The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The first of 4 webcomics I bring to you today is Number 53, found here. If you have a look at Talk:Number 53 (webcomic), you'll see the article author noting why he believes the article to be notable, being that it is linked from The Webcomic List, however, I disagree. Being that the Webcomic list is merely a webcomic link site which hosts entries for thousands of webcomics. This is not a notable website, having been established just over 3 months ago, a look on Google for "number 53" webcomic only finds 30 links, all of them trivial. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Are UTurn Creative Studios a notable artistic entity? What about the webcomic they produce, found here? You can take a look at their forums here, where you'll find the webcomic author (who also wrote this article) mostly talking to himself. A google search for "a rusty life" brings back 49 unique hits whilst Alexa ranks it at over 2 million. Wikipedia is not the place for these nn webcomic entries. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A website hosted on Freewebs, this webcomic can be seen here. Is this website notable? Do these Sega inspired gif animations warrant an encyclopedia article? If you do a search of "The Final Zone" finalbeyond (finalbeyond being the author) you get back 13 unique links. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a Sonic the Hedgehog fan fiction webcomic (related to the nomination above), hosted on a forum thread. Yes, it doesn't even bother with a free web host, you can see it here on the Friday the 13th Forum. Now the forum has about 1500 members, which might make it barely notable enough for an article about the forum itself, but a singular webcomic thread?! And it's not even popular on that forum, about 10 different people have ever replied to that thread. Also note that you'll see Wikipedia linked prominently in original webcomic post, they're using a Wikipedia page as a handy free "About Us" page, which also generates a handy little promotional tool by appearing in the List of webcomics. I would prod this, being so unnotable, but being hosted on a forum, I decided not to take the chance. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Verrai 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The primary reasons I am proposing deletion is because Wikipedia is not a memorial, as well as the article failing to provide notability. Thousands of people died during Hurricane Katrina, and tenfold more were affected by the hurricane. Some might argue for his notability in that he briefly became an international news story on the personal affects. First, this isn't Wikinews, and second, his being on the news was being at the right place at the right time. Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Seems pretty clearly to be a vanity article. I can't see how this is at all encyclopedic or how it meets any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Looks like pretty clear Vanispamcruftisement pm_shef 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (redundancy). – Rob ert 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Its a copy of Indiana University, but not as good. Fosnez 00:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
According to the Suva article this is no longer the tallest building on the island (see here). I think that removes its only notable characteristic. -- Scientizzle 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
High school newspaper with no claims to notability. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 07:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
The comments of some very new users were disregarded in determining the result of this debate (
Heatherb,
Tail3736,
Pvision). The comments of all anonymous users were also disregarded.
Nn spamvertisement for online political project. Alexa ranking of 3,180,738. Fails to meet WP:WEB. Delete -- Hetar 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Any time a group of cross-partisan experts/citizens get together, it is noteworthy.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity bio -- complete with numerous presumably-for-SEO links -- of Yet Another Digital Entrepeneur. Gets 54 hits on Google -- the first calling him a scammer, and the second this article. Calton | Talk 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable Nepalese website. 818 Google hits. Prod tag pulled (twice, actually) by the original author without explanation. Delete. DMG413 01:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 17:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is not encyclopaedic. I deleted it 2 or 3 times on fr:Wikipédia Markadet fr 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete. Why is this an article? Bio, vanity; thank you for attempting to contribute to wikipedia please try again. Please watch this article. User is attempting to delete the AfD tag.-- Strothra 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Do not delete While this may not be a world famous person, the person is rather well known through the Albany, NY region. User:Adam Riley 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 17:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Untranslated Spanish article from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete unless translated and notability explained. Kusma (討論) 01:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Hernan Lopez, born Argentinean the 15-04-1977, centered multifacético artist at first in the architecture and that soon would deposit all its creative load in the tango. An example paradigmatico of the joker of fourth degree is considered. Founder of the interpretativo system of the personality that consists of being made the estupido one to hide that he is natural estupido. It caused that by Frachela comparison it is seen as but studio illustrates cultor of metodo Stanislavski of the actor, and that Marley, TV conductor, like a French estructuralista. Their feats like tango dancer were so important that until a letter "Milonguero of Building" was dedicated to him. A controversy with respect to its doctrine and thought exists, in as much to the responsibility, given the characteristic equality differentials with Emilio J. Rizzo. In order to desmarañar this intríngulis that worries to the modern historian has mentioned a witness, companion of both: Tomás Peisker. Tomás I declare: "they grew up literally together, in any case he is stupid to say that some I copy myself of another one, they lack the encefalica mace to carry out this cerebral process", a corchea, four semifusas, greater DO.
Based on that text, I don't see any suggestion of notability. Delete.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
'''Deposit all its creative load in the tango''' is an internet meme created by [[Babel Fish (website)|Babelfish]]. It is currently gaining in popularity.
(3) Click "Save". (4) Check back periodically to remove prods. Remember to log out before you remove the prod; it looks amateurish if prods are removed by named users. (5) There you go!
Henning Makholm
13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A2: same article in Spanish at es:Juego de la Distribución de la Cerveza. Kusma (討論) 03:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Spanish text from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete if nobody translates it, reconsider if someone does. Kusma (討論) 01:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The game of the distribution of the beer is a game of the simulation used in atmospheres of education to demonstrate a number of dominant principles of the management of the source chain. Fact in front with the uncertain demand for the beer and and a chain of gradual source, the players is that they fight to avoid to work of product whereas they try to avoid to finance great inventories. The game introduces quickly to students to several important concepts of the management of the chain of source including turnpikes, cooperation, and prognosis
WP:NFT?
Roy
boy
crash
fan
01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete unless someone translates it and adds a source. Bob A 03:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Elf-friend as nonsense. Henning Makholm 13:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Deprodded without comment. Neologism/dicdef. ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable-- Strothra 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A2 since this is at es:Ingeniería Logística and we have Logistic engineering already. Kusma (討論) 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Untranslated Spanish from WP:PNT. Delete if untranslated, reconsider if somebody translates this. Kusma (討論) 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Logistic engineering takes care of the science of the logistics. The logistics talk about the purchase, transport, distribution, storage of raw materials. The handling of all these activities efficiently is for an effective organization the main question in the mind of any logistic engineer. Diverse measures of operation are used to examine the effectiveness of the logistics of an organization. The measurement of more popular operation and extensively used is the landed cost. The landed cost is the total cost to buy, transport, raw materials of storage and that they distribute, half-finished and finished merchandise. Another measurement of equally important operation is the mark of the client. It is the percentage of the demand of client who immediately is satisfied. The logistics are generally service operations of the cost-center, but it provides value via the client satisfaction. It can lose that value quickly if the client is not satisfied. The client of the end can include another center of the process or the work within the manufacture, a warehouse in where to the articles or the final client are stored that will use the product. Another much more popular derivative and a complete use of the logistic term that has appeared in recent years is the provision chain. The provision chain also watches an efficient linking of the same one with the distribution of the purchase and the organization. While Logistic sight single steps with the provision and the distribution immediately related, the provision chain watches manifold escalones/etapas, the right of the acquisition of the raw materials to the final distribution of merchandise or products finished for the client. One is based on the basic premise of which the activities of the provision and the distribution if they estan integrated with the manufacture and the logistics operations, can have like result better capacity of gain for the organization. The local minimums of the total cost of the industrial operation obtain replaced by the global minimums of the total cost of the whole chain, giving one better capacity of gain for the members of chain and of it lowers the costs for products there.
Delete, we already have
Logistic engineering. We could, however, transwiki to Spanish Wikipedia.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was transwiki and speedy delete as non-English text on another language Wikipedia. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Untranslated Spanish from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete if untranslated, reconsider if translation reveals something interesting. Kusma (討論) 01:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
APICS the Association for the Administration of Operations, is nonlucrative international an educative organization, offers the certification, the programs, training instruments and to make contact with enemy the opportunities to increase the performance of place of work. He was founded on 1957 like the American Society of Production and Control of existence, and has at the moment about 77,000 individual and corporative members in on 25,000 world-wide organizations. APICS defines to the Management of the Operations as "the field of the study that is centered in the planning, programming, and control of an organization with the study of concepts of the engineering of design, industrial engineering, information systems of management, management of the quality, management of production, management of inventory, accounting, and as functions to the organization affect ootras" (dictionary of APICS, 11ma edition). The main push of the APICS knowledge is how to improve corporative benefits eliminating costos.A difference of several consultadoras companies, this knowledge does not require the increase in sales, nor in involuntary unemployment of employees to improve the gains. APICS also considers the authority in systems of management of business such as MRP and ERP, Just in Time, and defects zero. APICS grants three designations professional: CPIM (certified in the management of the production and inventory), CIRM (certified in the integrated management of resource) and CSCP (professional certificate of the provision chain). The CFPIM (Certificó to Man in the Administration of the Production and the Inventory) only has was obtained by about 1200 teachers of the body of APICS CPIM of the knowledge.
Based on
WP:CORP, I'd have to say delete.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 23:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Boatfarm 01:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Weak delete. Article could be updated, but, yes it is a dictionary article-- Strothra 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable company. "Tigor Music and Media" yields
0 Google results.
Rory
0
96
02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as the AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator. Con Dem Talk 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Information that is in oath and profanity already. Also looks like a dicdef. Suggest redirect to profanity, since this is probably what someone searching for "swearing" would be looking for, or maybe a disambig page. Con Dem Talk 02:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, come one, how could a religion that was created today (tomorrow, for us here in the United States, possibly be notable? patent nonsense.--
Adam
(
talk)
03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sango 123 (e) 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
there's no indication that anything will become of this "bourse". given that, the only other thing i can think of to do with this article would be to merge it to "planned exchanges that never happened". the question is, should it be deleted now or given more time (or merged)? Bob A 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
RGTraynor 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete, A5. – Rob ert 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Transwikied to Wikibooks Transwiki:Secrets_and_glitches_in_Halo_2, not needed here anymore.-- Zxcvbnm 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Angr ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement and a Non notable electronic device. Every DVD player and most home theater stereos have circuits that do the same function. Bige1977 03:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 09:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am probably going to lose this one, but... Religious fanaticism is a priori a NPOV violation. The whole article cannot escape being terminally biased. One man's religious fanatic is another's normal religious person. And before you can retort with, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and look, we do have an article on Terrorism", at least terrorism is a defined crime and statutes describe it and people who may condone it at the very least recognize that they're involved in it. Religious fanaticism is much more amorphous, and cannot be defined. Practices of sect X, which some may consider to be R.F., should go into the article on sect X. Everything else here is hopeless conjecture. Note also that this article has been untouched for half a year. Delete - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, and merge any useful content into related articles. Well said. Tijuana Brass 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable, advertisement Bill Sayre 04:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 09:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
Note that although the debate did not reach a consensus, the article underwent a rewrite during the debate. All who participated in the debate after the rewrite were in favour of keeping the article. Thus for all intents and purposes, the result of this debate is to keep the article.
illegible. The closest I got was that it's a hospital called Saidu in Swat, Pakistan, but does not make any claims of notability. Is totally unreadable, and I would LOVE to see someone count how many times the author says the word "swat", it seems like every other sentence. Anyway, nn, horridly written, signed by author, etc.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 09:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
The debate reached no consensus because there was not sufficient support for any single option.
Thus there is a consensus not to delete the article (although the majority was divided between keeping and merging the content).
Delete NN, doesn't meet WP:BIO, consensus has generally been that former candidate, if otherwise not noteable, do not get pages. pm_shef 05:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 09:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
The nominator attempted to nominate other articles along with this one, however since the AfD notice was not displayed on any of those other articles, they will not be deleted as a result of this debate.
Pop-Music-cruft. I found this on the Dead-end Pages page and added a Prod" tag. Tag removed by User:Everyking (although, I oughtta add, he was NOT its creator), with the comment what is this thing? there must at least be an afd. So here we are. Calton | Talk 05:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Marudubshinki at 06.37. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn secondary school teacher. Horribly POV
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn cruft website
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
05:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
User:Tyr_shadowblade I do not understand why this article was slated for deletion mere seconds after I posted it. The information is verifiable, does not violate copyright and is unbiased. And what did User:Swatjester mean by "nn cruft website"? Please be specific as to how this article can be improved, as I'm new to posting here.
The poster deserves more explaination. The criteria for a Wikipedia article about a web site is at WP:WEB. The requirements are set rather high, or every promoted website in the web would have a Wikipedia article. "nn" just means "non-notable", which refers to Wikipedia's requirement that a website or person or band be "notable" to be included. -- John Nagle 06:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Tyr-shadowblade Warriorship is a "non-serious topic"? Mr Binguyen is entitled to his opinion . . . even if it's wrong. I looked at Wikipedia's articles on the topic of notability and understood that this is not necessarilly a "requirement", as "Wikipedia is not paper". I thought RWT was of interest, and their website certainly isn't a fancruft or vanity website. Have any of the people in favor of deletion even looked at the material there?
User:Tyr_shadowblade Just realized that I made a mistake in the first paragraph and edited it. RWT was an organization which created a website and published several books . . . if that makes any difference. Not JUST a website.
User:Tyr_shadowblade Fine . . . article deleted. . . oh, the bot won't permit it.
The SubGenius must have SLACK!!!
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, we can't have whole articles devoted to minor elements of an anime. I'm a big fan of this series, and even I find this article to be completely unnecessary. Wikipedia is NOT here to retell every possible event in fictional stories. Please "nip this in the bud". See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) -- Ned Scott 05:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 10:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Attempted speedy, user deleted it. Article looks like a vanity article, there is no claim to noteability, being a failed election candidate does not entitle one to an article pm_shef 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is an appendage to Holy Tantra Jin-Gang-Dhyana Buddhism by the same author (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Tantra Jin-Gang-Dhyana Buddhism). Totally unreferenced, obscure, and contextless. Nat Krause( Talk!) 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus tending towards keep. bainer ( talk) 10:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
POV and plain spam Casper2k3 06:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Article seems to be self-promotion for Vinny's Pizza. Also, not of significance/notability. jpmck 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as duplicate of Bridle Path, Toronto. – Rob ert 00:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No context provided, has not been edited since January 22. -- Impaciente 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as attack page. – Rob ert 00:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No clue how this page has been around for so long. The entire article seems to be a joke and/or hoax. Landeyda 06:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
As it is, advertisement. Has been left virtually untouched since creation. Impaciente 07:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy userfy. -- RHaworth 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nothing in the article asserts any kind of notability whatsoever. It's a biography of an unimportant person. All Google hits on "Anthony Fuchs" writer are of different people with the same name. The El Reyko 07:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a block nomination for six sprinters from Oceanic countries. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casnel Bushay for precedence.
These six athlete substubs were created in connection to the 2006 Commonwealth Games, where they participated without even reaching the semi finals. Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games these athletes have achieved nothing of note, thus falling below the notability bar. No Olympic participation, nothing. Believe me, I have searched for ways to expand the articles (see for instance this diff for Fijian sprinter Jone Delai), but as these athletes haven't even won medals at the Oceania Championships, or the Oceania Youth Championships for that matter, it's just not enough to warrant inclusion here. Punkmorten 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a block nomination for two sprinters from African countries. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casnel Bushay for precedence.
These two athlete substubs was created in connection to the 2006 Commonwealth Games, where they participated without even reaching the semi finals. Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games these athletes have achieved nothing, thus falling below the notability bar. No Olympic participation, nothing, and believe me, I have searched for ways to expand the article (see for instance this diff for Fijian sprinter Jone Delai), but when an athlete hasn't even won a medal at his respective regional championships (in this case: the Central African Championships or the West and North African Championships) it's just not enough to warrant inclusion here. Punkmorten 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted by Jaxl. Sango 123 (e) 14:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Duplicate of Tigor Music and Media which is also AfD. Danny Lilithborne 07:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
POV fork. Contains lots of redundant information part of more neutral articles. Merge relevant information into other articles and redirect Rdos 08:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for a non-notable local charity walk. Was PRODded, but tag removed without comment. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 08:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Local councillors, unless otherwise notable, do not meet WP:BIO. (I can see a case for redirecting this to the council page rather than deleting it, and would be interested in others' views.) — Wh o uk ( talk) 08:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability and only two relevant-seeming Google hits. But has an entry in the Indonesian Wikipedia and has been in List of famous Indonesian Chinese since the article started on 26 December 2005. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 08:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable garage band from Argentina. Zero google hits on band and albums. I know the people don't like google hits, specially with 'third world' stuff, but today all bands that makes it to the news has at least some hits. I, Argentine, never heard of them. Mariano( t/ c) 08:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The plot summary of a book should not have an article to itself unless it is demonstrated that the plot summary itself has some unique notability. Integrate content into Great Expectations and delete. Loom91 08:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An alleged religion-substitute based on the teachings of a "cyber-prophet", but whose website is (and has been for a while) 404. About 750 Googles, none of whihc appear to relate to coverage in reliable sources. Contains unverifiable claims (especially since the primary source no longer exists). So, problems with WP:V, apparent lack of WP:RS, no way of verifying WP:NPOV, quite likely to be original research, and no real way of showing otherwise. As far as I can tell Wikipedia is the primary source of information on this topic. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Previous nomination (Jan 2004) -- kingboyk 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep; cleanup and expand. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Very mildly notable, but not enough information available on this song to warrant an Article -- Mattrixed Talk 09:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a storyline from a movie which claims that this is claimed as "first prize at the first annual Southwick Film Festival (Spring 2004), Southwick, MA." Also, there are no Google hits relating to this. Not notable or encyopedic and does not satisfy the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyopedia, not a collection of stories! fnfd 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Pokémon gamecruft. Punkmorten 09:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An so-called "online version" of Survivor running on Freewebs. No Alexa ranking or relevant Google hits. Very non-notable online game. Canley 09:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.-- Alhutch 14:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Makes absolutely no sense - not an article at all. Needs deletion. Kingofspades 10:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the webcam at http://rameysrealm.com/cam.html, which is on a domain that is ranked 5,551,357 by Alexa . It appears to be no more notable than any other webcam. Almost all of the Google hits for "ram cam" are for totally unrelated products and sites. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\ talk 10:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
http://www.ruthshere.com/ghost/ramcamcaps.htm
The ghostcam has had many, many hosts- the name changed- some links were lost- but if you go to any paranormal community and ask them about the ramcam or "rameys cam" they will know exactly what you are talking about. Rameys Realm won an award for the most Original Paranormal Site at Hunts ghosthunters paranormal group. Its listed on Paranormal Australia- Horrorfind Ghosts- Will County Ghost Hunters Society- Paranormal Reviews- Best Websites. Net - Ghostfiles. Org- Ghosts In The Linen Mill- Ghost Encyclopedia @ The Late Shift- Deviant Art and more...I just find it frustrating that something with plenty of reference- thousands of photos- genuine website- plenty of links and adequate hits simply cant make it to wikipedia...The Ram Cam is one of the strongest and convincing paranormal cams ever put on show- not to mention one of the longest lasting. What more is required?
I have links that directly mention the things that i have mentioned in this article to verify that these did indeed happen...You can see the pictures that relate to the apparitions mentioned in its text. I still ask of you to keep this as it is different than other ghost cams and has had reliable sources such as investigators and tests to conclude that it wasnt a hoax. I can post links that give more direct mentioning of the article which further shows that what is said can verified by more than one source. Im having a difficult time understanding this.
It appears that people are ignoring the sources listed and going about their merry ways researching the camera with their own methods its already been clearly stated that Rameys Realm won an award for the most Original Paranormal Site at Hunts ghosthunters paranormal group. Its listed on Paranormal Australia- Horrorfind Ghosts- Will County Ghost Hunters Society- Paranormal Reviews- Best Websites. Net - Ghostfiles. Org- Ghosts In The Linen Mill- Ghost Encyclopedia @ The Late Shift- Deviant Art and more...The website has nearly hit 100,000 web views (according to its host Geocities) and there are sites that back up its sources that show the information is accurate and reliable. Please stop ignoring the sources which directly point out the camera and its "popularity".
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a student essay — original research. Delete. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Few Google hits, sources rather old (1997 and 2003), non-notable scam
Gu
11:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. 20 google hits. Unknown in Norway. Sleepyhead 11:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a student essay — original research. Delete. Seems to be a mate to Business planning (an integrated plan approach). -- RHaworth 11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I would like to make clear that my article is no original research but the result of a literature study (see references at the end of the article). More argumentation can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Method_engineering as this article is part of this project. What should I do to contribute to the wikipedia ecyclopedia with my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgiesen ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This term gets only three Google results. Unfortunately, none of them work. From the results page, two of them appear to be mentions in a list. The word is not shown in the third result, but it is not promising. If this was a real field of study, I would expect far more results, with at least several of them being of decent quality. The article mentions cellular memories (mispelled in the article), which seems to be pseudoscience from my brief investigation. Here is one statement about them. "Cellular memories are stored in the DNA, which we receive from our ancestors. Cellular memory is created whenever we experience trauma or make an emotional decision. And if you believe in such things, cell memory comes in from other lifetimes, other aspects of ourselves in other dimensions." I believe that this article should be deleted as non-notable pseudoscience. -- Kjkolb 12:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep Proto|| type 10:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about a gated community in
Riverside County, California. Doesn't assert notability, plus there is a city called
Sun City in the county that is unrelated to this community, that has
already caused confusion. While I assume good faith on the part of the author, this article should still be deleted.
Danny Lilithborne
12:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Allegedly, a Knights Templar splinter group turned American mobsters. Already "Bork" suggests a hoax, and "Ritter von Bork" scored a perfect zero Google hits yesterday (today Google seems to be slightly ill, and suggests 62 links, none of which actually seem to contain the phrase). If they indeed "operated toll gates on all the major rivers in Germany and Modern day Austria", there would surely have been Googlable mentions. Delete as sourceless hoax. Henning Makholm 12:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The Scuffleball stub has been about for over a year in which time it has been updated mainly with janitorial edits. It has only one external link which no longer works. A google search for scuffleball shows mirrors only. It is a self-declared new sport and I don't think it is verifiable. MLA 12:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. My reading of the current state of the centralised discussion is that the articles will have to be dealt with individually. So I see no reason not to act upon the consensus here. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a student essay — original research (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business planning (an integrated plan approach) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buyer Utility Map). Delete. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. It's a blog, no indications of meeting notability guidelines and WP:WEB. Unless such information is provided, delete. NickelShoe ( Talk) 13:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource and delete - Couldn't find it on Wikisource, so I'll just transwiki it myself. Proto|| type 11:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Transwikied to wikisource per tag request. This isn't an encyclopedia article. Delete.-- Isotope23 14:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Was PROD, but may meet WP:MUSIC (winner of a major music competition, may be "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city") — Spangineer [es] (háblame) 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what the correct format here is, I'm sorry, but I wanted to say that the reason the info is mostly copied/pasted from Jesse's website is that I was too lazy to re-write it. Oh, and also to say that Jesse also has a weekly hip-hop column in Halifax's Daily News. You can check it out here: http://hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?cid=45 . He's not just a nerdcore rapper! Not even. Lefty Lucy
The result of the debate was keep. This article does not meet any criteria for deletion. – Rob ert 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
no chance of EVER becoming a useful or encyclopedic article, nothing more than a series of rants and other questionable content-- IworkforNASA 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm no prude, but this article on the seven places to have sexual intercourse on the campus grounds of Dartmouth College seems pretty unencyclopedic. Disregarding notions of censorship, this list looks to me to be unverifiable (unless someone wants to try it and get back to us), and its one source (cited in the article and the only Google hit) are from an article in student newspaper The Dartmouth, making it sail dangerously close to original research or " something made up at university one day". Canley 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Although the company might be big enough to be notable, the article is just advertising Gu 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy userfy and replace with bio stub about a more notable person. -- RHaworth 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like the same exact vanity page which I asked to be deleted a few days ago.-- Lacatosias 15:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Userfy Kotepho 19:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested {{ db-bio}}. I'm thinking speedy userfy. Weregerbil 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 20:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
Non-notable web site / club started within the last two weeks. No alexa rank. Prod contested with edit comment Deleted the deletion notice. Deleting this would just be anti-atheistic predjudice, which I would not like to see on Wikipedia.. Weregerbil 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I disagree with it being non-notable. Brian Flemming is a notable director of a very notable documentary which has been featured in Newsweek Magazine, the LA Times and countless other prominent publications (see http://www.thegodmovie.com/press.php). This is no less notable than anything Michael Moore has done, just perhaps more controversial given that most people aren't athiest whereas there are far more Democrats. As to the length of the article, I will work on fleshing out the article more robustly tonight. -- Zeroverse
Do not delete. And as for no one caring enough to "attack" Flemmings websites, it looks to me like some do care just that much. However, I cannot know if that is what caused the sites to vanish today. Check out this person's website attacking Flemming: http://www.beyond-propaganda.com/pages/1/index.htm
Please login before making comments. Further, you have not invalidated the arguement. The article does not establish the organization's notability regardless of whether or not it's been reported on in a few news outlets. That fact does not make an organization notable. Yahoo and a radio station are hardly major media outlets. FOX News is a major media outlet but it's only one and it a current item. That does not establish notability. -- Strothra 01:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Proto|| type 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN character according to description Gu 15:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Proto|| type 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Gu 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Barely notable businessman. Delete or slight merge to Ameritech. Stifle ( talk) 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy redirect Kotepho 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The correct name for this writer is Frances Itani. There is already a longer, more thorough entry under the correct name. Victoriagirl 15:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Alkivar on 12 April 2006. – Rob ert 00:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, vanity article (non notable by music standards group on wikipedia) Zotel - the Stub Maker 04:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sufficiently notable, and not asserted to be. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Probable hoax or self-fantasy. Googling for "Charlie Randall" and Pokemon only led to this page and its mirrors. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I prodded this as a slang dicdef (and left a nice message on the creator's talk page about the policy on dictionary definitions and the deletion process). The creator removed the prod tag replacing the word "slang" in the definition with "widely accepted". However, even if this is a "widely accepted" term, it's still a dictionary definition and not appropriate for Wikipedia under WP:WINAD. Delete NickelShoe ( Talk) 16:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. The consensus is borderline, but one 'vote' rests on an assertion of notability for which there is no evidence. Note that this article did not concern the John Scherer linked to from By Jeeves (the only articlespace link to this article), who may merit an article. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn commercial endorser. If we had had an article on Video Professor, I would have redirected there. User:Zoe| (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep Kotepho 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason why the page should be deleted
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 15:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:WEB, Alexa >50,000, WP is not a web directory, NN. Delete Dbchip 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Combination of original research and spam for the mildly bizarre "Institute for Human Conceptual and Mental Development" (their rather weird powerpoint presentation is hosted on Geocities, which is a little suggestive...) TheGrappler 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 16:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a repository for links, or a content mirror. This article consists primarily of links to an external site, along with a small amount of (fortunately GFDL) text copied from that external site. Allan McInnes ( talk) 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Pointless, badly formatted and highly subjective article Jack Cain 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure about this; is this a notable game? Or a system where you take a game and modify it to create your own non-notable variant? Draws a perfect zero on google. Weregerbil 17:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Proto|| type 11:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible case of a crystal ball-article. Merge with Blue screen of death if this is a real and notable error screen, otherwise delete. -- Off! 17:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The problem seems to be in the following file: This page
NON_VERIFIABLE_CONTENT_AND_RELATION_WITH_BSOD
IF this is the first time you have seen this message... Oh, what the hell, this is getting boring.
Freddie 22:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted under G4 by User:Fang Aili. Kotepho 19:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Seems to be original research. Looks like it's been speedied once before as well. I vote to delete TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 17:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I hesistated from speedy deleting this by giving the article editors the benefit of the doubt. However, I fail to see any context to actually explain what this article is about. Pepsidrinka 17:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A minor, young, self published composer. Article has been prodded twice in the last couple of months, and the tag removed. No cleanup or enhancement of article attempted. less than 140 relevant ghits, buy his music from hornguy@yahoo.com MNewnham 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Proto|| type 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable. Aplomado - U T C 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as an attack page. Stifle ( talk) 17:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The article already exists as Shwebomin. Also, this article includes a Burmese derogatory term (Na Pal Gyi) and is vandalism. Hintha 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as personal attack, vandalism, etc. Stifle ( talk) 17:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The article already exists as Shwebomin. Also, this article includes a Burmese derogatory term (South Pal Gyi) and is vandalism. Hintha 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was uhhhhh...no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, 0.5 sources. One obscure book uses the word "Cool" but isn't clear it ever calls it an "African philosophy".
Article faced AfD but was given reprieve to find more sources. Four months later is still lacking sources.
Fails google test.
Leads in with weasely "Cool is considered by several notable professors", none of which are mentioned.
Creator acknowledges this is a POV fork*: "Because people whined and groused about the information regarding its African/African-American origins, I separated out the African/African-American subject matter from cool and began Cool (African philosophy)" (Deeceevoice)
Archived previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)
Justforasecond 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
"Deeceevoice is reminded of the need to follow
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,
Wikipedia:No original research,
Wikipedia:Verifiability. and
Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, her attention is directed to
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Passed 8-0"
CoYep
13:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replyActually, the consensus is not that its a POV fork and I find your comment that it is "irresponsible of any admin to keep it," made after asking me to reconsider my vote, insulting. The article needs a lot of work but it is a valid article. In addition, Robert F. Thompson's article is extremely well known and has been reprinted in a number of places (for example, here [32] and here [33]). The problem with this article is that instead of actually seeking consensus a small number of editors ON ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUE continually attack each other's assertions. As for more references to prove the validity of this subject, try these:
Do I need to go on? This is a subject that is in the academic literature. Based on just a few minutes research I pulled up these two additional references and there are more out there. I suggest we work together to improve this article and move past personal disagreements among the different editors here.-- Alabamaboy 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: This was posted by Deeceevoice at talk:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)
[35]
Just received an e-mail from the professor cited above (the one doing research into cool in African American literature), Jacqueline Goldsby, Univ. of Chicago. Here is what she wrote, in part:
I skimmed the debate at the Wikipedia website, following the link you provided. Since I'm just embarking on my own research into the concept, I can't offer the kind of definitive sourcing you need.
The bottom line is, that neither Deeceevoice, nor Jacqueline Goldsby who is researching the concept, are able to offer any other sources than Thompson. This article was already renamed 4 times in an attempt to find a title that fits DCV'S original research. That's not how an encyclopedia works. I concur with Zoe: An article on Thompson's book would be acceptable, but this is a POV fork article on a philosophy which isn't verifiable.
CoYep
13:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
I'm struck that the contributors to the debate are so hostile toward Robert Farris Thompson's discussion of "coolness" in Flash of the Spirit. That book is recognized by scholars as *the* definitive treatment of African-derived art forms and practices across the diaspora. Thompson's credentials are impeccable, as is his scholarship. It's specious for your opponents to dismiss the idea of "cool"'s Africanist origins simply because only one (English-language) text addresses it. That's often the case in scholarship. After all, seminal ideas have to start somewhere.
comment: Even a professional researcher know of only one book -- even then she doesn't call it a "philosophy" and there's a good likelihood it's a forgery or she was mislead (she hardly "skimmed" the discussion and she mentions the hostility towards thompson -- huh?). I can't believe DCV is making everyone jump through hoops on this. She described her motivations for creating the page -- it is a POV fork. She supported merge but when it looked like her POV might not get enough attention when merged back in she changed her tune to "strong keep". Websites outside of wikipedia have started to notice DCV's activities. [36] Just end this article. Justforasecond 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I suggest you go back to k5, Tex. - FrancisTyers 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep the introduction
The result of the debate was delete; although it doesn't seem it, all the keeps are puppet infested. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
An edit summary admits that this is a protologism. -- RHaworth 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep- Although an annoying term because of its stunning popularity in Post Katrina New Orleans, "Pace" has certainly become terminology on par with such early 90's California surfer lingo as "rad" and "awesome." Urban Dictionary, while also an appropriate location for the terminology, doesn't provide enough credence for terminology being used by an entire culture's population. -WLW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.81.125.59 ( talk • contribs) .
And now my work is being published. This alone should be enough to keep pace. VF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.81.185.149 ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. Created by Andreruss who has contributed nothing else and which looks like an amalgam of the founders' names (Andrew and Susie Howard). Seem to have forgotten their password because editing continued by Ice cream who has contributed nothing else. (I am prepared to be told they are notable even so - but we should not support their guerrilla marketing practises. Meanwhile, Beechdean hasn't the funds to advertise on television. They turn to guerrilla marketing to promote themselves. [37]) -- RHaworth 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Jim Jarmusch. I didn't smerge the incident with his son into Tom Waits, as it doesn't seem notable enough to appear in that article, though it is in Jim Jarmusch. The content (all one line of it) can still easily be seen by bypassing the redirect if anyone disagrees. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A joke amoung friends and not real Mrebus 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete A non-notable neologism, non-verifiable. Clearly non-encyclopedic. Had been speedied once, prod'ed twice (both times the author removed the prod notice without comment). Gwernol 19:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was speedy delete and protect. Slightly different from the versions deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Carlow Crab but equally short on references. -- RHaworth 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete As far as I can tell, this is a hoax. The limited Google hits are either to Wikipedia or apparent spam comments on Amazon. No verifiable links to the supposed show. There are a number of related pages in the process of being created that should also be removed as part of this elaborate hoax. Gwernol 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Transwiki this discussion to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/count strokes, where it should have started. Stifle ( talk) 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am taking the extraordinary step of nominating one of my own subpages for deletion. Tim Starling doesn't want it used any more, and that (for me) is reason enough.
But it's really because it does arithmetic in a hideously cumbersome way to support date math. It was originally intended to help with time zones and calendars, but the experiment got way out of hand. -- Uncle Ed 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious Delete. Since only three authors, not technically a candidate for {{ db-author}} but pretty close.-- Fuhghettaboutit 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, the reason I didn't simply blank the page was that so many other templates depend on it. And these templates are involved with timezones and all. We need to consider the implications. Otherwise I'd simply dismantle the whole set of Wikipedia:date math templates.
Tim Starling's new PHP support for evaluating math expressions is expected to replace the "count strokes" thing. I'm hoping for a smooth transition. Please help me make it. -- Uncle Ed 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy redirect Kotepho 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
While browsing through the accompanying articles I noticed that wikipedia also has a page for Godzilla:_Tokyo_S.O.S., which appears to be a more detailed description of exactly the same movie.
Somehow one movie has gotten two pages...
Should we not delete one of them?
The exact link of the duplicate page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla:_Tokyo_S.O.S. Jack-McLangley 20:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP, withdrawn by nominator. NTK 16:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No real content. It doesn't seem significant when googling PhiJ 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Can I withdraw it from AFD, or does it have to go through? It is now a lot better than when I first saw it here! -- PhiJ 16:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (also after discounting anons). Kusma (討論) 02:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
Non-notable student organization, exists almost exlusively at one school, no notable activities.
Some guy
20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Residential house, doesn't assert notability. Some guy 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete - O bli ( Talk) ? 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, non-notable, possibly advertisement? Bill Sayre 20:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 09:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This is a minor element of a TV show and not worthy of a separate article. Even within the Characters of Lost article it is close to being fancruft. Rillian 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: speedy deleted as an attack page and blatant nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe ( talk • contribs)
A libelous piece of trash, to be sure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokeisit ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable record label, only one page of Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, the only direct Wikipedia:Notability would be "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". -> It covers more than ten reviews of their releases in German underground electronic webzines and print-magazines in a time period of less than one year Link and is featured at discogs.com Link PhilippN 21:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle ( talk) 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group, vanity article. Also, the term "Car crash television" more commonly refers to a very bad or shocking programme, rather than some obscure band. If this group ever becomes famous, then a more suitable page could be recreated. DWaterson 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. nn. -- Ton e 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Kusma (討論) 02:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school. I put up a "explain significance" tag twice but the author apparently disagrees so I'll just take it here. Some guy 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Istrancis: Hi, I'm the author of this article, and I note that there seems to be a problem with it. It's my first article, you see, and I'm probably missing a couple of rules etc. Sorry if I've caused you trouble, but I just thought that it'd be nice to have my school on Wikipedia. If you want to delete it, that's no problem, but I'm still not sure what I should do to fix it. I guess it's not really all that significant, as I said I just thought it'd be a nice entry, but if there's any way I can improve it, please let me know.
Istrancis: Listen guys, thanks a lot for your help and all on this, but I think that the best thing to do is to just delete this article, and I'll go through the rules and stuff, get a little more experience and see if there are any articles I can edit, and then maybe I'll come back and post this article again. But for now, sorry for causing you trouble, and thanks again for your help! Bye for now.
Istrancis: Thanks a lot for checking this out, I really appreciate it you nob end!
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Proto as an article whose only content is links elsewhere. Stifle ( talk) 00:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A list with only one blue link, inactive for months. The one blue should be made the cover one at the moment. -- Ton e 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Fan site of Scott Mills, no more notbale than any other fansite; covered by an external link and sentence on his page, which is generous enough as it is. Robdurbar 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Stifle ( talk) 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN article that seems almost for sure to be a vanity article. Does not meet WP:BIO, only claim to noteability is having run for the NDP in Red Deer and community consensus in the past has been that failed electoral candidates do not get articles unless they're noteable for something else (which he's not) pm_shef 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election as should be done with all other failed candidates without other serious clims to notability. Luigizanasi 05:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect (necessary merging has taken place) Proto|| type 12:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN. Running and losing in multiple election does not give one a claim to noteability, that has been established in the past. Since that seems to be his only claim to noteability, he doesn't meet WP:BIO. pm_shef 21:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Angelina Jolie. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bio.-- Fallout boy 09:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Angelina Jolie. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bio.-- Fallout boy 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN former election candidate, never having received over 1% of the vote is hardly a claim to noteability. Seems to be vanity, certainly doesn't meet WP:BIO pm_shef 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Stifle ( talk) 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Title is about one person, but article seems to be about two seperate people, both of whom are equally NN. Probable vanity article, I can't see how they meet WP:BIO in any possible way. pm_shef 22:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN, no claim to noteability beyond having run in, and lost, a number of elections (which has not been considered sufficiently noteable on Wiki in the past). Possible vanity article, clearly doesn't meet WP:BIO. pm_shef 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 05:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Merged into Creatures in the Metroid series, useless incomplete list-cruft.-- Zxcvbnm 22:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Slash/fanfic cruft. Delete. Zetawoof( ζ) 22:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a non-notable event, although I'm not positive. See also the bottom of Talk:Holi. Melchoir 23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. There is no "cast biography" on that page as yet to merge to. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is about one contestant on a UK reality TV show called " Beauty and the Geek". None of the other contestants have a page as of yet; and this is for a good reason. The show is not hugely popular, and the contestants are not, and have not become, celebrities. It really is a fly-by-night type of notability. Also, it may be a vanity page (user's contributions are to the show and the college Edmund is from); but I am willing to assume good faith, and say that it is written by a loyal fan. However, he is just not notable enough, IMO, for inclusion. Batmanand | Talk 23:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
To the best of my knowledge the article has been created by a fan and supporter. I can see the argument for deletion, but IMO it should stay. Sebstuart 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree! Watching the show it is clear that Edmund is one of the more notable characters. He has already been on Richard and Judy and Harry Hill's TV Burb (both quite mainstream shows) and he has given interviews to national and local newspapers. To delete this article before the terrestrial showing of BatG runs its course would be a travesty.
It has been written by the good people of Downing Collge, Cambridge, who have also set up "www.edmundbolton.co.uk"
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete There is little in this list that isn't being done by Category:Timelines and its subcategories. There are a few entries that link to timelines that are inside articles, but I also found quite a few links to sections that don't exist (and removed the links in that case). JeffW 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Kusma (討論) 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
POV rant, abuses people, unencyclopedic, listed here because others and I have attempted to save the page with past edits. As an admin, I cannot speedy delete since the edit history is too long. It needs group consensus here. (NOTE: This is only for a partial deletion of the article's history, not a vote to get rid of any future article with this name) Davodd 23:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (revised 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, Rumored Digimon means no verifiability, no source, no nothing. Recently information was added to the article that there appears to be no data anywhere or pictures of this Digimon. -- Ned Scott 23:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 04:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Possibly vanity page, lack of notability or verifiability Harris 07:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The first of 4 webcomics I bring to you today is Number 53, found here. If you have a look at Talk:Number 53 (webcomic), you'll see the article author noting why he believes the article to be notable, being that it is linked from The Webcomic List, however, I disagree. Being that the Webcomic list is merely a webcomic link site which hosts entries for thousands of webcomics. This is not a notable website, having been established just over 3 months ago, a look on Google for "number 53" webcomic only finds 30 links, all of them trivial. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Are UTurn Creative Studios a notable artistic entity? What about the webcomic they produce, found here? You can take a look at their forums here, where you'll find the webcomic author (who also wrote this article) mostly talking to himself. A google search for "a rusty life" brings back 49 unique hits whilst Alexa ranks it at over 2 million. Wikipedia is not the place for these nn webcomic entries. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A website hosted on Freewebs, this webcomic can be seen here. Is this website notable? Do these Sega inspired gif animations warrant an encyclopedia article? If you do a search of "The Final Zone" finalbeyond (finalbeyond being the author) you get back 13 unique links. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a Sonic the Hedgehog fan fiction webcomic (related to the nomination above), hosted on a forum thread. Yes, it doesn't even bother with a free web host, you can see it here on the Friday the 13th Forum. Now the forum has about 1500 members, which might make it barely notable enough for an article about the forum itself, but a singular webcomic thread?! And it's not even popular on that forum, about 10 different people have ever replied to that thread. Also note that you'll see Wikipedia linked prominently in original webcomic post, they're using a Wikipedia page as a handy free "About Us" page, which also generates a handy little promotional tool by appearing in the List of webcomics. I would prod this, being so unnotable, but being hosted on a forum, I decided not to take the chance. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Verrai 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The primary reasons I am proposing deletion is because Wikipedia is not a memorial, as well as the article failing to provide notability. Thousands of people died during Hurricane Katrina, and tenfold more were affected by the hurricane. Some might argue for his notability in that he briefly became an international news story on the personal affects. First, this isn't Wikinews, and second, his being on the news was being at the right place at the right time. Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Seems pretty clearly to be a vanity article. I can't see how this is at all encyclopedic or how it meets any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Looks like pretty clear Vanispamcruftisement pm_shef 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (redundancy). – Rob ert 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Its a copy of Indiana University, but not as good. Fosnez 00:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
According to the Suva article this is no longer the tallest building on the island (see here). I think that removes its only notable characteristic. -- Scientizzle 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
High school newspaper with no claims to notability. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 07:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
The comments of some very new users were disregarded in determining the result of this debate (
Heatherb,
Tail3736,
Pvision). The comments of all anonymous users were also disregarded.
Nn spamvertisement for online political project. Alexa ranking of 3,180,738. Fails to meet WP:WEB. Delete -- Hetar 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Any time a group of cross-partisan experts/citizens get together, it is noteworthy.
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity bio -- complete with numerous presumably-for-SEO links -- of Yet Another Digital Entrepeneur. Gets 54 hits on Google -- the first calling him a scammer, and the second this article. Calton | Talk 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable Nepalese website. 818 Google hits. Prod tag pulled (twice, actually) by the original author without explanation. Delete. DMG413 01:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 17:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is not encyclopaedic. I deleted it 2 or 3 times on fr:Wikipédia Markadet fr 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete. Why is this an article? Bio, vanity; thank you for attempting to contribute to wikipedia please try again. Please watch this article. User is attempting to delete the AfD tag.-- Strothra 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Do not delete While this may not be a world famous person, the person is rather well known through the Albany, NY region. User:Adam Riley 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 17:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Untranslated Spanish article from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete unless translated and notability explained. Kusma (討論) 01:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Hernan Lopez, born Argentinean the 15-04-1977, centered multifacético artist at first in the architecture and that soon would deposit all its creative load in the tango. An example paradigmatico of the joker of fourth degree is considered. Founder of the interpretativo system of the personality that consists of being made the estupido one to hide that he is natural estupido. It caused that by Frachela comparison it is seen as but studio illustrates cultor of metodo Stanislavski of the actor, and that Marley, TV conductor, like a French estructuralista. Their feats like tango dancer were so important that until a letter "Milonguero of Building" was dedicated to him. A controversy with respect to its doctrine and thought exists, in as much to the responsibility, given the characteristic equality differentials with Emilio J. Rizzo. In order to desmarañar this intríngulis that worries to the modern historian has mentioned a witness, companion of both: Tomás Peisker. Tomás I declare: "they grew up literally together, in any case he is stupid to say that some I copy myself of another one, they lack the encefalica mace to carry out this cerebral process", a corchea, four semifusas, greater DO.
Based on that text, I don't see any suggestion of notability. Delete.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
'''Deposit all its creative load in the tango''' is an internet meme created by [[Babel Fish (website)|Babelfish]]. It is currently gaining in popularity.
(3) Click "Save". (4) Check back periodically to remove prods. Remember to log out before you remove the prod; it looks amateurish if prods are removed by named users. (5) There you go!
Henning Makholm
13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A2: same article in Spanish at es:Juego de la Distribución de la Cerveza. Kusma (討論) 03:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Spanish text from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete if nobody translates it, reconsider if someone does. Kusma (討論) 01:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The game of the distribution of the beer is a game of the simulation used in atmospheres of education to demonstrate a number of dominant principles of the management of the source chain. Fact in front with the uncertain demand for the beer and and a chain of gradual source, the players is that they fight to avoid to work of product whereas they try to avoid to finance great inventories. The game introduces quickly to students to several important concepts of the management of the chain of source including turnpikes, cooperation, and prognosis
WP:NFT?
Roy
boy
crash
fan
01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete unless someone translates it and adds a source. Bob A 03:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Elf-friend as nonsense. Henning Makholm 13:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Deprodded without comment. Neologism/dicdef. ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable-- Strothra 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A2 since this is at es:Ingeniería Logística and we have Logistic engineering already. Kusma (討論) 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Untranslated Spanish from WP:PNT. Delete if untranslated, reconsider if somebody translates this. Kusma (討論) 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Logistic engineering takes care of the science of the logistics. The logistics talk about the purchase, transport, distribution, storage of raw materials. The handling of all these activities efficiently is for an effective organization the main question in the mind of any logistic engineer. Diverse measures of operation are used to examine the effectiveness of the logistics of an organization. The measurement of more popular operation and extensively used is the landed cost. The landed cost is the total cost to buy, transport, raw materials of storage and that they distribute, half-finished and finished merchandise. Another measurement of equally important operation is the mark of the client. It is the percentage of the demand of client who immediately is satisfied. The logistics are generally service operations of the cost-center, but it provides value via the client satisfaction. It can lose that value quickly if the client is not satisfied. The client of the end can include another center of the process or the work within the manufacture, a warehouse in where to the articles or the final client are stored that will use the product. Another much more popular derivative and a complete use of the logistic term that has appeared in recent years is the provision chain. The provision chain also watches an efficient linking of the same one with the distribution of the purchase and the organization. While Logistic sight single steps with the provision and the distribution immediately related, the provision chain watches manifold escalones/etapas, the right of the acquisition of the raw materials to the final distribution of merchandise or products finished for the client. One is based on the basic premise of which the activities of the provision and the distribution if they estan integrated with the manufacture and the logistics operations, can have like result better capacity of gain for the organization. The local minimums of the total cost of the industrial operation obtain replaced by the global minimums of the total cost of the whole chain, giving one better capacity of gain for the members of chain and of it lowers the costs for products there.
Delete, we already have
Logistic engineering. We could, however, transwiki to Spanish Wikipedia.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was transwiki and speedy delete as non-English text on another language Wikipedia. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Untranslated Spanish from WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. Delete if untranslated, reconsider if translation reveals something interesting. Kusma (討論) 01:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
APICS the Association for the Administration of Operations, is nonlucrative international an educative organization, offers the certification, the programs, training instruments and to make contact with enemy the opportunities to increase the performance of place of work. He was founded on 1957 like the American Society of Production and Control of existence, and has at the moment about 77,000 individual and corporative members in on 25,000 world-wide organizations. APICS defines to the Management of the Operations as "the field of the study that is centered in the planning, programming, and control of an organization with the study of concepts of the engineering of design, industrial engineering, information systems of management, management of the quality, management of production, management of inventory, accounting, and as functions to the organization affect ootras" (dictionary of APICS, 11ma edition). The main push of the APICS knowledge is how to improve corporative benefits eliminating costos.A difference of several consultadoras companies, this knowledge does not require the increase in sales, nor in involuntary unemployment of employees to improve the gains. APICS also considers the authority in systems of management of business such as MRP and ERP, Just in Time, and defects zero. APICS grants three designations professional: CPIM (certified in the management of the production and inventory), CIRM (certified in the integrated management of resource) and CSCP (professional certificate of the provision chain). The CFPIM (Certificó to Man in the Administration of the Production and the Inventory) only has was obtained by about 1200 teachers of the body of APICS CPIM of the knowledge.
Based on
WP:CORP, I'd have to say delete.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 23:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Boatfarm 01:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Weak delete. Article could be updated, but, yes it is a dictionary article-- Strothra 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable company. "Tigor Music and Media" yields
0 Google results.
Rory
0
96
02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as the AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator. Con Dem Talk 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Information that is in oath and profanity already. Also looks like a dicdef. Suggest redirect to profanity, since this is probably what someone searching for "swearing" would be looking for, or maybe a disambig page. Con Dem Talk 02:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, come one, how could a religion that was created today (tomorrow, for us here in the United States, possibly be notable? patent nonsense.--
Adam
(
talk)
03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sango 123 (e) 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
there's no indication that anything will become of this "bourse". given that, the only other thing i can think of to do with this article would be to merge it to "planned exchanges that never happened". the question is, should it be deleted now or given more time (or merged)? Bob A 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
RGTraynor 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete, A5. – Rob ert 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Transwikied to Wikibooks Transwiki:Secrets_and_glitches_in_Halo_2, not needed here anymore.-- Zxcvbnm 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Angr ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement and a Non notable electronic device. Every DVD player and most home theater stereos have circuits that do the same function. Bige1977 03:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 14:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 09:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am probably going to lose this one, but... Religious fanaticism is a priori a NPOV violation. The whole article cannot escape being terminally biased. One man's religious fanatic is another's normal religious person. And before you can retort with, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and look, we do have an article on Terrorism", at least terrorism is a defined crime and statutes describe it and people who may condone it at the very least recognize that they're involved in it. Religious fanaticism is much more amorphous, and cannot be defined. Practices of sect X, which some may consider to be R.F., should go into the article on sect X. Everything else here is hopeless conjecture. Note also that this article has been untouched for half a year. Delete - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, and merge any useful content into related articles. Well said. Tijuana Brass 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable, advertisement Bill Sayre 04:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 09:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
Note that although the debate did not reach a consensus, the article underwent a rewrite during the debate. All who participated in the debate after the rewrite were in favour of keeping the article. Thus for all intents and purposes, the result of this debate is to keep the article.
illegible. The closest I got was that it's a hospital called Saidu in Swat, Pakistan, but does not make any claims of notability. Is totally unreadable, and I would LOVE to see someone count how many times the author says the word "swat", it seems like every other sentence. Anyway, nn, horridly written, signed by author, etc.
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 09:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
The debate reached no consensus because there was not sufficient support for any single option.
Thus there is a consensus not to delete the article (although the majority was divided between keeping and merging the content).
Delete NN, doesn't meet WP:BIO, consensus has generally been that former candidate, if otherwise not noteable, do not get pages. pm_shef 05:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 09:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
The nominator attempted to nominate other articles along with this one, however since the AfD notice was not displayed on any of those other articles, they will not be deleted as a result of this debate.
Pop-Music-cruft. I found this on the Dead-end Pages page and added a Prod" tag. Tag removed by User:Everyking (although, I oughtta add, he was NOT its creator), with the comment what is this thing? there must at least be an afd. So here we are. Calton | Talk 05:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Marudubshinki at 06.37. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn secondary school teacher. Horribly POV
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn cruft website
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
05:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
User:Tyr_shadowblade I do not understand why this article was slated for deletion mere seconds after I posted it. The information is verifiable, does not violate copyright and is unbiased. And what did User:Swatjester mean by "nn cruft website"? Please be specific as to how this article can be improved, as I'm new to posting here.
The poster deserves more explaination. The criteria for a Wikipedia article about a web site is at WP:WEB. The requirements are set rather high, or every promoted website in the web would have a Wikipedia article. "nn" just means "non-notable", which refers to Wikipedia's requirement that a website or person or band be "notable" to be included. -- John Nagle 06:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Tyr-shadowblade Warriorship is a "non-serious topic"? Mr Binguyen is entitled to his opinion . . . even if it's wrong. I looked at Wikipedia's articles on the topic of notability and understood that this is not necessarilly a "requirement", as "Wikipedia is not paper". I thought RWT was of interest, and their website certainly isn't a fancruft or vanity website. Have any of the people in favor of deletion even looked at the material there?
User:Tyr_shadowblade Just realized that I made a mistake in the first paragraph and edited it. RWT was an organization which created a website and published several books . . . if that makes any difference. Not JUST a website.
User:Tyr_shadowblade Fine . . . article deleted. . . oh, the bot won't permit it.
The SubGenius must have SLACK!!!
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, we can't have whole articles devoted to minor elements of an anime. I'm a big fan of this series, and even I find this article to be completely unnecessary. Wikipedia is NOT here to retell every possible event in fictional stories. Please "nip this in the bud". See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) -- Ned Scott 05:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 10:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Attempted speedy, user deleted it. Article looks like a vanity article, there is no claim to noteability, being a failed election candidate does not entitle one to an article pm_shef 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is an appendage to Holy Tantra Jin-Gang-Dhyana Buddhism by the same author (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Tantra Jin-Gang-Dhyana Buddhism). Totally unreferenced, obscure, and contextless. Nat Krause( Talk!) 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus tending towards keep. bainer ( talk) 10:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
POV and plain spam Casper2k3 06:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Article seems to be self-promotion for Vinny's Pizza. Also, not of significance/notability. jpmck 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as duplicate of Bridle Path, Toronto. – Rob ert 00:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No context provided, has not been edited since January 22. -- Impaciente 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as attack page. – Rob ert 00:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No clue how this page has been around for so long. The entire article seems to be a joke and/or hoax. Landeyda 06:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
As it is, advertisement. Has been left virtually untouched since creation. Impaciente 07:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy userfy. -- RHaworth 16:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nothing in the article asserts any kind of notability whatsoever. It's a biography of an unimportant person. All Google hits on "Anthony Fuchs" writer are of different people with the same name. The El Reyko 07:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a block nomination for six sprinters from Oceanic countries. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casnel Bushay for precedence.
These six athlete substubs were created in connection to the 2006 Commonwealth Games, where they participated without even reaching the semi finals. Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games these athletes have achieved nothing of note, thus falling below the notability bar. No Olympic participation, nothing. Believe me, I have searched for ways to expand the articles (see for instance this diff for Fijian sprinter Jone Delai), but as these athletes haven't even won medals at the Oceania Championships, or the Oceania Youth Championships for that matter, it's just not enough to warrant inclusion here. Punkmorten 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a block nomination for two sprinters from African countries. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casnel Bushay for precedence.
These two athlete substubs was created in connection to the 2006 Commonwealth Games, where they participated without even reaching the semi finals. Except for this mere participation at the 2006 Commonwealth Games these athletes have achieved nothing, thus falling below the notability bar. No Olympic participation, nothing, and believe me, I have searched for ways to expand the article (see for instance this diff for Fijian sprinter Jone Delai), but when an athlete hasn't even won a medal at his respective regional championships (in this case: the Central African Championships or the West and North African Championships) it's just not enough to warrant inclusion here. Punkmorten 07:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted by Jaxl. Sango 123 (e) 14:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Duplicate of Tigor Music and Media which is also AfD. Danny Lilithborne 07:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
POV fork. Contains lots of redundant information part of more neutral articles. Merge relevant information into other articles and redirect Rdos 08:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for a non-notable local charity walk. Was PRODded, but tag removed without comment. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 08:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Local councillors, unless otherwise notable, do not meet WP:BIO. (I can see a case for redirecting this to the council page rather than deleting it, and would be interested in others' views.) — Wh o uk ( talk) 08:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability and only two relevant-seeming Google hits. But has an entry in the Indonesian Wikipedia and has been in List of famous Indonesian Chinese since the article started on 26 December 2005. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 08:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable garage band from Argentina. Zero google hits on band and albums. I know the people don't like google hits, specially with 'third world' stuff, but today all bands that makes it to the news has at least some hits. I, Argentine, never heard of them. Mariano( t/ c) 08:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The plot summary of a book should not have an article to itself unless it is demonstrated that the plot summary itself has some unique notability. Integrate content into Great Expectations and delete. Loom91 08:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An alleged religion-substitute based on the teachings of a "cyber-prophet", but whose website is (and has been for a while) 404. About 750 Googles, none of whihc appear to relate to coverage in reliable sources. Contains unverifiable claims (especially since the primary source no longer exists). So, problems with WP:V, apparent lack of WP:RS, no way of verifying WP:NPOV, quite likely to be original research, and no real way of showing otherwise. As far as I can tell Wikipedia is the primary source of information on this topic. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Previous nomination (Jan 2004) -- kingboyk 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep; cleanup and expand. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Very mildly notable, but not enough information available on this song to warrant an Article -- Mattrixed Talk 09:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a storyline from a movie which claims that this is claimed as "first prize at the first annual Southwick Film Festival (Spring 2004), Southwick, MA." Also, there are no Google hits relating to this. Not notable or encyopedic and does not satisfy the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyopedia, not a collection of stories! fnfd 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Pokémon gamecruft. Punkmorten 09:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An so-called "online version" of Survivor running on Freewebs. No Alexa ranking or relevant Google hits. Very non-notable online game. Canley 09:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.-- Alhutch 14:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Makes absolutely no sense - not an article at all. Needs deletion. Kingofspades 10:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the webcam at http://rameysrealm.com/cam.html, which is on a domain that is ranked 5,551,357 by Alexa . It appears to be no more notable than any other webcam. Almost all of the Google hits for "ram cam" are for totally unrelated products and sites. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\ talk 10:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
http://www.ruthshere.com/ghost/ramcamcaps.htm
The ghostcam has had many, many hosts- the name changed- some links were lost- but if you go to any paranormal community and ask them about the ramcam or "rameys cam" they will know exactly what you are talking about. Rameys Realm won an award for the most Original Paranormal Site at Hunts ghosthunters paranormal group. Its listed on Paranormal Australia- Horrorfind Ghosts- Will County Ghost Hunters Society- Paranormal Reviews- Best Websites. Net - Ghostfiles. Org- Ghosts In The Linen Mill- Ghost Encyclopedia @ The Late Shift- Deviant Art and more...I just find it frustrating that something with plenty of reference- thousands of photos- genuine website- plenty of links and adequate hits simply cant make it to wikipedia...The Ram Cam is one of the strongest and convincing paranormal cams ever put on show- not to mention one of the longest lasting. What more is required?
I have links that directly mention the things that i have mentioned in this article to verify that these did indeed happen...You can see the pictures that relate to the apparitions mentioned in its text. I still ask of you to keep this as it is different than other ghost cams and has had reliable sources such as investigators and tests to conclude that it wasnt a hoax. I can post links that give more direct mentioning of the article which further shows that what is said can verified by more than one source. Im having a difficult time understanding this.
It appears that people are ignoring the sources listed and going about their merry ways researching the camera with their own methods its already been clearly stated that Rameys Realm won an award for the most Original Paranormal Site at Hunts ghosthunters paranormal group. Its listed on Paranormal Australia- Horrorfind Ghosts- Will County Ghost Hunters Society- Paranormal Reviews- Best Websites. Net - Ghostfiles. Org- Ghosts In The Linen Mill- Ghost Encyclopedia @ The Late Shift- Deviant Art and more...The website has nearly hit 100,000 web views (according to its host Geocities) and there are sites that back up its sources that show the information is accurate and reliable. Please stop ignoring the sources which directly point out the camera and its "popularity".
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a student essay — original research. Delete. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Few Google hits, sources rather old (1997 and 2003), non-notable scam
Gu
11:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. 20 google hits. Unknown in Norway. Sleepyhead 11:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a student essay — original research. Delete. Seems to be a mate to Business planning (an integrated plan approach). -- RHaworth 11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I would like to make clear that my article is no original research but the result of a literature study (see references at the end of the article). More argumentation can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Method_engineering as this article is part of this project. What should I do to contribute to the wikipedia ecyclopedia with my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgiesen ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This term gets only three Google results. Unfortunately, none of them work. From the results page, two of them appear to be mentions in a list. The word is not shown in the third result, but it is not promising. If this was a real field of study, I would expect far more results, with at least several of them being of decent quality. The article mentions cellular memories (mispelled in the article), which seems to be pseudoscience from my brief investigation. Here is one statement about them. "Cellular memories are stored in the DNA, which we receive from our ancestors. Cellular memory is created whenever we experience trauma or make an emotional decision. And if you believe in such things, cell memory comes in from other lifetimes, other aspects of ourselves in other dimensions." I believe that this article should be deleted as non-notable pseudoscience. -- Kjkolb 12:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep Proto|| type 10:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about a gated community in
Riverside County, California. Doesn't assert notability, plus there is a city called
Sun City in the county that is unrelated to this community, that has
already caused confusion. While I assume good faith on the part of the author, this article should still be deleted.
Danny Lilithborne
12:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Allegedly, a Knights Templar splinter group turned American mobsters. Already "Bork" suggests a hoax, and "Ritter von Bork" scored a perfect zero Google hits yesterday (today Google seems to be slightly ill, and suggests 62 links, none of which actually seem to contain the phrase). If they indeed "operated toll gates on all the major rivers in Germany and Modern day Austria", there would surely have been Googlable mentions. Delete as sourceless hoax. Henning Makholm 12:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The Scuffleball stub has been about for over a year in which time it has been updated mainly with janitorial edits. It has only one external link which no longer works. A google search for scuffleball shows mirrors only. It is a self-declared new sport and I don't think it is verifiable. MLA 12:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. My reading of the current state of the centralised discussion is that the articles will have to be dealt with individually. So I see no reason not to act upon the consensus here. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a student essay — original research (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business planning (an integrated plan approach) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buyer Utility Map). Delete. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. It's a blog, no indications of meeting notability guidelines and WP:WEB. Unless such information is provided, delete. NickelShoe ( Talk) 13:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource and delete - Couldn't find it on Wikisource, so I'll just transwiki it myself. Proto|| type 11:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Transwikied to wikisource per tag request. This isn't an encyclopedia article. Delete.-- Isotope23 14:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Was PROD, but may meet WP:MUSIC (winner of a major music competition, may be "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city") — Spangineer [es] (háblame) 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what the correct format here is, I'm sorry, but I wanted to say that the reason the info is mostly copied/pasted from Jesse's website is that I was too lazy to re-write it. Oh, and also to say that Jesse also has a weekly hip-hop column in Halifax's Daily News. You can check it out here: http://hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?cid=45 . He's not just a nerdcore rapper! Not even. Lefty Lucy
The result of the debate was keep. This article does not meet any criteria for deletion. – Rob ert 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
no chance of EVER becoming a useful or encyclopedic article, nothing more than a series of rants and other questionable content-- IworkforNASA 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm no prude, but this article on the seven places to have sexual intercourse on the campus grounds of Dartmouth College seems pretty unencyclopedic. Disregarding notions of censorship, this list looks to me to be unverifiable (unless someone wants to try it and get back to us), and its one source (cited in the article and the only Google hit) are from an article in student newspaper The Dartmouth, making it sail dangerously close to original research or " something made up at university one day". Canley 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Although the company might be big enough to be notable, the article is just advertising Gu 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy userfy and replace with bio stub about a more notable person. -- RHaworth 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like the same exact vanity page which I asked to be deleted a few days ago.-- Lacatosias 15:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Userfy Kotepho 19:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested {{ db-bio}}. I'm thinking speedy userfy. Weregerbil 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 20:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
Non-notable web site / club started within the last two weeks. No alexa rank. Prod contested with edit comment Deleted the deletion notice. Deleting this would just be anti-atheistic predjudice, which I would not like to see on Wikipedia.. Weregerbil 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I disagree with it being non-notable. Brian Flemming is a notable director of a very notable documentary which has been featured in Newsweek Magazine, the LA Times and countless other prominent publications (see http://www.thegodmovie.com/press.php). This is no less notable than anything Michael Moore has done, just perhaps more controversial given that most people aren't athiest whereas there are far more Democrats. As to the length of the article, I will work on fleshing out the article more robustly tonight. -- Zeroverse
Do not delete. And as for no one caring enough to "attack" Flemmings websites, it looks to me like some do care just that much. However, I cannot know if that is what caused the sites to vanish today. Check out this person's website attacking Flemming: http://www.beyond-propaganda.com/pages/1/index.htm
Please login before making comments. Further, you have not invalidated the arguement. The article does not establish the organization's notability regardless of whether or not it's been reported on in a few news outlets. That fact does not make an organization notable. Yahoo and a radio station are hardly major media outlets. FOX News is a major media outlet but it's only one and it a current item. That does not establish notability. -- Strothra 01:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Proto|| type 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN character according to description Gu 15:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Proto|| type 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Gu 15:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Barely notable businessman. Delete or slight merge to Ameritech. Stifle ( talk) 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy redirect Kotepho 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The correct name for this writer is Frances Itani. There is already a longer, more thorough entry under the correct name. Victoriagirl 15:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Alkivar on 12 April 2006. – Rob ert 00:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, vanity article (non notable by music standards group on wikipedia) Zotel - the Stub Maker 04:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sufficiently notable, and not asserted to be. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Probable hoax or self-fantasy. Googling for "Charlie Randall" and Pokemon only led to this page and its mirrors. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I prodded this as a slang dicdef (and left a nice message on the creator's talk page about the policy on dictionary definitions and the deletion process). The creator removed the prod tag replacing the word "slang" in the definition with "widely accepted". However, even if this is a "widely accepted" term, it's still a dictionary definition and not appropriate for Wikipedia under WP:WINAD. Delete NickelShoe ( Talk) 16:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. The consensus is borderline, but one 'vote' rests on an assertion of notability for which there is no evidence. Note that this article did not concern the John Scherer linked to from By Jeeves (the only articlespace link to this article), who may merit an article. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn commercial endorser. If we had had an article on Video Professor, I would have redirected there. User:Zoe| (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep Kotepho 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason why the page should be deleted
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 15:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:WEB, Alexa >50,000, WP is not a web directory, NN. Delete Dbchip 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Combination of original research and spam for the mildly bizarre "Institute for Human Conceptual and Mental Development" (their rather weird powerpoint presentation is hosted on Geocities, which is a little suggestive...) TheGrappler 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 16:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a repository for links, or a content mirror. This article consists primarily of links to an external site, along with a small amount of (fortunately GFDL) text copied from that external site. Allan McInnes ( talk) 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Pointless, badly formatted and highly subjective article Jack Cain 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure about this; is this a notable game? Or a system where you take a game and modify it to create your own non-notable variant? Draws a perfect zero on google. Weregerbil 17:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Proto|| type 11:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible case of a crystal ball-article. Merge with Blue screen of death if this is a real and notable error screen, otherwise delete. -- Off! 17:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The problem seems to be in the following file: This page
NON_VERIFIABLE_CONTENT_AND_RELATION_WITH_BSOD
IF this is the first time you have seen this message... Oh, what the hell, this is getting boring.
Freddie 22:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted under G4 by User:Fang Aili. Kotepho 19:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Seems to be original research. Looks like it's been speedied once before as well. I vote to delete TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 17:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I hesistated from speedy deleting this by giving the article editors the benefit of the doubt. However, I fail to see any context to actually explain what this article is about. Pepsidrinka 17:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A minor, young, self published composer. Article has been prodded twice in the last couple of months, and the tag removed. No cleanup or enhancement of article attempted. less than 140 relevant ghits, buy his music from hornguy@yahoo.com MNewnham 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Proto|| type 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable. Aplomado - U T C 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as an attack page. Stifle ( talk) 17:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The article already exists as Shwebomin. Also, this article includes a Burmese derogatory term (Na Pal Gyi) and is vandalism. Hintha 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as personal attack, vandalism, etc. Stifle ( talk) 17:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The article already exists as Shwebomin. Also, this article includes a Burmese derogatory term (South Pal Gyi) and is vandalism. Hintha 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was uhhhhh...no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, 0.5 sources. One obscure book uses the word "Cool" but isn't clear it ever calls it an "African philosophy".
Article faced AfD but was given reprieve to find more sources. Four months later is still lacking sources.
Fails google test.
Leads in with weasely "Cool is considered by several notable professors", none of which are mentioned.
Creator acknowledges this is a POV fork*: "Because people whined and groused about the information regarding its African/African-American origins, I separated out the African/African-American subject matter from cool and began Cool (African philosophy)" (Deeceevoice)
Archived previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)
Justforasecond 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
"Deeceevoice is reminded of the need to follow
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,
Wikipedia:No original research,
Wikipedia:Verifiability. and
Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, her attention is directed to
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Passed 8-0"
CoYep
13:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replyActually, the consensus is not that its a POV fork and I find your comment that it is "irresponsible of any admin to keep it," made after asking me to reconsider my vote, insulting. The article needs a lot of work but it is a valid article. In addition, Robert F. Thompson's article is extremely well known and has been reprinted in a number of places (for example, here [32] and here [33]). The problem with this article is that instead of actually seeking consensus a small number of editors ON ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUE continually attack each other's assertions. As for more references to prove the validity of this subject, try these:
Do I need to go on? This is a subject that is in the academic literature. Based on just a few minutes research I pulled up these two additional references and there are more out there. I suggest we work together to improve this article and move past personal disagreements among the different editors here.-- Alabamaboy 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: This was posted by Deeceevoice at talk:Articles for deletion/Cool (African philosophy)
[35]
Just received an e-mail from the professor cited above (the one doing research into cool in African American literature), Jacqueline Goldsby, Univ. of Chicago. Here is what she wrote, in part:
I skimmed the debate at the Wikipedia website, following the link you provided. Since I'm just embarking on my own research into the concept, I can't offer the kind of definitive sourcing you need.
The bottom line is, that neither Deeceevoice, nor Jacqueline Goldsby who is researching the concept, are able to offer any other sources than Thompson. This article was already renamed 4 times in an attempt to find a title that fits DCV'S original research. That's not how an encyclopedia works. I concur with Zoe: An article on Thompson's book would be acceptable, but this is a POV fork article on a philosophy which isn't verifiable.
CoYep
13:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
I'm struck that the contributors to the debate are so hostile toward Robert Farris Thompson's discussion of "coolness" in Flash of the Spirit. That book is recognized by scholars as *the* definitive treatment of African-derived art forms and practices across the diaspora. Thompson's credentials are impeccable, as is his scholarship. It's specious for your opponents to dismiss the idea of "cool"'s Africanist origins simply because only one (English-language) text addresses it. That's often the case in scholarship. After all, seminal ideas have to start somewhere.
comment: Even a professional researcher know of only one book -- even then she doesn't call it a "philosophy" and there's a good likelihood it's a forgery or she was mislead (she hardly "skimmed" the discussion and she mentions the hostility towards thompson -- huh?). I can't believe DCV is making everyone jump through hoops on this. She described her motivations for creating the page -- it is a POV fork. She supported merge but when it looked like her POV might not get enough attention when merged back in she changed her tune to "strong keep". Websites outside of wikipedia have started to notice DCV's activities. [36] Just end this article. Justforasecond 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I suggest you go back to k5, Tex. - FrancisTyers 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep the introduction
The result of the debate was delete; although it doesn't seem it, all the keeps are puppet infested. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
An edit summary admits that this is a protologism. -- RHaworth 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep- Although an annoying term because of its stunning popularity in Post Katrina New Orleans, "Pace" has certainly become terminology on par with such early 90's California surfer lingo as "rad" and "awesome." Urban Dictionary, while also an appropriate location for the terminology, doesn't provide enough credence for terminology being used by an entire culture's population. -WLW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.81.125.59 ( talk • contribs) .
And now my work is being published. This alone should be enough to keep pace. VF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.81.185.149 ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. Created by Andreruss who has contributed nothing else and which looks like an amalgam of the founders' names (Andrew and Susie Howard). Seem to have forgotten their password because editing continued by Ice cream who has contributed nothing else. (I am prepared to be told they are notable even so - but we should not support their guerrilla marketing practises. Meanwhile, Beechdean hasn't the funds to advertise on television. They turn to guerrilla marketing to promote themselves. [37]) -- RHaworth 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Jim Jarmusch. I didn't smerge the incident with his son into Tom Waits, as it doesn't seem notable enough to appear in that article, though it is in Jim Jarmusch. The content (all one line of it) can still easily be seen by bypassing the redirect if anyone disagrees. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A joke amoung friends and not real Mrebus 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete A non-notable neologism, non-verifiable. Clearly non-encyclopedic. Had been speedied once, prod'ed twice (both times the author removed the prod notice without comment). Gwernol 19:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was speedy delete and protect. Slightly different from the versions deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Carlow Crab but equally short on references. -- RHaworth 20:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete As far as I can tell, this is a hoax. The limited Google hits are either to Wikipedia or apparent spam comments on Amazon. No verifiable links to the supposed show. There are a number of related pages in the process of being created that should also be removed as part of this elaborate hoax. Gwernol 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Transwiki this discussion to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/count strokes, where it should have started. Stifle ( talk) 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am taking the extraordinary step of nominating one of my own subpages for deletion. Tim Starling doesn't want it used any more, and that (for me) is reason enough.
But it's really because it does arithmetic in a hideously cumbersome way to support date math. It was originally intended to help with time zones and calendars, but the experiment got way out of hand. -- Uncle Ed 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious Delete. Since only three authors, not technically a candidate for {{ db-author}} but pretty close.-- Fuhghettaboutit 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, the reason I didn't simply blank the page was that so many other templates depend on it. And these templates are involved with timezones and all. We need to consider the implications. Otherwise I'd simply dismantle the whole set of Wikipedia:date math templates.
Tim Starling's new PHP support for evaluating math expressions is expected to replace the "count strokes" thing. I'm hoping for a smooth transition. Please help me make it. -- Uncle Ed 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy redirect Kotepho 20:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
While browsing through the accompanying articles I noticed that wikipedia also has a page for Godzilla:_Tokyo_S.O.S., which appears to be a more detailed description of exactly the same movie.
Somehow one movie has gotten two pages...
Should we not delete one of them?
The exact link of the duplicate page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla:_Tokyo_S.O.S. Jack-McLangley 20:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP, withdrawn by nominator. NTK 16:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No real content. It doesn't seem significant when googling PhiJ 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Can I withdraw it from AFD, or does it have to go through? It is now a lot better than when I first saw it here! -- PhiJ 16:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (also after discounting anons). Kusma (討論) 02:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
Non-notable student organization, exists almost exlusively at one school, no notable activities.
Some guy
20:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Residential house, doesn't assert notability. Some guy 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete - O bli ( Talk) ? 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, non-notable, possibly advertisement? Bill Sayre 20:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 09:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This is a minor element of a TV show and not worthy of a separate article. Even within the Characters of Lost article it is close to being fancruft. Rillian 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: speedy deleted as an attack page and blatant nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoe ( talk • contribs)
A libelous piece of trash, to be sure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokeisit ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable record label, only one page of Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, the only direct Wikipedia:Notability would be "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". -> It covers more than ten reviews of their releases in German underground electronic webzines and print-magazines in a time period of less than one year Link and is featured at discogs.com Link PhilippN 21:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle ( talk) 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group, vanity article. Also, the term "Car crash television" more commonly refers to a very bad or shocking programme, rather than some obscure band. If this group ever becomes famous, then a more suitable page could be recreated. DWaterson 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. nn. -- Ton e 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Kusma (討論) 02:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school. I put up a "explain significance" tag twice but the author apparently disagrees so I'll just take it here. Some guy 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Istrancis: Hi, I'm the author of this article, and I note that there seems to be a problem with it. It's my first article, you see, and I'm probably missing a couple of rules etc. Sorry if I've caused you trouble, but I just thought that it'd be nice to have my school on Wikipedia. If you want to delete it, that's no problem, but I'm still not sure what I should do to fix it. I guess it's not really all that significant, as I said I just thought it'd be a nice entry, but if there's any way I can improve it, please let me know.
Istrancis: Listen guys, thanks a lot for your help and all on this, but I think that the best thing to do is to just delete this article, and I'll go through the rules and stuff, get a little more experience and see if there are any articles I can edit, and then maybe I'll come back and post this article again. But for now, sorry for causing you trouble, and thanks again for your help! Bye for now.
Istrancis: Thanks a lot for checking this out, I really appreciate it you nob end!
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Proto as an article whose only content is links elsewhere. Stifle ( talk) 00:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A list with only one blue link, inactive for months. The one blue should be made the cover one at the moment. -- Ton e 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Fan site of Scott Mills, no more notbale than any other fansite; covered by an external link and sentence on his page, which is generous enough as it is. Robdurbar 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Stifle ( talk) 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN article that seems almost for sure to be a vanity article. Does not meet WP:BIO, only claim to noteability is having run for the NDP in Red Deer and community consensus in the past has been that failed electoral candidates do not get articles unless they're noteable for something else (which he's not) pm_shef 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election as should be done with all other failed candidates without other serious clims to notability. Luigizanasi 05:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect (necessary merging has taken place) Proto|| type 12:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN. Running and losing in multiple election does not give one a claim to noteability, that has been established in the past. Since that seems to be his only claim to noteability, he doesn't meet WP:BIO. pm_shef 21:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Angelina Jolie. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bio.-- Fallout boy 09:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Angelina Jolie. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bio.-- Fallout boy 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN former election candidate, never having received over 1% of the vote is hardly a claim to noteability. Seems to be vanity, certainly doesn't meet WP:BIO pm_shef 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Stifle ( talk) 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Title is about one person, but article seems to be about two seperate people, both of whom are equally NN. Probable vanity article, I can't see how they meet WP:BIO in any possible way. pm_shef 22:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN, no claim to noteability beyond having run in, and lost, a number of elections (which has not been considered sufficiently noteable on Wiki in the past). Possible vanity article, clearly doesn't meet WP:BIO. pm_shef 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 05:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Merged into Creatures in the Metroid series, useless incomplete list-cruft.-- Zxcvbnm 22:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Slash/fanfic cruft. Delete. Zetawoof( ζ) 22:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a non-notable event, although I'm not positive. See also the bottom of Talk:Holi. Melchoir 23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. There is no "cast biography" on that page as yet to merge to. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is about one contestant on a UK reality TV show called " Beauty and the Geek". None of the other contestants have a page as of yet; and this is for a good reason. The show is not hugely popular, and the contestants are not, and have not become, celebrities. It really is a fly-by-night type of notability. Also, it may be a vanity page (user's contributions are to the show and the college Edmund is from); but I am willing to assume good faith, and say that it is written by a loyal fan. However, he is just not notable enough, IMO, for inclusion. Batmanand | Talk 23:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
To the best of my knowledge the article has been created by a fan and supporter. I can see the argument for deletion, but IMO it should stay. Sebstuart 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree! Watching the show it is clear that Edmund is one of the more notable characters. He has already been on Richard and Judy and Harry Hill's TV Burb (both quite mainstream shows) and he has given interviews to national and local newspapers. To delete this article before the terrestrial showing of BatG runs its course would be a travesty.
It has been written by the good people of Downing Collge, Cambridge, who have also set up "www.edmundbolton.co.uk"
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete There is little in this list that isn't being done by Category:Timelines and its subcategories. There are a few entries that link to timelines that are inside articles, but I also found quite a few links to sections that don't exist (and removed the links in that case). JeffW 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Kusma (討論) 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
POV rant, abuses people, unencyclopedic, listed here because others and I have attempted to save the page with past edits. As an admin, I cannot speedy delete since the edit history is too long. It needs group consensus here. (NOTE: This is only for a partial deletion of the article's history, not a vote to get rid of any future article with this name) Davodd 23:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (revised 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 15:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, Rumored Digimon means no verifiability, no source, no nothing. Recently information was added to the article that there appears to be no data anywhere or pictures of this Digimon. -- Ned Scott 23:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 04:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Possibly vanity page, lack of notability or verifiability Harris 07:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply