does not provide any citation for it as alleged fact. There is nothing here worth saving. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
4 Google hits suggests this is not a real team. Chris talk back 17:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The text of the article is about one brand of beer, not Costa Rican beer in general. It reads like an advertisement, at that. The beer could be mentioned at Imperial#Things_and_Products, but this article should be deleted or replaced with one about beers and brewing in Costa Rica. -- Super Aardvark 19:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Cross-country equestrianism. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
OR, basic duplicate of Cross-country equestrianism User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be an alternative cosmogony created by the article's author. A Google search yeilds one hit -- a Web forum discussion where the author apparently first posted his ideas last year. The article's author and only editor has no other pages to his credit. See the Talk page for details. Shouldn't this article be moved to Wikibooks, at the very least? Ahasuerus 01:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Kmarinas86 10:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)The article Cyclic Multiverse Theory was copied into Wikibooks (page not book): http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cyclic_Multiverse_Theory reply
-- Kmarinas86 17:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Psuedoscience... ok, because I am not able to come up with actual data of my own. that's why I resort to proposing certain things in order to explain present day cosmological problems - without doing mathematics i'm not capable of, eventhough I find mathematics relatively easy. I don't see how it would become psuedo science just because it's new or presents an alternative. But I think it may be psuedoscience in any case, if no one accepts it. Or perhaps because its pseudoscience, it's not accepted. Is that almost the entirety of the criteria? It appears that's how the word psuedoscience is used. No matter the degree of it, I suppose most believe it requires "no explanation" other than that it is "original research" with no credentialed scientists involved, nor interpreted at the time of a real experiment's completion, making it "psuedoscience"..... reply
-- Kmarinas86 18:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Never mind my madness... I'm going to move it to http://academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page reply
-- 24.167.40.92 20:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)The problem is that the experiments that would have verified, parts, of it have already been done. My hypothesis so for is to be compatible with that knowledge, as if the hypothesis were decided before the experiment was done (and verified in this sense). Experiments, for example, include those about: Redshift of Distant Galaxies, Missing Mass Problem, and the Nature of Distant Galaxies. reply
-- 24.167.40.92 20:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)However, I know that not all of it is proven yet, and some of it is not provable or disprovable, yet. So is it conjecture? Yes, because some of the things it predicts haven't been seen yet. It is it a theory? It "predicts" a few things which have already shown to be the case - but that was after the fact. I haven't discovered all of its predictions though. So with time, I may be able to find more ways as to how this can be verified or debunked. reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, mostly links to author's web site Neier 11:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. While they may go far eventually, the only google hit I got was their myspace page. Delete.-- Syrthiss 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
There is also a record label of the same name which is far more present in the music industry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.66.141 ( talk) 22:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep and move to Ian Duffell. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Clearly NN. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Article gives no assertion of notability other than simply "being the wife of".
Aecis 20:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC) After MacRusgail's excellent additions to this article, I change my vote to keep. If it is possible, I would like to withdraw the nomination.
Aecis 21:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article does not make any sense to me. IMHO I don't think anybody uses the term energy spectrum in such a sense. In my opinion, energy spectrum is synonym for frequency spectrum (due to E=hν. However I am not sure that someone in some applied science does not use this term. This is the reason I didn't directly redirect this. If nobody clear this I will. Vb 09:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
An Academic Search Premier search for the term in academic papers came up with just under 1500 references. It seems that this term is in wide usage in the scientific community. 17:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I believe this article is based on facts. -- User talk:80.58.6.235 (the user that has been constantly adding nonsense to the Ephraim Ben-Uri article, as well as vandalising this page and my personal page. -- Dan East 20:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)) reply
I have submitted this article as a candidate for deletion because the article does not assert the importance of this individual. -- Dan East 21:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I've had to add the deletion template back, as it was reverted. This article is complete garbage. Take a look at the history. It did refer to an individual that was supposed to be a general, and had various activities up to the current date. Now the article is supposed to refer to someone who was killed at the age of 19, back in 1986, and who was honored by Reagan. I believe the entire article is pure fabrication. I cannot find any information whatsoever about Ephraim Ben-Uri via Google either. -- Dan East 03:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Either a test or nonsense in all revisions. - Splash talk 04:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor website...I think. Article begins EvolutionArt is both an article on the Wikipedia site, and a web-based art installation. The wiki architecture of the site means that the article can be added to, edited and reinterpreted by anyone' and then morphs into a short rambling philisophical treatise. Joyous (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Google shoots blanks, thus this supposed fish is a Hoax. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A reasonably new webcomic, found here. It's 17 user forum can be found here. No assertion of notability in the article, or can be found on google. - Hahnchen 18:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Joy Stovall as attack/A7. -- GraemeL (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax, vanity or both Naturenet | Talk 16:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Very little content; apparently created and vandalised moments later by the same user -- Gurch 14:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R adiant _>|< 00:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable church MacRusgail 19:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to McAfee. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This seems to be little more than a buisness card. Tom harrison 22:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This sure looks like a vanity page to me, Maybe I dont know any thing about the FSU 'gang' but I cant see any relevance Bedel23 09:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is a hoax. There are no references in either of the WWE's Tag-Team Championships of these guys winning the belts and no references of these guys ever existing elsewhere. I made a further study and noticed the author of this article also placed a link to this on the Knox Grammar School article, which was later removed by suspicion a few months back. -- Oakster 15:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
"small local band" whose CD may well not be released, according to article itself MacRusgail 17:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page with no assertion of any notability. User has removed a {{ userfy}} tag once already.
KEEP IT I don't understand why you want to delete this page.The guy is PERFECT! and above all he is a VERY GOOD scientist! Have u seen the links? For God Shake. I think you are jealus! Userfy and delete -- Tabor 16:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
tautology, just a link to a commercial site. GTBacchus 18:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It recieves no Google hits at all and so I dont believe that the conlanguage exists. Also, the information is not referenced. (Note that this is the first time I have nominated an article for deletion) -- AMorris (talk)● (contribs) 07:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page, written by editor who claims [16] to be its subject. Unusual writing style: see article. Regarding notability: 300 Google hits for subject, of which all of those I have reviewed so far appear, by writing style or contributor name, to be his own press releases and postings to various Internet forums. Delete -- The Anome 10:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fanfic that hasn't even been completed yet. Delete. H e rmione 1980 01:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Helsinki University of Technology. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Misspelled and summarized version of Helsinki University of Technology Neier 10:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable, hardly any context. Naturenet | Talk 17:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was (presumed speedy as AfD tag is already removed) keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Nominating for deletion. I don't think a disamibuation page for only two people who are already easily recognizable is really necesary. --
Fallout boy 02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
A page is useful in case as it would be a commonly searched term and both sisters are well-known. Keep with possible move to Hilton sisters with Hilton twins redirecting to Hilton sisters.
Capitalistroadster 10:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be a notable program. — Gaff ταλκ 05:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (5d, 2k or 71% delete).-- Scimitar parley 18:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This does not seem to meet the proposed guidelines in Notability and Music Guidelines. Hidden tracks, and songs about suicide are perfectly common. A Google reveals mostly lyrics pages. squell 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Wisgary's comment on tagging the article was "Personal bio, recommended for deletion". Being a department chair is enough to keep me from trying to get it speedied, but no opinion on the afd; I haven't researched. — Cryptic (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
but his homepage is more forthcoming [27]. He's Professor and Chairman of Department of Computer Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute which certainly passes the average professor test. Dlyons493 Talk 13:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect (5r, 4d).-- Scimitar parley 18:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, will never be more than a dictdef, and already in Wiktionary. — Cryptic (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. A search on Google yields zero result. Delete. *drew 09:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete No context, nn. Impaciente 17:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Se7en. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article contains no information that isn't already available in the primary Se7en artice. Unless it has the potential to be expanded significantly past what is already in that article, and past the point where further information could easily be incorporated into the main article, there is no reason to have this separate article. Icarus 21:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no vote recorded. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. R adiant _>|< 00:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
At first glance, I don't know what this is supposed to be. Looks very haphazard. Could be a draft for some article that was meant to be in user namespace (as suggested by "/rough"). (But if so, why not stub?) I say userfy (if necessary) then delete. Wwwwolf 22:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus (default keep) (6d, 4k), with one keep vote discounted (anon vote).-- Scimitar parley 18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable keenspace comic, found here. Is there any sort of notability? Apart from some comments on webcomic toplists linked from the article, I can find none. I think it was one time a part of the graphicsmash community, but I'm not too sure. Google search seems to throw up a lot of random webcomic crosslinking places, and nothing else. - Hahnchen 18:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, where to begin?
All in all I propse the following:
Note that format for article is closely based on that of Count Your Sheep. Thus:
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This is just extreme trivia. Whilst a small amount of trivia is interesting I really don't see how this list could be of any use to anybody. Would someone decide to watch a film based on the criterion "title is eponymous with a character in it"? I'd say not. chowells 16:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
What is this article?? It appears to try to list everyone whose age either at the present or at death is 108 or 109 and has a large majority of the links ghost links. 66.245.118.178 00:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
While we're at it, can we delete THIS list too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_Veterans_of_the_Second_World_War
The number of surviving veterans of the Second World War is several MILLION. Do we really need this? 131.96.15.51 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC) reply
:*Copy vio easy to fix: take down the text at the bottom and reaarange the list. You can't copyright a list of names, can you? A bigger question is, is this list useful information for an encyclopedia? My thoughts are maybe. Keep.—
Gaff
ταλκ 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
First of all...I gave permission to use the list if the source is cited, so deleting the source is not a good solution. Second...if it's currently in order of age (109 years 364 days, 109 years 358 days etc), why not just keep it in the order that it's in?
However, the biggest argument is, if you are going to list people aged 109, why not list the 870+ people aged 110+? Ryoung122 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Then of course, maybe we could have a list of baseball pitchers who "almost" won 300 games, football teams that "almost" won the SuperBowl, people that "almost" died in the WTC. I decline to vote because I think a list in order of age wouldn't be too bad, but there should be at minimum source links and a consistent pattern of organization (either by age, by chronological order with an age minimum, or by alphabetical order with age minimum). Ryoung122 18:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
HA HA HA! Let's start listing the 100 billion people who have ever lived on this planet.
NOT!
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Listcruft. Apart from there being plenty of songs about seduction (maybe a better cat), if the list compiler(s) included Heavy Metal, punk or rap songs, this list would be unmaintainable. I'm thinking of the back catalogue of groups like NWA, Aerosmith, Whitesnake, Guns n' Roses etc etc MacRusgail 22:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Claims notability (but doesn't elaborate), google pulls zero hits. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete after excluding multiple-voters, sockpuppet and anonymous IP votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page Tom harrison 23:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does lack of fame make a vanity article?
An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.
Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.
Please heed the rules of wikipedia before deleting. Thank You. Bostonjon 01:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Please keep. My children enjoy his rap, and think he is wicked hot. We recently saw him rapping in the streets of Harvard Square and can not get him off of our mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.199 ( talk • contribs) 02:28, 25 October 2005
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax? Claims that two singles were high on billboard charts. Then why does google seach for "Ballad of a Broken Man" Meyers return no results? Delete (unless somebody can confirm this as real). I do not think its about Mike Meyers the comedian. — Gaff ταλκ 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A Keenspace hosted webcomic, found here. The site is not mentioned on the alexa report for keenspace. This is quoting the article directly, "Still, MmoB is far from being popular." No assertion of notability found anywhere. Hahnchen 18:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems like vanity. By the article's own admit, this movie is in limited release and not something you'd put in an encyclopedia. Ifnord 14:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Contrary to what some people say, the Mischief Masters do exist and therefor deserve a spot in the Wikipedia. The Mischief Masters haven't reached national fame yet, but they're working very hard to do so by producing products like their movie A New Master. People who don't believe it should check their IMDB page. For further proof they could look at the biggest Dutch DVD site DVD-home since they devoted a artikel to the Masters. Doubters will see for themselves that there IS a movie made. The page is written in Dutch, but does contain screenshots. I do agree that there isn't a Mischeif Masters series since there is only one movie made with a second production coming.
The url to the article mentioned: http://www.dvd-home.nl/nieuws/oud2004.htm#8 The Masters are displayed just above the "Augustus" (August) banner.
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a slang usage guide. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. The article has been deleted by User:Geogre Pilatus 12:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was apparently created by User:Francoislamini ( Contributions) about his cat. Now, I like cats, but this one is not especially notable. User has not edited since creating this article in July. Delete, along with Image:Jungle_Mooka.jpg. Joel7687 00:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Article is an idiosyncratic definition of a word that's a neologism anyways; Google search of nettop + "Roland Ellis" gives no results - Squibix 13:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. — RaD Man ( talk) 06:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like nonaccredited. Nn, anyway. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A webcomic, found here and its empty forums, here. No assertion of notability found in the article, and a google search also fails to find any awards/critical commentary on the thing. - Hahnchen 17:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Fantasy team, not to be confused with the real New York Stars, who have since moved on. Chris talk back 17:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
where to start? no assertion of notability anyway Flapdragon 20:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Sum total of 1 google hit, appears to be either vanity or a hoax. It also turns out that someone else has tried to nominate this, but did either didn't add the template or didn't add to the relevant daily page. The comment was:
Chris talk back 17:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No effect goes by this name. A2Kafir 22:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A flash animation cartoon that is either not yet released or not widely known. Web site is just a free host. rob 10:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus (keep) (3k, 2d).-- Scimitar parley 18:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a mildly amusing, but non-notable piece of Donald Duck fancruft. The article is also badly written, and excessively long for this piece of silliness. I have tried to prune the thing slightly, but have been prevented by the anon who acts as though he owns it, and reverts every effort to trim the article, contrary to policy. Septentrionalis 22:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
These two look like characters from a videogame programmed by the submitter.
Please see Quackoo and Pigit Bill for more characters from the same game; the AfD is here. Pilatus 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism/vanity submitted by anon. Never heard of it. Delete.-- Egil 11:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Wheee.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete "Cyber Girl of the Week" for Playboy doesnt seem notable enough. Unless they have other claims to fame, the bios for cyber girls linked from this page, and created by the same user, are not notable either Bwithh 19:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Illiterate attempt at a dicdef. There is already a perfectly good page on gnosticism. Corvus 04:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
NN sports team of some sort. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
See also Pigit Bill. delete both. This looks like advertising. I think that the submitter made up this fictional character and has posted this article here to increase publicity for a new video game. I could not find anything to support that this is a notable fictional charcter. Sorry Quackoo. — Gaff ταλκ 02:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page - the subject is entirely not notable Budgiekiller 17:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (2d, 1k or 66% delete).-- Scimitar parley 18:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as nn-bio by RHaworth. -- GraemeL (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No content, or context Robbjedi 01:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy DELETE (as per consensus). - Doc (?) 18:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Very borderline CSD case in my estimation. If enough vote speedy here it probably should be closed as that. gren グレン 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous).-- Scimitar parley 19:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity piece on the "teenage Roger Ebert" with lots of wild claims and crystal ballism. Variety.com confirms he was one of over 50 finalists in an online contest, just not sure about notability JJay 02:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I wrote this and I do not object to it being removed until the publication of the books. I do, however, resent the accusations that this is a "vanity piece" with "crystal ballism." I think further research would disprove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.147.119 ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 22 October 2005
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Just a platform for the external link which makes it spam which is a speedy per WP:VAND and CSD G3. Contributor has added several other articles which were patent nonsense. - Splash talk 16:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Website ad
The result of the debate was Redirect (unanimous)-- Scimitar parley 19:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable gamecruft, a clan in an MMORPG that's 2 months old and "has the hightest demi-god pkills" GTBacchus 23:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Guest:Flint Fireforge The name was mentioned because it holds conciderable sway in the game it is played. The name has a history in that MUD that spands over 5 years. Also, the person who wrote the age of the Clan is also incorrect, the Clan was created in 2003.
The result of the debate was redirect to Future tense. – Alphax τ ε χ 10:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This is simply a brief French grammar lesson, which is covered in more detail at Wikibooks. Also, we already have the French verbs and Morphology of the French verb articles.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete - page content was not encyclopedic, and was created to disparage its subject. Also deleted image which was uploaded to accompany article. -- HappyCamper 23:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Inherently unencyclopedic topic. I feel sorry for the author if this is based on his personal experiences, though... — Haeleth Talk 22:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not quite speedy: Claims notability by being a spokesperson for the Make-A-Wish Foundation, but google pulls 16 hits. Delete. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Doc (?) 11:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Mostly just finishing incomplete nomination. However, given that the entire content, once the external link and the mission statement from their website is removed, would be "Straight Way School in West Covina, California is an Islamic school and mosque on a single lot. Contact information is as follows: 1912 West Merced Ave West Covina, CA 91790", it seems to lack enough content to be worth keeping. Seems like Cleanup at the bare minimum. Waterguy 17:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was 'speedy deleted (by Bearcat). — Cryptic (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Again, give me more time. I will post proof. I spent lots of time writing up that page for our settlement and I don't want to do it again. Just let me have more time. Anyone who reads Wikipedia will be fine with it.
thanks J. Rainbow Jr.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A non notable keenspace comic, found here. It finished some time in summer, this year. However, a search on google for "Surreal U" gave no links other than random webcomic crosslinking, which you would expect to get from any webcomic out there. No assertion of notability found anywhere. Hahnchen 17:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 22:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable gaming website. It makes me wish that there was a speedy delete criterion for websites. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Maybe, but everyone has a right to know about it. It has a great community and is not 100% focused on cheating. You work for JAGeX, don't you?
Delete as per nom. CambridgeBayWeather 10:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move to wiktionary and delete. R adiant _>|< 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Very interesting perhaps, but this is really a kind of foreign language dictionary. MacRusgail 20:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be conspiracy theory with no reference or verifiability. Scott Davis Talk 00:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as unverifiable. No Google news references see [35] Less than 10 Google hits for the phrase see [36] and none of them appear to be about this supposed crime syndicate. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: no references, no evidence. Agnte 15:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate wasKept as a renomination. (If we can't argue content on Wikipedia:Deletion review for articles that got deleted, I see no reason why the querelous should be able to renominate articles that got kept until they get the desired result.) Snowspinner 04:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The last nomination resulted in no consensus. Let's see -- article that was signed until I removed the signature, about a bunch of nn fraternities and sororities. This article is longer than the article on the college itself. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The culprit for the above. A fantasy league with scant supporting evidence (Google seems to think more of the "Midwest Cyberspace Football League" than this one), suspecting vanity (and by the looks of the page, now memorial) for someone's pet hobby project. Chris talk back 18:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Metric System - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Mostly anti-metric rant from Rktect (this time appearing as his suckpuppet User:Federal Street). It does not seem there is any thing here that can be used or hasn't been said already, even in anti-metric movement, so delete. -- Egil 12:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R adiant _>|< 00:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Fan created race. Since it isn't an official race from the Warhammer 40,000 universe, it should be deleted. Kross | Talk 23:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 22:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this non-notable webcomic. Its Alexa ranking of 4,484,554 is far above the 200,000 proposed by WP:COMIC or the 100,000 suggested by Google test. A Google search reveals only 54 results, most of which look like mirrors of the wikipedia page. Article itself makes no claim on notability, explaining only that this is a webcomic with an author and some characters. Dragonfiend 18:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R adiant _>|< 00:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Trombone. H e rmione 1980 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Duplicate page, we already have an article on the Trombone Holderca1 03:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 23:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, vanity Neier 11:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, perfect match for the vanity CSD policy... Thue | talk 20:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Mindless Vanity Rjayres 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The page is a mis-interpretation of some ocean mapping, to suggest "structures" where none exist. No other references support the article's assertions apart from a single blog post. See the article's talk page for a fuller explanation. frankh 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable webcomic. Looking on Google for "urban trash" webcomic, gives 20 or so links. Alexa has zero stats for the page. - Hahnchen 17:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MOOT. The nominated article was speedy deleted. -- MarkSweep ✍ 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Original Research. Contradicts common sense. Patent nonsense. Unpatented nonsense. D. G. 05:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 23:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
NN Flapdragon 20:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, CSD A7, an nn-bio amongst the others mentioned below. - Splash talk 16:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Either vanity, a prank or user test
I agree with you. It is probably a prank. Wikifan42 16:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Splash as nonsense. -- GraemeL (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense vanity, likely a speedy Wyss 16:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
My name gets more hits [37] [38] and at least credible on-line sources like the Baptist Standard can prove that I have accomplished non-encyclopedic things. I have tried to establish the notability of this indivdual, and have found no credible independent source that can verify that he has done anything meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia. - JCarriker 09:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R adiant _>|< 00:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. At best, nn forumcruft, at worst, complete nonsense. MCB 01:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione 1980 23:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Asserts notability and imfamy, google disagrees. Delete -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
totally non-encyclopaedic, not even dicdef Flapdragon 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R adiant _>|< 00:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
mostly harmless fancruft, only "Zorin" is misspelled. Possible move to Zorin Indstries, but that should just be a redirect to the film, I would think. GTBacchus 19:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply