< April 11 | > |
---|
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable-- Zxcvbnm 00:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus (default to keep). -- Nlu ( talk) 22:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I think that this article deals with someone who, while likely a very nice person, is not publically significant enough to justify a page on Wikipedia. Strelchik is a failed political candidate, and, according to the article, a rights activist in Thornhill. However, his article is so overwhelmingly for him, that it makes me dizzy. Whenever it is changed to make it at least somewhat neutral and acceptable, these edits are reverted. But even without this, there are many more 'important' people, and I use the word lightly, who are better suited to a page on this website. I even created this article, but now realize it was wrong. Theonlyedge 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
QUESTION: How long does an article go through this process before it is deleted or kept? Theonlyedge 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was lost - delete. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Clearly an advertisement. The user who created this page only has Lostpedia related contributions. The website does not meet anything on WP:WEB. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Lost - delete. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Clearly an advertisement. The user who created this page only has LOST Wiki related contributions. The website does not meet anything on WP:WEB. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Deprodded. I'm in favour of keeping articles about all natural geography and geographical precincts (suburbs and municipalities), but this is a specific housing project, and could possibly considered as real estate advertising. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete as copyvio, but a re-write in an original, English version is welcomed. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Greek text, untranslated at WP:PNT. Possibly the same thing as el:Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο, but not the same article, so not an A2. Delete if untranslated, reconsider if new evidence or a translation surfaces. Entry from WP:PNT follows. Kusma (討論) 01:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The Panteios University has history of 75 years. A history creative, ascendant course that was connected not only with the course of Maximum Education and the growth of Social Sciences in Greece, but also with the more widely social transformation in our country. It deserves for this sees no one closely how it was created initially as Faculty and how it developed until today. Two persons connected their name with the arrest of idea, the foundation and the first steps of Faculty. G.Fragkoy'dis, of synjdryti's Panteios University the one was the Cypriote Gew'rgjos P. Fragkoy'dis (1869-1939), that came from historical family of Lemesoy'. It legally studied in Athens and Political Sciences in Paris. Kosmogyrjsme'nos, afterwards his return in Greece dimosjografoy'se and poljteyo'tan. In December 1923 was elected attorney Athens and Piraeus. In in the National assembly he was head of team of reformers. It published a'llwste - with the Koytoy'pi - the newspaper the "Reform". Existed friend and collaborator of El. Venjze'loy and G. Papandreou. Al. Pa'ntos, donor and synjdryti's the Panteios University second was Alexandros J. Pa'ntos (1888-1930) from wealthy family of Volos. Studied also he Legally in Athens and later Political Sciences in Paris. It coincided also the two men they watch - in different however each one season because difference of age - courses in the "Freely Faculty of Political Sciences of Pares". This Faculty, as free step of scientific knowledge and expression, practised big influence in the intellectuals. However, the streets of two men were not crossed never! They had however a common vision. This vision was the foundation in Greece of Faculty of Political Sciences, as that of Paris. The first, Fragkoy'dis, some moment made this vision work of life. The second, Pa'ntos, dying gave the economic possibility is completed the vision, after it left entire his almost fortune for the foundation in Greece of "Faculty of Political Sciences" at the system of "Free Faculty of Political Sciences of Pares". Promoting his reforming ideas, the Fragkoy'dis founded in 1924 the Company "Educational Rebirth" locating thus in the Education and in particular in the "Maximum" space of necessary reforming changes. As repeatedly djeki'rytte: "If he is true that via the education and only it is possible anadimjoyrgici' Greek patrj's, the foundation of Faculty (it later means the one that he became Panteios) dw'si the sign of national reformation via the creation of hearth of studies of national questions and step of superior reforming teaching". For the realisation of this objective, the G. Fragkoy'dis through the "Educational Rebirth" founded the Faculty of Political Sciences. It aspired constitutes this for Greece what was the "Freely Faculty of Political Sciences" that existed hearth of reformation of French Administration and world importance Institution. Justifying little later her foundation, it wrote: "With tojay'tas thoughts was founded the Faculty Political, Economic and Social Sciences, to opoj'an edj'daskon men between the most excellent Greeks and which will turn out superior Academy of moral education and regeneration". On 2 January 1927, the chairman of Democracy admiral Pavlos Koyntoyrjw'tis placed the foundation stone of central building, that is found today in the avenue Syggroy'. Two chairmen of Greek Democracy existed excel professors of Faculty: the M.Stasjno'poylos that djete'lese and first Dean of Faculty (1952-1958) and the K.Tsa'tsos. And other of course her professors were elected in academicians, while a pleiad from them they kept occasionally or keep still important leading places in the policy and generally are distinguished for their important role in the public life of country. The first building of Panteios Faculty the construction of her first building did not stand easy. The G. Fragkoy'dis in order to it finds the necessary money made repeated calls in the interior and abroad and it was forced to travel also the himself in order to it convinces the fellow countrymen of America mainly, they strengthen their work. The courses begin officially stjs 18 November 1930 with the presence of Prime Minister El. Venjze'loy. the himself aspired he is the first professor of Faculty and existed her first donor. At the same time, the death and propanto's the last will of Al. Everywhere, that died in June 1930, came it helps decisively. Wish his was with the bequest that left to be founded Faculty of Political Sciences. Charm in the persuasiveness and the enthusiasm of animator of idea G. Fragkoy'di, but also the perspicacity and the readiness of El. Venjze'loy that as Prime Minister was executant of will Everywhere, the bequest with the building of "Educational Rebirth" they incorporate in 1931 in the "Panteios Faculty of Political Sciences". Thus the initial vision of two men becomes reality. The Panteios Faculty of Political Sciences functions as NPJD and her first regulation is voted 1933. With this is created two departments: 1) The Politician, that had ten tactics and six extraordinary seats and 2) Socio-economic that it had nine tactics and five extraordinary seats. The study is forecasted three-year. The Faculty grants degree and also is forecasted also the handing-over of doctoral diploma. The wealth of courses and the distinguished professors that constituted the first instructive personnel (A'mantos, Eyelpj'dis, Kalljtsoyna'kis, Keramo'poylos, Kanello'poylos, Koyge'as, Koytoy'pis, Loy'varis, Sgoyrj'tsas, Seferja'dis, Sjde'ris, Tsa'tsos k.a.) contributed in is established fast the Faculty, in 1936, as self-existent Institution of Maximum Education, equivalent to the Universities and the other Maximum Faculties. In 1937 are nominated in Maximum Faculty of Political Sciences and function as NPDD. Her aims, as they are reported concretely, are: A) The benefit of superior political education and the national and intellectual constitution of leading executives, with conscience of mission and responsibility of these, via the prosperity and progress of in general Homeland. V) Friday of public employees, via the growth of policies, economic and social scientific knowledge. C) Of further training of public employees as well as graduates of Law, oj'tjnes it is djda'xwsj to the High schools and the Urban Schools "the Elements of Right and Policy of Economy" D) the dj' of eklaj!keytjkw'n lectures, studies, garages erey'nis and other educative means policy of population education and enlightenment on the government owned aims and objectives, the awareness of need of discipline, solidarity and collaboration of various social classes, the culture of spirit of sacrifice thanks to general good, the reinforcement of patriotic belief and the fighting of partisanship and in general atomistic and egwjstjkw'n tendencies and ideas... ". M.Stasjno'poylos, dean 1952-58 in 1939 the Faculty is renamed in Panteios Maximum Faculty of Political Sciences and Public Employees. Above in these constitutive beginnings it tried walks the Faculty, rendering intense her existence, not only in the space of Social Sciences but also the wider social space. The public debates in Panteios for subjects of more general interest constitute henceforth delivery for the Faculty, beyond the scientific congresses that are organised in this, in tactic almost base. It deserves we report here, one from the first public debates, with which Panteios was established as free step of expression of ideas, as him had envisioned her founders. It is the eminent discussions on the parliamentarism that became in her rooms in the 15,1 7,19 and 22 May 1932. In that discussions they took part distinguished parliamentary, as the G. Papandreou, minister of Education then, and other distinguished scientists, many from which they were already professors of Faculty, as the Svw'los, Sgoyrj'tsas, c. Tsa'tsos, Kanello'poylos, k.a. as well as her a lot of students. Wing M.Stasjnopoy'loy Sample from other of her social sensitivities and progressive her character existed also the establishment from beginning afternoon and evening hours of courses, so that they can him watch the workers. Also they could be written also women in the Faculty, while was forecasted by the regulation even the organisation of students in association. The students her first time of operation were 205. With the N.540/43 the Faculty recovers her old name Panteios Maximum Faculty of Political Sciences, with which it functioned up to 1989 and it acquires the right to grant doctoral diploma. With the same law in the Faculty is founded "Department of education of journalists aim having the preparation via the journalistic profession and metekpaj'deysin the already workers of journalists". The operation of Department they would be regulated with special Decree, which however was not published. From 1951 is imported the traditional Academic organisation in the Faculty. The Administrative Council is replaced by the Dean, the Senate and the General Assembly of Professors of Faculty. K.Despoto'poylos, dean 1978-79 in 1963 the study is fixed four-year and the Departments of Faculty is named: Political Science and Public Administration. Afterwards the reformation of maximum education with the application of N.1268/82 the Faculty katate'mnetaj, in 1983, in three Departments (P.D.462/83). These are: a) the Department of Political Science and International Study, v) the Department of Public Administration and c) the Department of Sociology. From 1989, accordingly with the P.D.377/89 it was renamed in Panteios University Social and Political Sciences and included the following Departments: A) Department of Political Science and International Study V) Department of Public Administration C) Department of Sociology D) Department Urban and Regional Growth E) Department Social Political and Social Anthropology ST) Department of Communication and Mass media Z) Department of Psychology I) General Department of Right Then the Department of Political Science and International Study, katatmi'cike in the Departments: A) Of Political Science and History V) International and European Study while the Department Urban and Regional Growth were renamed in Department Economic and Regional Growth and the Department of Communication and Mass media it was renamed in Department of Communication of Means and Culture. Today the Panteios University includes ten (10) Departments: A) Department of Political Science and History V) Department International and European Study C) Department of Public Administration D) Department of Sociology E) Department Economic and Regional Growth ST) Department of Social Policy Z) Department of Communication, Means and Culture I) Department of Psychology C) Department of Social Anthropology J) General Department of Right. In the Panteios University function 13 Postgraduate Programs: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 1. P.M.S. "Public Administration" 2. P.M.S. "Finances of Production and Intersectorial Relations" DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY 3. PMS "POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY" DEPARTMENT INTERNATIONAL AND EYRWPAÚKWN OF STUDY 4. PMS "INTERNATIONAL AND EYRWPAJKWN OF STUDY" DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY 5. PMS "SOCIOLOGY" 6. PMS "H MODERN CRIMINALITY AND the CONFRONTATION" ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL GROWTH 7. PMS "ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL GROWTH" DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION, MEANS AND CULTURE 8. PMS "CULTURAL POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATION" DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL POLICY AND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY INTERDEPARTMENTAL 9. PMS "Social Change: Dimensions Social Political and Social Anthropology " DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY 10. PMS "ORGANISATIONAL AND ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY" 11. PMS "PSYCHOLOGY AND SME" (INTERDEPARTMENTAL WITH DEPARTMENT EMEP) 12. PMS "POTENTIAL COMMUNITIES: KOJNWNJO-PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES AND TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS " GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF RIGHT 13. PMS "Right and European Unification" In Panteios also they function: Three (3) Inquiring Academic Institutes A) the Institute of Regional Growth V) the Institute of International Relations C) the Institute of Urban Environmentof Potential Ten eight (18) Inquiring Centres, which were founded with proposal of Departments and decisions of Senate. Four (4) Laboratories which contribute in the better conduct of courses.
It's apparently about a non-notable university. Delete. Roy boy crash fan 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge then delete. See also talk:Intel processor confusion
There are multiple reasons this page should be deleted. For one, the title is horribly, horribly POV. For another, this information is redundant; it's all present in a variety of other articles ( List of Intel microprocessors, List of Intel Pentium 4 microprocessors, List of Intel Pentium D microprocessors, and List of Intel Core microprocessors, as well as the individual processor pages come to mind). It also violates WP:NOT, as this is a classic example of "an indiscriminate collection of information". Processors are added for the sole reason that the article's original creator finds them "confusing". Entire product lines are skipped solely because of an author's POV. Jgp 01:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable internet cafe. 49 Google hits. Prod tag removed without explanation, so it goes here. Delete. DMG413 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this extraordinarily obscure biblical character. Mentioned precisely once in 1 Chr. 11:42, available, among other places, here. WP does not have articles for any of the other hundreds of NN dudes mentioned in that book. Prod remover says, "biblical figures are presumptively notable". You decide! - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 01:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Instead, to challenge the results of the 3rd AFD, please use deletion review. NSL E ( T+ C)( seen this?) at 01:28 UTC ( 2006-04-12)
As this guy does not want an article about himself on Wikipedia, we shouldn't have an article on him here. Disrespecting this guy by having an article on him when he clearly doesn't want one is a personal attack and is against Wikipedia policy. Please don't vote for keep because you think Daniel Brandt is notable. It's not about notability, but about whether or not the person this article is talking about wants an article. 9A 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by MONGO with summary (just an ad). -- JLaTondre 02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable- google shows only 86 matches, essentially all are wikipedia related WolfKeeper 01:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable [2], probable vanity
The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
It's an extension of his vanity page. There are pages for lists of wrestling moves, if it were notable enough it could be included in there Illuminattile 01:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Being related to notable people does not make one notable. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was burn and delete. Mailer Diablo 03:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Sounds like a hoax. Author claims it is popular, but "can't find Internet references for it". I remain skeptical. Choess 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nickname for hot dogs from a regional chain of gas stations. Hardly seems notable. Choess 02:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Original prodder, but User:Monicasdude objected, User:Strothra put it back on, so here we are. Written three novels, they all have amazon ranks > 150,000. Seeing as this is a novel, we are probably going on popularity, as critical acclaim or academic skill appears not to apply. In which case, 150,000 doesn't seem very good. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. There were merge suggestions and some mergeing appears to have been done. If there is still useful content that hasn't been merged request a temporary undeletion at WP:DRV. Thryduulf 17:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Current article is an advert, not clear if the subject could be notable. DJ Clayworth 04:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I take back that assertion, the award was given to the Carphone Warehouse for customer service!, what a wonderful company :-). Supposed 05:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge then redirect to Carphone Warehouse
Questionable notability, but for now, it definitely is an advert. dcandeto 04:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I nominate this page because I suspect this is an autobiography. There is only one main author who also edited a topic about Miller's field. This person may deserve an article though. What do you guys think? Tony Bruguier 04:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be a vanity article. Bobryuu 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was 'delete all
nn songs in a musical. Pertinent information has been merged into The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), some pages contain BLATANT copyvio, some involve a non-technical recreation of the score. Unnecessary MusicMaker5376 05:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Other Pages Also Nominated reply
I, the nominator, withdrew this nomination over 11 hours ago [11]. The result is Keep. I'll discuss more on the talkpage concerning the purposed merge. - Zero Talk 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable person, fails the standards set by WP:NOT and fails the consensually accepted guidelines for WP:BIO. Zero Talk 06:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was boldly redirected to Telekom Malaysia. Redirects are cheap. Mailer Diablo 20:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable broadband service from a Malaysian internet provider. blue 520 06:45, 12 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}} . |
The result of the debate was Delete NOTE: the probable meatpuppet votes were ignored, resulting in 4 delete to 1 keep.
This is a non-notable website (or MORPG) as it fails WP:WEB. Additional, this was actually voted to delete once and is so a recreation of deleted material that hasn't gone through deletion review. Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Google test resulted in: Results 1 - 10 of about 82,600 for arenascape
Thus it is not really considered as trivial.
Furthermore, there are many active community forums on tip.it which are about Arenascape.
It is thus not so trivial, if you will really consider this as trivial, than what about those minor towns that you will never see once in your entire life? If this is really trivial, than what about the thousands of other trivial page?
We should not discriminate against this page just because it has been deleted before.
Listing this page is not being a web directory, neither is it advertising for anything.
From Wikipedia:Notability This article is not an obscure article, there are many people actively playing it, and there has been enough editors editing it for this article to actually grow to this length. Also, the article contains a large amount of valid content.
I think that we should spend our time fixing those even less notable pages instead of deleting this Mindtempest 08:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn vanity advertising psch e mp | talk 07:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn criminal in the recent news. did some graffiti and burglarities. It may constitute an attack page. It should be deleted in any case. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Although this article needs editing and possibly slight censorship, it is relevant in today's world and hasn't been properly represented, as you can tell by the references the author has made. The artist "Borf" who was charged in Washington DC had a lesser sentence then Mr. Goertz and about the same media coverage.
Maybe to you living on the opposite ends of the country/world the artist isn't notable, but notability for a controversial artist always comes after they're dead or when they achieve world-wide fame. The author plans on contributing more to Wikipedia in the future, everyone has to start somewhere.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Is a trading card game player, no matter how "top-rated," truly notable if there is nothing else notable about him? I don't think so. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 07:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; Wikipedia is not download.com. Reads like an ad, and the author has linkspammed the product. Haakon 07:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I had previously contacted User:O1ive, on his talk page 16 days ago about the lack of notability, but he has not responded, despite logging over 300 edits since. This is a suburban swimming club. Its website has no evidence of any athletes competing at national competition, let alone international. It does not appear to be particularly big, so doesn't seem to be notable in the sense of community impact, either. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A suburban swimming club. I contacted User:O1ive about this 16 days ago, but haven't gotten a response -he has 300 edits since. Looking at the club records on the webpage, nobody has come within 12% of the WR, and are in no way competitive at British national competition let alone international selection. This is not notable sportingly; it is not notable for large community impact either. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
another nn suburban swim club. Also contacted User:O1ive 16 days ago - no response. He has made 300+ edits in the mean time. The club records on its website are 15-20% over the WR. Hence none of their swimmers are remotely close to even doing anything at British level, let alone international level. Doesn't appear to be notable for its social impact. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A suburban swim club. Contact with author User:O1ive yielded no response, 16 days ago, and he has posted 300+ times since. This club has no webpage, and a google search doesn't link it with any swimmers of any first-class note, or with winning any British level awards, let alone international athletes. Does not appear to have notable social impact either. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to The King's School, Canterbury. Mailer Diablo 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A suburban swim club. No website, no google evidence that any of their swimmers have done anything at a national level. Doesn't appear large enough to merit inclusion on grounds of social impact. Correspondence with author User:O1ive 16 days ago received no reply - he has done 300+ edits since. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
no google hits, non-existent, possible hoax and even if there was a real label by that name, then not notable. So I'd say Speedy Delete as possible hoax -- Arnzy ( Talk) 07:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe; as a benchmark, this is less notable than the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep strike. Contested prod: page author asserts that it should merged somewhere, but there really is nowhere sensible to merge it: it's nowhere near notable enough to be mentioned on the main Warhammer 40,000 page, and doesn't fit into Warhammer 40,000 species, which is for the playable armies in the game. Pak21 08:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted (aeropagitica) (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Vanity page. Full of nonsense. so U m y a S ch 08:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough [15]. Delete. utcursch | talk 08:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. For starters, the title of the article is incorrectly formatted. Special:Whatlinkshere/Mokona modoki shows no other articles link to this one. This character had an already existing home at Characters in Magic Knight Rayearth#Mokona, (maybe a merge at best). But personally, I feel it's just another minor character that doesn't need it's own separate page apart from it's series ( Tsubasa: RESERVoir CHRoNiCLE), per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). -- Ned Scott 08:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Low google hits. They haven't done anything notable. The claim on their website ("We are students and former students at Columbia International University") gives it all away. The JPS 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was {{deletedpage}}. Mailer Diablo 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Created by a member of the group (obviously) and not stated in neutral terms, but mainly there is no evidence that the neutrality of this article can be properly verified from reliable sources (i.e. it is not notable). Deleted twice via WP:PROD as failing to establish notability, deletion is contested this time round so bringing to AfD. I have to say that an anti-Iraq-war group formed in 2005 is running a little behind the curve. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
advert, really, software gives no indication of being specially notable, and if anything would be better aggregated in a WP article on word processors, which exists Midgley 11:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged PROD: "This article has had an advert tag for more than a month; yet nobody has tried to make it sound more encyclopedic, or added any indication that the company satisfies the WP:CORP guidelines. This imples that it is probably not notable.", however on reading it quickly and on reading the talk page, a reasonable case is present that this doesn't warrant summary deletion. AfD can work its magic instead; those advocating cleanup might make a little bit of effort given the PRODding... - Splash talk 03:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 15:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
do not delete Jordan is mentioned in Melton's Encyclopedia under the ICCC article. He was also the president of two national orgainizations, the CCW-USA and the Campbell Institute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parkridge1998 ( talk • contribs) .
Tell you what: if it is that important to you to delete my article, go ahead and delete the article. The entry on ICCC, CCW, and Jordan's role in the CCW is in Melton's most recent ENCYCL. OF AMER. REL. You may have to dig a little in hard copy books to confirm OFJ's role in Campbell Institute. A google reference to his listing as "heretic of the week" in an old CHRISTIAN STANDARD journal used to be on the web. Jordan wrote an article disputing the historicity of the Jonah story. This will be my last attempt to ever write or edit wiki. Parkridge1998 (signed)
The result of the debate was speedy delete (recreation of several other deleted pages). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography, also recreation of material twice speedily deleted under Jonathan Barreiro. Contested {{ db-bio}}. Speedy delete or speedy userfy. Weregerbil 11:37, 12 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}} . |
Jony olé. - archie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.14.146 ( talk • contribs)
Cheers - SJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.160.15 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN bio, Google doesn't turn up any hits at all for the company name. My German is pretty poor but it seems there was an article on the German Wikipedia for the same person but now it's just a boilerplate message. Dismas| (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I just found it: www.ferienwohnrechte.com I am surprised. It is very high ranked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datacenter25 ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 April 2006
Hey! I also found it! google.de Keyword: brettschneider ferienwohnrechte — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Datacenter25 (
talk •
contribs) 15:11, 12 April 2006
hi! I am from Spain and I know this company. please visit: www.hapimag.com But I can not help more or answer questions. Pedro
The result of the debate was Withdrawn your prayers have been answered. Kotepho 23:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
First of all, the article's title would need a change. Putting that aside, the subject of the article is, as far as I can see, quite non-notable on its own. Sarg 12:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
With the added links, and more soon to come, it is clear the Mr. Deutsch is a notable individual, deserving of a place on Wikipedia.
How does one go about changing the title? And what would you reccomend?
Try 'googleing'... Music Compasition and "maury deutsch", he has got hundreds of articles about him.
The result of the debate was dealt with by copyvio. Mailer Diablo 21:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising NathanV 12:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 21:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a fledgeling company. Dismas| (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I disagree, this article is not so much that the company, but once i finish writing it, will be more about the new concept of this law firm, it is something that has never before been done by a UK law firm due to Law Society restrictions ( The.griffter 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 21:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research Manufracture 12:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 21:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, google returns nothing. Dijxtra 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm really not sure how big this "Center for Jewish Spirituality" is. Delete? Gflor e s Talk 16:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- Nlu ( talk) 22:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
per WP:CORP, maybe even WP:VAIN (see username of the original author) Dijxtra 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a copyvio. Incidentally, article was entirely unencycopledic. Jkelly 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod'ed as a neologism, prod tag removed by original contributor and edited; but it reads like nonsense. Speedy tag then placed by another editor and removed by original contributor. Accurizer 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 18:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an internet phenomenon and nothing more. We have already deleted Futuristic Sex Robotz for the same reason. Urthogie 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
"An old fart like me needs this sort of stuff. This is hilarious!" "I love the flash animation"
Perhaps it should be afd'd as well... in fact... I'm gonna go do hat.-- Urthogie 16:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. RobertG ♬ talk 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was created to troll a member of Pistonheads.com, who is engaged in a series of acts of vandalism on Wikipedia, and is without merit Jononon 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Could not verify any of the information in the article. The article does not give any references, nor does googling churn up relevant hits. Seems like hoax to me. so U m y a S ch 13:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Was nominated as {{ prod}}: this was contested by author. Sticking to the letter of the policy, I have brought it here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 14:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus Thryduulf 18:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - this term has 5 results on Google. Hoax...? Wickethewok 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is open to debate but definitely not a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak2408 ( talk • contribs)
India is a country of more than a billion people. 95 percent of these have no access at all to the internet. Which means that there are hundreds and thousands of communities that have no representation. But is that the way it should be? I thought the internet is an open, democratic forum ensuring equality for all irrespective of their geographical location. Why I wonder people would want a harmless page like this deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 ( talk • contribs)
I really cannot understand your sustained opposition to this article. Anyway, I maintain that this is not a hoax and worth an article on this site. I knew that the internet originated in the US but did not understand the extent to which American ideas and restricted world view influences it even today (the world much bigger than US & western europe my friend).This will be my last comment on this issue. Do whatever you want with this article. Maybe we in the rest of the world need our own 'wikipedia' (it will represent most of the world population!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak2408 ( talk • contribs)
This isn't a debate about American's being close minded. I am not an AK-47 carrying supporter of Osama who hates Americans. We in this part of the world are also english-speaking, college educated, liberal people like I expect you are too. My point was and is that just because there were only a few google hits or because you have never heard of it doesn't make it irrelevant. The point is there ARE Google hits which will grow in number. Anybody can create web pages ... many web pages and give them as external sources. If this was a hoax, believe me, there would've been a number of external links to prove that it is not. Without sounding anti-american I will still say that if you were in this part of the world you would not be arguing on these lines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete then redirect
Contested redirect. Seems to be an article about a non-notable band. Speedy delete and redirect back to Night elf. TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 19:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Palmiro and Arre suggested back in March on the talk page that the article be deleted as it is biased, inaccurate, and just generally "absolute crap." Not much has changed. I suggest we delete the article and start a new one with the correct nomenclature of Palestinian terrorism. Wikipedia is not ruled by the EU. KI 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Question: If the article is biased, why don't you edit it? If you don't like a sentance, discuss its modification or deletion the talk page. If you want a new sentance, add it and source it!---- Urthogie 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. No assertion of notability, self-promotion, the only edit by the author, no third party recognition, no Google hits except external link to Turkish website. Slowmover 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable [21]. See also a comment on the talk page of the article. Prod removed with no explanation. - Liberatore( T) 15:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article, but strong voices that this does not need a separate article. I am calling this a merge with Daniel Brandt. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable personal website, started six months ago by one individual. Alexa shows that after a blip in December, traffic has fallen to a trickle [22]. The site fails WP:WEB, and the author himself is of only marginal notability (the site is already covered in his article).
A previous Afd attempt ended without consensus. However, if this website was about anything other than Wikipedia, its article would certainly be deleted. Since we avoid self references, the fact that it is about us should not influence the decision. Wiki-community noteriety =! general notability. Yes, Brandt is infamous within Wikipedia, and yes, this website 'names' a number of wikipedians (including myself), but that does not make his every action worth an individual article. The detailed blow-by-blow content of this article, describing the history of the website would simply not be tolerated in any other web-related article. The article exists only because of a perceived battle between Brandt and Wikipedia, but actually it only serves to feed and exacerbate that same silly foolishness. It feeds trolls, and it is, in itself, basically trolling. -- Doc ask? 15:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (Additional reason - read it - it's just Brandt's blog) note to closing admin - I'll go for merge as a second choice-- Doc ask? 20:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
::User's first edit. Almost certainly a sock of some banned user. But perhaps the suggestion does merit some discussion. -- Doc ask? 14:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a site; doesn't exactly state about tourism in Switzerland. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The 911 Commission Report is on Wikisource; no other content. Tom Harrison Talk 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, vanity (prod contested) Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 05:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge Nutz to The Colbert Report. Thryduulf 22:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Excruciatingly minor joke on one episode. Tysto 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Change title or delete Iran and weapons of mass destruction, which is misleading since it automatically forces the conclusion that Iran has got such weapons of mass destruction. Although Iran does have a nuclear program, started in the 1950s, there is no proof whatsoever that Iran possess WMD. As there are very real threats of a US "pre-emptive" attack on Iran, I do not think that Wikipedia should advocate this position using titles good for propaganda. Read the article carefully: the first section on chemical weapons deals with... the Iraqi use of chemicals! The part on the nuclear program is well treated in the specific article concerning it. What else is there? Whatever the effective content of the article, such a title automatically leads to the confusing conclusion that Iran does has WMD, ready to use for today. After the Iraqi War and the proved conclusion that Iraq did not dispose of any WMD, I think everybody should be a bit more careful with stuff like that. Satyagit 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The tilte does not insinuate anything. It does not read "Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction", which would make the previous stance correct. The tilte effectively seperates the two ideas of "Iran" and "WMD" but at the same time seeks to explore the relationship between the two. It shows both sides (the Iranian view and the U.S./E.U. view) and links to support both theories.
User:Brian Steeves 00:22, 12 April 2006
The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 22:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Arniep 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect Kotepho 19:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to have any information which is not already on wednesday article -- PhiJ 16:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Redirected. grafikm_fr 22:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep seems to also be just shy of a WP:POINT nomination. With a 100% consensus for keep I am closing this early. ALKIVAR ™ 00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't much expect this nomination to succeed. But let me make something clear. I know people love this. I know it's fun. I also happen to know that it sets a precedent for all these other unnotable internet phenomena which barely effect anyone but a percentage of the bored internet population. Please vote with the encyclopedia in mind. Thanks, Urthogie 16:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. This AfD page was rather hard to follow, and I think that the article was changed part way though. So if anyone still wants it deleted, then this closure should not preclude a second nomination. Thryduulf 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A company with seven employees, not publicly traded, whose major claim to fame is apparently a blog. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP . Just zis Guy you know? 16:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete per WP:NMG and WP:VAIN among other arguments. Just zis Guy you know? 14:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. Author (who is the subject of the article) asserts that since this music is "underground", no reliable sources are neccessary or available. Friday (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Suggest Delete Per: WP:NMG Non Notable new band. Original Author removed speedy deletion tag. Orangutan 17:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by
JesseW.
Rory
0
96
(block)
18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
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}} . |
Only 183 google hits for "The Long Island Project" + film and only a few of those hits are about a film of that title. The only links I see are imdb and myspace, and the "official site" is on geocities. This seems like a use of WP as promotion. Delete. Gamaliel 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I would ask the administrators on this site to reconsider the deletion of this article. The existence of the subject can be varified at the links below. The subject matter of the film itself is of public interest and is the reason for its existence on wikipedia. Please reconsider. EZZIE 17:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: I refactored all of that information to the Talk page, where it belongs. RasputinAXP c 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: I refactored all of the massive discussion back to the talk page again. RasputinAXP c 00:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, no claim approaching WP:CORP. Contested prod. Weregerbil 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, nominated as failing WP:WEB. Delete TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Forum was recently restarted, has had over 1000 members at a time. Would have to get over 20 unique hits as there have been more members posting at a time then that on April 1st. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RavenM ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
bad article IJK Principle 18:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not encyclopedic, and is probably a vanity page EvilOverlordX 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was weak-consensus to delete, but I don't forsee any objections to someone writing a section on this in the Not in Our Name article. For the record my final vote tally was 37 delete, 20 keep, 11 merge, 5 merge and/or delete, 2 merge and/or keep, discounting anons and very new users. I based the final result on the comments as well as the numbers however. Thryduulf 22:32, 20 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}} . |
danieljames626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljames626 ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 April 2006
This was posted on a talk page on another article. I think it's worth considering:
The only question AFD is intended to answer is whether the subject matter - the Commission in this case - deserves an article. The criteria is not "what editors think of the subject" or of the Commission, not personal views on Bush and politics, but whether studied dispassionately, it is encyclopedic and notable. Arguments that it is biased, or politically slanted, are arguments to correct an article and write it better. They are not arguments to delete it. The question can be framed relatively simply: Does the subject matter exist (is it verifiable)? If so, is it notable and deserving of an article? The fact that it is an informal group, that relatively few people may look at it, are not arguments that it is non-notable, because relatively few people look up many obscure articles. Within its own field - the Bush, crime allegations, impeachment and similar controversies, is the Commission likely to be considered interesting or notable, or otherwise valuable, to the people looking up related issues on Wikipedia? At the risk of restating what should be obvious, that is closer to the issue. Not whether the article is politically this way or the other, or who wrote it, or who thinks what of Bush.
FT2 ( Talk) 18:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
After reviewing some of the comments and checking into it a little deeper I would like to withdraw the AFD and say this should be maerged into the Not in our Name article Aeon 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm pretty sure there definatly isn't a consensus to keep or merge and more like it's a 60/40 split in favor of delete. -- Riconoen 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The bottom line is if it was nominated for AFD before and passed it shouldn't be up for a vote again. That's like continuing elections until your candidate wins or you get the outcome you're looking for. I think everyone stated their cases here except for the various votes for delete that had no reason for deletion which I don't understand why a person can't express why it should or shouldn't be deleted. Regardless if it already passed AFD and was renominated then all of this is irrelevant because it has passed before. We can't keep nominating articles until we get the outcome we want. Aeon explained that he didn't ooriginally nominate and wants to withdraw, it is not too late for that. Especially since it has already passed AFD before.-- Gnosis 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Confused did the admin change his mind about his decision to delete?--
RWR8189
01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete - Not Noteable, no action has come out of this minor group. PPGMD 19:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Delete TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 18:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A closed pub of no apparent notability. Prod contested with reason of "this article is an improtant part of Mitchams history and culture. It is not an advertisment for a corporation, as the Three Kings pub is deserted and up for sale." Just doesn't sound convincing without any sources confirming this pub's importance. Sandstein 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Not even in the top 100,000 on Alexa. TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 18:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is on a rumoured 5th installment of the acclaimed series, as astute editors may be able to tell from the title. The article was speedily deleted by an administrator who felt it failed to comply with the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The article's principal editor appealed the question at Wikipedia:Deletion review, where most felt that whether or not the NOT policy was infringed is a matter for the wisdom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, not the discretion of a single administrator, however thoughtful. And so here we are, ladies and gentlemen. Your thoughts, please. — Encephalon 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Already at wikt:pro rata. The Rod ( ☎ Smith) 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a child actor that appeared in 5 episodes. Not notable.
I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. -- Ton e 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable child actresses. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. -- Ton e 19:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sango 123 (e) 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
It is just copied from the FIFA World Cup article, although I can see scope for a good article here, but it is just a copy of the history section in orginial article. -- Differentgravy 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is apparently about a race in someone's mod for Starcraft. As such, it seems like something that belongs in the readme file for that mod, not in Wikipedia. As the article itself notes, it is definitely not part of the Starcraft canon, but instead it's just fanfiction. Fanfiction belongs on a different site, not on Wikipedia. Domenic Denicola 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Note that recommendations of unregistered and/or very new users are generally discounted in AFDs. Stifle ( talk) 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article about an online fanzine and webforum community which does not appear to make any claim of notability. It might be a borderline A7 (unremarkable group/vanity page) but I felt it would be best to bring this before WP:AFD for consensus. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
everybody is picking on me celticghirl7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.184.188 ( talk • contribs) .
More description about the purposes of the site and the community has been added for this new and prosperous organisation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seanmwalsh10 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It is an online community and has many remarkable people on this site. You could say The Beatles were unremarkable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.137 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
KEEP If celtic fc and is fans are not notable then please tell me a club that is worthy of non deletion on this site,remember GLASGOW CELTIC started the ball rolling when it comes to brittish clubs winning the EUROPEAN CUP and as for those unremarkable fans that use this forum these are the same fans that haver won awards for taking over one hundred thousand fans to seville with no problems whatsoever,as for the forum they do say nothing is intersting unless your interested in it obviously the decision makers on wilkipedia arent interested in celtic or a forum dedicated to its history and fans but im sure worldwide their are celtic and football fans who are and i thin k personally it would be an act of folly to delete this as this club its forums and it affiliates have a great following.As for the comments of mr owen below i fear anybody who spells THE BHOYS with a Z isnt all they seem and could well be a sheep in wolves clothing,as for celtic websites being equally noted if it wasnt for the fan base that celtic has around the world then their would not be anything notable anout celtic so shame on you for suggesting that celtic are bigger than the fans who put them where they are now, all inclusive is what celtic are. paul......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.133.178.161 ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Tell me, if this entry is deleted then how come other fanzines such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follow_follow are allowed to exist even when that site was shut down by the police for displaying pictures of catholics being hung and mocked? -- Sean Walsh
Yes, a song that just so has sectarian verses in......
Equaly look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Monster_Trucks which is a much smaller fazine, less active and for a far smaller club
" article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)."
The site in question has well over 1,000 members who have taken time to register it is also well know in circles of people involved in Celtic FC.
"It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject."
It has been added to over the past day and is over 2000 words now. That is longer than what would be described as a stub.
"Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance. If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:
of insufficient importance, fame or relevance currently small or a stub, or obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.) Note that notwithstanding these criteria, other Wikipedia deletion policy may still apply to an article."
It is important as has been shown above by myself and therefore meets criteria set by Wikipedia so should cause no problems to the site
- 3CS. Member of the GG
Having read the information on the subject matter i see no reason to delete THE GALLOWGATE as it seems to me to be informing me off a website relating to celtic and also an area of glasgow with historic value and i very much enjoyed reading about lord haw haw as i have an interest in WW2 history as for this word vandal being thrown about i think that is just nit picking as its not as if its real vandalism like graffitti in the bronx that is stubborn to move and costs manpower to clean up,all you do on here is delete it,quite simple really and maybe some people take things to serious in life and therefore should just chill out a tad.im sure we all know the importance of being PC but to go overboard about a few typed words is utterly astonishing. lestat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.132 ( talk • contribs) .
Comment I only have your word on the vandalism issue but maybe you could elaborate on it was it explicit or maybe just an observation or opinion on the information available on your user page,do you actually work for WIKIPEDIA and if not i cant understand why you are relentlessly pursuing this issue.I also agree that some of the material may not be relevent to the uneducated but to anybody in the extended celtic family around the world ex pats and suchlike any information about the gallowgate,celtic and the history of the area is welcomed with open arms,im afraid you can quote the rules all night if you feel you must that is your right to do so anat the risk of repeating myself you realy dont know the history as for lord haw haw i can assure you that if you take the time to delve into the history archives you will probably find out that the in formation posted by theuser is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.132 ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge what is verifiable and significant to Personal rapid transit. Only one user with an edit history wants it kept. Just zis Guy you know? 08:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a hypothetical proposed system of Personal Rapid Transit, which includes in much less critical form a lot of data discussed in the (much edit-warred) parent article. I'm not sure if we have a project where it could go, but this is not, I would say, it - it's pretty close to 100% speculation for a contentious and unproven transportation system, with as yet no full-scale implementations from any manufacturer, let alone anyting of the scale, speed and technical features described here. Just zis Guy you know? 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
"Skytran" is just a concept... and a silly one too. Avidor 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, is that enough evidence to declare PRT a total joke? Why aren't the other so-called PRT companies condemning Skytran for being such a joke and giving the rest of them a bad name? Why haven't the anonymous PRT proponents mentioned that Skytran is supposed to be built by robots? You can't get sillier than this statement "The light weight per foot of the track design also allows the use of a semi-automated track forming manufacturing robot (much simpler than the Robosaurus machine)." Here's the Robosaurus [38]
Administrator, it's time to declare this and other PRT pages a bad joke and delete them. Avidor 03:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
SkyTran has existed for at least 10 years, and its roots extend back to maybe 1990. It was incorporated as a business once, for a short time. UniModal began a few years ago. It is incorporated as a business now. Both efforts are closely related, sharing several of the same persons. The SkyTran/UniModal system is unique in being very lightweight, relative to many other proposed PRT implementations. From these perspectives, as long as an article is not excessively one-sided, or factually incorrect, then it should be acceptable, except where it duplicates information in the general PRT article; such information should be moved from the SkyTran/UniModal article and merged into the general PRT article. Thank you. 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Fancruft? How about fraud? Millions of dollars worth of shares have been sold by these phony PRT "companies". They have also received millions of $ in public funding...all wasted. Wikipedia shouldn't help the PRT scam artists anymore. Avidor 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
It is not up to skeptics like myself to prove a negative...that Skytran, for example doesn't exist when there is no credible evidence to the contrary ..or even that this "company" is making any effort to build a PRT system. In fact, the inventor himself states on his website that he doesn't have sufficient energy to pursue the creation of Skytran. I suggest that instead of insulting me, bowdlerizing my comments and deleting my posts, that PRT proponents like "Fresheneez" make an effort to prove that these PRT companies really are "going concerns" It wouldn't be hard to do. For instance, they could ask the officers of these companies to send proof that they are more than just flashy Photoshoped visuals on the internet.... good luck. Avidor 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote.
I think that more than 5 votes should be counted here before any action is taken (neither removing deletion proposal tag, nor actual deletion). Fresheneesz 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
- Disagree with deletion, the page needs work, but it contains useful information on a company some would find interesting. Fresheneesz 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
-DISAGREE with deletion. The Malewicki quote under "Current Status of Skytran" was made as early as the year 2000 [40]. Since the company has been active since then, the quote is historical and not "current".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.144.141 ( talk • contribs)
-Disagree with deletion. Fix the problems with the page quality. Wiki pages exist to explain things in ways that help readers make up their own minds. Wiki editors are not censors who do people's thinking for them. 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.235.189 ( talk • contribs)
-Disagree with deletion. However, I strongly suggest a more clear Wikipedia strategy on how to handle company and product information. Basically I think Wikipedia should contain a lof of information about the ideas behind systems and products, not the products themselves. For example a "car" or "automobile" is much more relevant than a "Ford", "Volvo" or "Toyota". The "car" section should the have links to known homepages of car makers over the world. Similary, I suggest that the emphasis should be put on "PRT", "Podcars" etc. in this case, and that the "Unimodal" information should be shorter and maybe connected to the inventor instead (Douglas Malewicki). However, I stronly disagree with deleting the entire entry, as all products, regardless of status, is a result of human effort and therefore is of interest now and later for various reasons - even if the product never sees the ligh of the day. Christer Lindström, IST (www.podcar.org) Sweden
-Disagree with deletion. The comment that because some PRT companies are frauds, therefor Unimodal and Skytran are probably a fraud is libelous. I just ran for City Council in Scottsdale Arizona, and my sole platform plank was that Scottsdale should seriously consider SkyTran or a similar PRT system. Obviously I don't think it's a fraud. (see http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/loomisforcouncil.htm ) I did not win a seat on the council, but I did not come in last, either. At any rate, this is fascinating stuff and deserves an entry.
-Disagree with deletion. SkyTran is a legitimate engineering project that has been granted USA Utility and Design Patents and is now in the early prototyping stages. 9:30 PM PST, April 18, 2006.
-Disagree with deletion. I have been aquainted with Skytran/Unimodal for ,ore then 4 years. It is a ligitmate concept that has a solid theoretical basis. 10:25 pm PDT April 18, 2006
-Disagree with deletion. The idea looks quite fleshed-out to me; I see useful/interesting information in this page. But as Christer mentioned above, it may be worthwhile to refactor the Personal Rapid Transit group of pages. -- EricTalevich 05:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
DISAGREE with deletion. The unimodal skytran idea has been in published form for more than five years. The concept has been endorsed by Professor Jerry Schneider, in an issue of I.D. Magazine (International Design), and in Scientific American, January 2000. There seems to be one particular vocal individual who for whatever reason is against even the idea of modal/skytran in Wiki. The term "mode" as dictionary defined can mean one way of doing something, such as in transportation, or logical. Obviously that would apply here with this concept. Practical or not, feasible or not, this is a company that has an idea and patented invention that regardless of its current status of development or implementation does exist and should remain on Wiki. Just because a person does not like the concept, does not warrant the entry to be deleted. They just need to find something else better to do and let ideas like unimodal/skytran be available for others to read and learn about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.36.138 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestler, only 40 Ghits for "tony santiago" wrestling. [41] Delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 08:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising, non-notable RayaruB 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep in its rewritten form. -- RHaworth 08:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am no expert on the subject, bringing the article here as a courtesy to the user who reprodded it. According to the
talk page and the
creator's talk page, this is misinformation. Although the article creator probably did not intend it as a hoax, they may have believed a hoax. Trusting
User:Choess's explanation, I vote delete as not
verifiable by
reliable sources. Failing that, the article gives little reason to believe this person is notable enough for an article to herself, even if she existed, since there is no information other than her parentage.
NickelShoe (
Talk)
20:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Vote negated this datetime as the article is now utterly different to that on which the nomination was made -- Simon Cursitor 07:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Going back to mere GCSE Economics, I'm sure this is called something similar, but not this. Dangherous 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 22:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)7 reply
no notable Dangherous 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted by Geogre. Sango 123 (e) 22:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An Internet abbreviation. It could go in Wiktionary, maybe with a {wi} link. U reckon? Dangherous 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This brief bio has been speedied, recreated with more content, and tagged speedy again in the space of a few minutes. I'm bringing it here for clarity. Marginally published journalist probably not meeting WP:BIO; "by Bhumika Ghimire" gets me about 20 unique hits in google, but she has written for www.nepalnews.com.np and americanchronicle.com (with which I am not familiar, but which seems to be syndicated around under various "... Chronicle" names). I would vote weak delete, but since the article is written by User:Bhumikag I go for a delete. bikeable (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm completing this nomination for another user. The article seems to be about a game based on capture the flag in Unreal Tournament, possibly a "mod". "Unreal Tournament bunnytrack" only gets about 10 unique Google results if you exclude Wikipedia mirrors and duplicates. I think that the article should be deleted as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Although there's only been one other person than the nominator assenting to deletion, it's a {{ db-bio}} candidate anyway. Stifle ( talk) 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bio. Only claim to fame is starring in one series of commercials and playing in a band, which isn't well known enough to have an article on Wikipedia.-- Carabinieri TTaallkk 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Mistake on my part, thought he was the man who portrayed Barry Burton, apparently this information came from some member of GameFAQs without citing sources. Since this is in error, there's no need to have a page for a person that may not exist (Google shows no record of such a person). TonicBH 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Probably could have been speedied as a short article with little or no context, but whatever. Stifle ( talk) 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - This article serves no purpose; it's not even a timeline, just a single sentence statement that doesn't make much sense on its own. JerryOrr 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or Merge with Columbia University. -- Strothra 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Transwiki to the Commons. I don't have the time to go do this myself but I will be putting {{ move to Commons}} on it and as soon as it has been properly transwikied, just put {{ db-transwiki}} on it. Stifle ( talk) 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Anything not already in Commons:Calgary should be moved there. JamesTeterenko 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable child actresses. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. -- Ton e 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 08:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - prod removed, without explanation of course. No apparent claim to fame. Wickethewok 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The article makes no claim to notability. "Kolibri distro" gets two unique Google results, excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors. -- Kjkolb 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Not verifiable. No appearance in usenet archives or Google Blog search where this sort of thing is regularly discussed.
Ande B
22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Keep This alternative Google search shows a bunch more. It's at least verifiable because it links to the Kolibri OS Project page. Brillig20 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 08:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Under WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. This article is pretty clearly an advertisement for an obscure weblog (Alexa.com won't even generate pageview/reader graphs, because it's ranked so low), and a collection of external links to the weblogs of their contributors. Under the Deletion Policy, this article should be removed from Wikipedia. Nortelrye 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I should also add that the author of the original article just so happens to be one of the featured authors of Regenerate Our Culture. While I am trying to Assume Good Faith, it's pretty clear that this user is creating articles about "subjects in which they are personally involved", in violation of WP:NOT. Nortelrye 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Anything not already in Commons:Vancouver should be moved there. Arch26 23:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- light darkness ( talk) 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is an autobiography. Snargle 00:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
< April 11 | > |
---|
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable-- Zxcvbnm 00:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus (default to keep). -- Nlu ( talk) 22:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I think that this article deals with someone who, while likely a very nice person, is not publically significant enough to justify a page on Wikipedia. Strelchik is a failed political candidate, and, according to the article, a rights activist in Thornhill. However, his article is so overwhelmingly for him, that it makes me dizzy. Whenever it is changed to make it at least somewhat neutral and acceptable, these edits are reverted. But even without this, there are many more 'important' people, and I use the word lightly, who are better suited to a page on this website. I even created this article, but now realize it was wrong. Theonlyedge 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
QUESTION: How long does an article go through this process before it is deleted or kept? Theonlyedge 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was lost - delete. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Clearly an advertisement. The user who created this page only has Lostpedia related contributions. The website does not meet anything on WP:WEB. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 00:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Lost - delete. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Clearly an advertisement. The user who created this page only has LOST Wiki related contributions. The website does not meet anything on WP:WEB. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Deprodded. I'm in favour of keeping articles about all natural geography and geographical precincts (suburbs and municipalities), but this is a specific housing project, and could possibly considered as real estate advertising. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete as copyvio, but a re-write in an original, English version is welcomed. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Greek text, untranslated at WP:PNT. Possibly the same thing as el:Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο, but not the same article, so not an A2. Delete if untranslated, reconsider if new evidence or a translation surfaces. Entry from WP:PNT follows. Kusma (討論) 01:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The Panteios University has history of 75 years. A history creative, ascendant course that was connected not only with the course of Maximum Education and the growth of Social Sciences in Greece, but also with the more widely social transformation in our country. It deserves for this sees no one closely how it was created initially as Faculty and how it developed until today. Two persons connected their name with the arrest of idea, the foundation and the first steps of Faculty. G.Fragkoy'dis, of synjdryti's Panteios University the one was the Cypriote Gew'rgjos P. Fragkoy'dis (1869-1939), that came from historical family of Lemesoy'. It legally studied in Athens and Political Sciences in Paris. Kosmogyrjsme'nos, afterwards his return in Greece dimosjografoy'se and poljteyo'tan. In December 1923 was elected attorney Athens and Piraeus. In in the National assembly he was head of team of reformers. It published a'llwste - with the Koytoy'pi - the newspaper the "Reform". Existed friend and collaborator of El. Venjze'loy and G. Papandreou. Al. Pa'ntos, donor and synjdryti's the Panteios University second was Alexandros J. Pa'ntos (1888-1930) from wealthy family of Volos. Studied also he Legally in Athens and later Political Sciences in Paris. It coincided also the two men they watch - in different however each one season because difference of age - courses in the "Freely Faculty of Political Sciences of Pares". This Faculty, as free step of scientific knowledge and expression, practised big influence in the intellectuals. However, the streets of two men were not crossed never! They had however a common vision. This vision was the foundation in Greece of Faculty of Political Sciences, as that of Paris. The first, Fragkoy'dis, some moment made this vision work of life. The second, Pa'ntos, dying gave the economic possibility is completed the vision, after it left entire his almost fortune for the foundation in Greece of "Faculty of Political Sciences" at the system of "Free Faculty of Political Sciences of Pares". Promoting his reforming ideas, the Fragkoy'dis founded in 1924 the Company "Educational Rebirth" locating thus in the Education and in particular in the "Maximum" space of necessary reforming changes. As repeatedly djeki'rytte: "If he is true that via the education and only it is possible anadimjoyrgici' Greek patrj's, the foundation of Faculty (it later means the one that he became Panteios) dw'si the sign of national reformation via the creation of hearth of studies of national questions and step of superior reforming teaching". For the realisation of this objective, the G. Fragkoy'dis through the "Educational Rebirth" founded the Faculty of Political Sciences. It aspired constitutes this for Greece what was the "Freely Faculty of Political Sciences" that existed hearth of reformation of French Administration and world importance Institution. Justifying little later her foundation, it wrote: "With tojay'tas thoughts was founded the Faculty Political, Economic and Social Sciences, to opoj'an edj'daskon men between the most excellent Greeks and which will turn out superior Academy of moral education and regeneration". On 2 January 1927, the chairman of Democracy admiral Pavlos Koyntoyrjw'tis placed the foundation stone of central building, that is found today in the avenue Syggroy'. Two chairmen of Greek Democracy existed excel professors of Faculty: the M.Stasjno'poylos that djete'lese and first Dean of Faculty (1952-1958) and the K.Tsa'tsos. And other of course her professors were elected in academicians, while a pleiad from them they kept occasionally or keep still important leading places in the policy and generally are distinguished for their important role in the public life of country. The first building of Panteios Faculty the construction of her first building did not stand easy. The G. Fragkoy'dis in order to it finds the necessary money made repeated calls in the interior and abroad and it was forced to travel also the himself in order to it convinces the fellow countrymen of America mainly, they strengthen their work. The courses begin officially stjs 18 November 1930 with the presence of Prime Minister El. Venjze'loy. the himself aspired he is the first professor of Faculty and existed her first donor. At the same time, the death and propanto's the last will of Al. Everywhere, that died in June 1930, came it helps decisively. Wish his was with the bequest that left to be founded Faculty of Political Sciences. Charm in the persuasiveness and the enthusiasm of animator of idea G. Fragkoy'di, but also the perspicacity and the readiness of El. Venjze'loy that as Prime Minister was executant of will Everywhere, the bequest with the building of "Educational Rebirth" they incorporate in 1931 in the "Panteios Faculty of Political Sciences". Thus the initial vision of two men becomes reality. The Panteios Faculty of Political Sciences functions as NPJD and her first regulation is voted 1933. With this is created two departments: 1) The Politician, that had ten tactics and six extraordinary seats and 2) Socio-economic that it had nine tactics and five extraordinary seats. The study is forecasted three-year. The Faculty grants degree and also is forecasted also the handing-over of doctoral diploma. The wealth of courses and the distinguished professors that constituted the first instructive personnel (A'mantos, Eyelpj'dis, Kalljtsoyna'kis, Keramo'poylos, Kanello'poylos, Koyge'as, Koytoy'pis, Loy'varis, Sgoyrj'tsas, Seferja'dis, Sjde'ris, Tsa'tsos k.a.) contributed in is established fast the Faculty, in 1936, as self-existent Institution of Maximum Education, equivalent to the Universities and the other Maximum Faculties. In 1937 are nominated in Maximum Faculty of Political Sciences and function as NPDD. Her aims, as they are reported concretely, are: A) The benefit of superior political education and the national and intellectual constitution of leading executives, with conscience of mission and responsibility of these, via the prosperity and progress of in general Homeland. V) Friday of public employees, via the growth of policies, economic and social scientific knowledge. C) Of further training of public employees as well as graduates of Law, oj'tjnes it is djda'xwsj to the High schools and the Urban Schools "the Elements of Right and Policy of Economy" D) the dj' of eklaj!keytjkw'n lectures, studies, garages erey'nis and other educative means policy of population education and enlightenment on the government owned aims and objectives, the awareness of need of discipline, solidarity and collaboration of various social classes, the culture of spirit of sacrifice thanks to general good, the reinforcement of patriotic belief and the fighting of partisanship and in general atomistic and egwjstjkw'n tendencies and ideas... ". M.Stasjno'poylos, dean 1952-58 in 1939 the Faculty is renamed in Panteios Maximum Faculty of Political Sciences and Public Employees. Above in these constitutive beginnings it tried walks the Faculty, rendering intense her existence, not only in the space of Social Sciences but also the wider social space. The public debates in Panteios for subjects of more general interest constitute henceforth delivery for the Faculty, beyond the scientific congresses that are organised in this, in tactic almost base. It deserves we report here, one from the first public debates, with which Panteios was established as free step of expression of ideas, as him had envisioned her founders. It is the eminent discussions on the parliamentarism that became in her rooms in the 15,1 7,19 and 22 May 1932. In that discussions they took part distinguished parliamentary, as the G. Papandreou, minister of Education then, and other distinguished scientists, many from which they were already professors of Faculty, as the Svw'los, Sgoyrj'tsas, c. Tsa'tsos, Kanello'poylos, k.a. as well as her a lot of students. Wing M.Stasjnopoy'loy Sample from other of her social sensitivities and progressive her character existed also the establishment from beginning afternoon and evening hours of courses, so that they can him watch the workers. Also they could be written also women in the Faculty, while was forecasted by the regulation even the organisation of students in association. The students her first time of operation were 205. With the N.540/43 the Faculty recovers her old name Panteios Maximum Faculty of Political Sciences, with which it functioned up to 1989 and it acquires the right to grant doctoral diploma. With the same law in the Faculty is founded "Department of education of journalists aim having the preparation via the journalistic profession and metekpaj'deysin the already workers of journalists". The operation of Department they would be regulated with special Decree, which however was not published. From 1951 is imported the traditional Academic organisation in the Faculty. The Administrative Council is replaced by the Dean, the Senate and the General Assembly of Professors of Faculty. K.Despoto'poylos, dean 1978-79 in 1963 the study is fixed four-year and the Departments of Faculty is named: Political Science and Public Administration. Afterwards the reformation of maximum education with the application of N.1268/82 the Faculty katate'mnetaj, in 1983, in three Departments (P.D.462/83). These are: a) the Department of Political Science and International Study, v) the Department of Public Administration and c) the Department of Sociology. From 1989, accordingly with the P.D.377/89 it was renamed in Panteios University Social and Political Sciences and included the following Departments: A) Department of Political Science and International Study V) Department of Public Administration C) Department of Sociology D) Department Urban and Regional Growth E) Department Social Political and Social Anthropology ST) Department of Communication and Mass media Z) Department of Psychology I) General Department of Right Then the Department of Political Science and International Study, katatmi'cike in the Departments: A) Of Political Science and History V) International and European Study while the Department Urban and Regional Growth were renamed in Department Economic and Regional Growth and the Department of Communication and Mass media it was renamed in Department of Communication of Means and Culture. Today the Panteios University includes ten (10) Departments: A) Department of Political Science and History V) Department International and European Study C) Department of Public Administration D) Department of Sociology E) Department Economic and Regional Growth ST) Department of Social Policy Z) Department of Communication, Means and Culture I) Department of Psychology C) Department of Social Anthropology J) General Department of Right. In the Panteios University function 13 Postgraduate Programs: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 1. P.M.S. "Public Administration" 2. P.M.S. "Finances of Production and Intersectorial Relations" DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY 3. PMS "POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY" DEPARTMENT INTERNATIONAL AND EYRWPAÚKWN OF STUDY 4. PMS "INTERNATIONAL AND EYRWPAJKWN OF STUDY" DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY 5. PMS "SOCIOLOGY" 6. PMS "H MODERN CRIMINALITY AND the CONFRONTATION" ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL GROWTH 7. PMS "ECONOMIC AND REGIONAL GROWTH" DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION, MEANS AND CULTURE 8. PMS "CULTURAL POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATION" DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL POLICY AND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY INTERDEPARTMENTAL 9. PMS "Social Change: Dimensions Social Political and Social Anthropology " DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY 10. PMS "ORGANISATIONAL AND ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY" 11. PMS "PSYCHOLOGY AND SME" (INTERDEPARTMENTAL WITH DEPARTMENT EMEP) 12. PMS "POTENTIAL COMMUNITIES: KOJNWNJO-PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES AND TECHNICAL APPLICATIONS " GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF RIGHT 13. PMS "Right and European Unification" In Panteios also they function: Three (3) Inquiring Academic Institutes A) the Institute of Regional Growth V) the Institute of International Relations C) the Institute of Urban Environmentof Potential Ten eight (18) Inquiring Centres, which were founded with proposal of Departments and decisions of Senate. Four (4) Laboratories which contribute in the better conduct of courses.
It's apparently about a non-notable university. Delete. Roy boy crash fan 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge then delete. See also talk:Intel processor confusion
There are multiple reasons this page should be deleted. For one, the title is horribly, horribly POV. For another, this information is redundant; it's all present in a variety of other articles ( List of Intel microprocessors, List of Intel Pentium 4 microprocessors, List of Intel Pentium D microprocessors, and List of Intel Core microprocessors, as well as the individual processor pages come to mind). It also violates WP:NOT, as this is a classic example of "an indiscriminate collection of information". Processors are added for the sole reason that the article's original creator finds them "confusing". Entire product lines are skipped solely because of an author's POV. Jgp 01:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable internet cafe. 49 Google hits. Prod tag removed without explanation, so it goes here. Delete. DMG413 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this extraordinarily obscure biblical character. Mentioned precisely once in 1 Chr. 11:42, available, among other places, here. WP does not have articles for any of the other hundreds of NN dudes mentioned in that book. Prod remover says, "biblical figures are presumptively notable". You decide! - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 01:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Instead, to challenge the results of the 3rd AFD, please use deletion review. NSL E ( T+ C)( seen this?) at 01:28 UTC ( 2006-04-12)
As this guy does not want an article about himself on Wikipedia, we shouldn't have an article on him here. Disrespecting this guy by having an article on him when he clearly doesn't want one is a personal attack and is against Wikipedia policy. Please don't vote for keep because you think Daniel Brandt is notable. It's not about notability, but about whether or not the person this article is talking about wants an article. 9A 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by MONGO with summary (just an ad). -- JLaTondre 02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable- google shows only 86 matches, essentially all are wikipedia related WolfKeeper 01:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable [2], probable vanity
The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
It's an extension of his vanity page. There are pages for lists of wrestling moves, if it were notable enough it could be included in there Illuminattile 01:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Being related to notable people does not make one notable. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was burn and delete. Mailer Diablo 03:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Sounds like a hoax. Author claims it is popular, but "can't find Internet references for it". I remain skeptical. Choess 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nickname for hot dogs from a regional chain of gas stations. Hardly seems notable. Choess 02:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Original prodder, but User:Monicasdude objected, User:Strothra put it back on, so here we are. Written three novels, they all have amazon ranks > 150,000. Seeing as this is a novel, we are probably going on popularity, as critical acclaim or academic skill appears not to apply. In which case, 150,000 doesn't seem very good. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. There were merge suggestions and some mergeing appears to have been done. If there is still useful content that hasn't been merged request a temporary undeletion at WP:DRV. Thryduulf 17:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Current article is an advert, not clear if the subject could be notable. DJ Clayworth 04:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I take back that assertion, the award was given to the Carphone Warehouse for customer service!, what a wonderful company :-). Supposed 05:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge then redirect to Carphone Warehouse
Questionable notability, but for now, it definitely is an advert. dcandeto 04:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I nominate this page because I suspect this is an autobiography. There is only one main author who also edited a topic about Miller's field. This person may deserve an article though. What do you guys think? Tony Bruguier 04:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be a vanity article. Bobryuu 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was 'delete all
nn songs in a musical. Pertinent information has been merged into The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), some pages contain BLATANT copyvio, some involve a non-technical recreation of the score. Unnecessary MusicMaker5376 05:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Other Pages Also Nominated reply
I, the nominator, withdrew this nomination over 11 hours ago [11]. The result is Keep. I'll discuss more on the talkpage concerning the purposed merge. - Zero Talk 01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable person, fails the standards set by WP:NOT and fails the consensually accepted guidelines for WP:BIO. Zero Talk 06:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was boldly redirected to Telekom Malaysia. Redirects are cheap. Mailer Diablo 20:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable broadband service from a Malaysian internet provider. blue 520 06:45, 12 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}} . |
The result of the debate was Delete NOTE: the probable meatpuppet votes were ignored, resulting in 4 delete to 1 keep.
This is a non-notable website (or MORPG) as it fails WP:WEB. Additional, this was actually voted to delete once and is so a recreation of deleted material that hasn't gone through deletion review. Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Google test resulted in: Results 1 - 10 of about 82,600 for arenascape
Thus it is not really considered as trivial.
Furthermore, there are many active community forums on tip.it which are about Arenascape.
It is thus not so trivial, if you will really consider this as trivial, than what about those minor towns that you will never see once in your entire life? If this is really trivial, than what about the thousands of other trivial page?
We should not discriminate against this page just because it has been deleted before.
Listing this page is not being a web directory, neither is it advertising for anything.
From Wikipedia:Notability This article is not an obscure article, there are many people actively playing it, and there has been enough editors editing it for this article to actually grow to this length. Also, the article contains a large amount of valid content.
I think that we should spend our time fixing those even less notable pages instead of deleting this Mindtempest 08:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn vanity advertising psch e mp | talk 07:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn criminal in the recent news. did some graffiti and burglarities. It may constitute an attack page. It should be deleted in any case. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Although this article needs editing and possibly slight censorship, it is relevant in today's world and hasn't been properly represented, as you can tell by the references the author has made. The artist "Borf" who was charged in Washington DC had a lesser sentence then Mr. Goertz and about the same media coverage.
Maybe to you living on the opposite ends of the country/world the artist isn't notable, but notability for a controversial artist always comes after they're dead or when they achieve world-wide fame. The author plans on contributing more to Wikipedia in the future, everyone has to start somewhere.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Is a trading card game player, no matter how "top-rated," truly notable if there is nothing else notable about him? I don't think so. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 07:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; Wikipedia is not download.com. Reads like an ad, and the author has linkspammed the product. Haakon 07:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I had previously contacted User:O1ive, on his talk page 16 days ago about the lack of notability, but he has not responded, despite logging over 300 edits since. This is a suburban swimming club. Its website has no evidence of any athletes competing at national competition, let alone international. It does not appear to be particularly big, so doesn't seem to be notable in the sense of community impact, either. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A suburban swimming club. I contacted User:O1ive about this 16 days ago, but haven't gotten a response -he has 300 edits since. Looking at the club records on the webpage, nobody has come within 12% of the WR, and are in no way competitive at British national competition let alone international selection. This is not notable sportingly; it is not notable for large community impact either. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
another nn suburban swim club. Also contacted User:O1ive 16 days ago - no response. He has made 300+ edits in the mean time. The club records on its website are 15-20% over the WR. Hence none of their swimmers are remotely close to even doing anything at British level, let alone international level. Doesn't appear to be notable for its social impact. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A suburban swim club. Contact with author User:O1ive yielded no response, 16 days ago, and he has posted 300+ times since. This club has no webpage, and a google search doesn't link it with any swimmers of any first-class note, or with winning any British level awards, let alone international athletes. Does not appear to have notable social impact either. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to The King's School, Canterbury. Mailer Diablo 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A suburban swim club. No website, no google evidence that any of their swimmers have done anything at a national level. Doesn't appear large enough to merit inclusion on grounds of social impact. Correspondence with author User:O1ive 16 days ago received no reply - he has done 300+ edits since. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
no google hits, non-existent, possible hoax and even if there was a real label by that name, then not notable. So I'd say Speedy Delete as possible hoax -- Arnzy ( Talk) 07:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe; as a benchmark, this is less notable than the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep strike. Contested prod: page author asserts that it should merged somewhere, but there really is nowhere sensible to merge it: it's nowhere near notable enough to be mentioned on the main Warhammer 40,000 page, and doesn't fit into Warhammer 40,000 species, which is for the playable armies in the game. Pak21 08:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted (aeropagitica) (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Vanity page. Full of nonsense. so U m y a S ch 08:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough [15]. Delete. utcursch | talk 08:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. For starters, the title of the article is incorrectly formatted. Special:Whatlinkshere/Mokona modoki shows no other articles link to this one. This character had an already existing home at Characters in Magic Knight Rayearth#Mokona, (maybe a merge at best). But personally, I feel it's just another minor character that doesn't need it's own separate page apart from it's series ( Tsubasa: RESERVoir CHRoNiCLE), per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). -- Ned Scott 08:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Low google hits. They haven't done anything notable. The claim on their website ("We are students and former students at Columbia International University") gives it all away. The JPS 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was {{deletedpage}}. Mailer Diablo 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Created by a member of the group (obviously) and not stated in neutral terms, but mainly there is no evidence that the neutrality of this article can be properly verified from reliable sources (i.e. it is not notable). Deleted twice via WP:PROD as failing to establish notability, deletion is contested this time round so bringing to AfD. I have to say that an anti-Iraq-war group formed in 2005 is running a little behind the curve. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
advert, really, software gives no indication of being specially notable, and if anything would be better aggregated in a WP article on word processors, which exists Midgley 11:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged PROD: "This article has had an advert tag for more than a month; yet nobody has tried to make it sound more encyclopedic, or added any indication that the company satisfies the WP:CORP guidelines. This imples that it is probably not notable.", however on reading it quickly and on reading the talk page, a reasonable case is present that this doesn't warrant summary deletion. AfD can work its magic instead; those advocating cleanup might make a little bit of effort given the PRODding... - Splash talk 03:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 15:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
do not delete Jordan is mentioned in Melton's Encyclopedia under the ICCC article. He was also the president of two national orgainizations, the CCW-USA and the Campbell Institute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parkridge1998 ( talk • contribs) .
Tell you what: if it is that important to you to delete my article, go ahead and delete the article. The entry on ICCC, CCW, and Jordan's role in the CCW is in Melton's most recent ENCYCL. OF AMER. REL. You may have to dig a little in hard copy books to confirm OFJ's role in Campbell Institute. A google reference to his listing as "heretic of the week" in an old CHRISTIAN STANDARD journal used to be on the web. Jordan wrote an article disputing the historicity of the Jonah story. This will be my last attempt to ever write or edit wiki. Parkridge1998 (signed)
The result of the debate was speedy delete (recreation of several other deleted pages). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography, also recreation of material twice speedily deleted under Jonathan Barreiro. Contested {{ db-bio}}. Speedy delete or speedy userfy. Weregerbil 11:37, 12 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}} . |
Jony olé. - archie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.14.146 ( talk • contribs)
Cheers - SJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.160.15 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN bio, Google doesn't turn up any hits at all for the company name. My German is pretty poor but it seems there was an article on the German Wikipedia for the same person but now it's just a boilerplate message. Dismas| (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I just found it: www.ferienwohnrechte.com I am surprised. It is very high ranked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datacenter25 ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 April 2006
Hey! I also found it! google.de Keyword: brettschneider ferienwohnrechte — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Datacenter25 (
talk •
contribs) 15:11, 12 April 2006
hi! I am from Spain and I know this company. please visit: www.hapimag.com But I can not help more or answer questions. Pedro
The result of the debate was Withdrawn your prayers have been answered. Kotepho 23:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
First of all, the article's title would need a change. Putting that aside, the subject of the article is, as far as I can see, quite non-notable on its own. Sarg 12:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
With the added links, and more soon to come, it is clear the Mr. Deutsch is a notable individual, deserving of a place on Wikipedia.
How does one go about changing the title? And what would you reccomend?
Try 'googleing'... Music Compasition and "maury deutsch", he has got hundreds of articles about him.
The result of the debate was dealt with by copyvio. Mailer Diablo 21:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising NathanV 12:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 21:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a fledgeling company. Dismas| (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I disagree, this article is not so much that the company, but once i finish writing it, will be more about the new concept of this law firm, it is something that has never before been done by a UK law firm due to Law Society restrictions ( The.griffter 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 21:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research Manufracture 12:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 21:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, google returns nothing. Dijxtra 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm really not sure how big this "Center for Jewish Spirituality" is. Delete? Gflor e s Talk 16:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- Nlu ( talk) 22:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
per WP:CORP, maybe even WP:VAIN (see username of the original author) Dijxtra 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a copyvio. Incidentally, article was entirely unencycopledic. Jkelly 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod'ed as a neologism, prod tag removed by original contributor and edited; but it reads like nonsense. Speedy tag then placed by another editor and removed by original contributor. Accurizer 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 18:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an internet phenomenon and nothing more. We have already deleted Futuristic Sex Robotz for the same reason. Urthogie 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
"An old fart like me needs this sort of stuff. This is hilarious!" "I love the flash animation"
Perhaps it should be afd'd as well... in fact... I'm gonna go do hat.-- Urthogie 16:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. RobertG ♬ talk 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was created to troll a member of Pistonheads.com, who is engaged in a series of acts of vandalism on Wikipedia, and is without merit Jononon 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Could not verify any of the information in the article. The article does not give any references, nor does googling churn up relevant hits. Seems like hoax to me. so U m y a S ch 13:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Was nominated as {{ prod}}: this was contested by author. Sticking to the letter of the policy, I have brought it here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 14:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus Thryduulf 18:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - this term has 5 results on Google. Hoax...? Wickethewok 14:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is open to debate but definitely not a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak2408 ( talk • contribs)
India is a country of more than a billion people. 95 percent of these have no access at all to the internet. Which means that there are hundreds and thousands of communities that have no representation. But is that the way it should be? I thought the internet is an open, democratic forum ensuring equality for all irrespective of their geographical location. Why I wonder people would want a harmless page like this deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 ( talk • contribs)
I really cannot understand your sustained opposition to this article. Anyway, I maintain that this is not a hoax and worth an article on this site. I knew that the internet originated in the US but did not understand the extent to which American ideas and restricted world view influences it even today (the world much bigger than US & western europe my friend).This will be my last comment on this issue. Do whatever you want with this article. Maybe we in the rest of the world need our own 'wikipedia' (it will represent most of the world population!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak2408 ( talk • contribs)
This isn't a debate about American's being close minded. I am not an AK-47 carrying supporter of Osama who hates Americans. We in this part of the world are also english-speaking, college educated, liberal people like I expect you are too. My point was and is that just because there were only a few google hits or because you have never heard of it doesn't make it irrelevant. The point is there ARE Google hits which will grow in number. Anybody can create web pages ... many web pages and give them as external sources. If this was a hoax, believe me, there would've been a number of external links to prove that it is not. Without sounding anti-american I will still say that if you were in this part of the world you would not be arguing on these lines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.162.153 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete then redirect
Contested redirect. Seems to be an article about a non-notable band. Speedy delete and redirect back to Night elf. TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 19:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Palmiro and Arre suggested back in March on the talk page that the article be deleted as it is biased, inaccurate, and just generally "absolute crap." Not much has changed. I suggest we delete the article and start a new one with the correct nomenclature of Palestinian terrorism. Wikipedia is not ruled by the EU. KI 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Question: If the article is biased, why don't you edit it? If you don't like a sentance, discuss its modification or deletion the talk page. If you want a new sentance, add it and source it!---- Urthogie 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. No assertion of notability, self-promotion, the only edit by the author, no third party recognition, no Google hits except external link to Turkish website. Slowmover 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable [21]. See also a comment on the talk page of the article. Prod removed with no explanation. - Liberatore( T) 15:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article, but strong voices that this does not need a separate article. I am calling this a merge with Daniel Brandt. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable personal website, started six months ago by one individual. Alexa shows that after a blip in December, traffic has fallen to a trickle [22]. The site fails WP:WEB, and the author himself is of only marginal notability (the site is already covered in his article).
A previous Afd attempt ended without consensus. However, if this website was about anything other than Wikipedia, its article would certainly be deleted. Since we avoid self references, the fact that it is about us should not influence the decision. Wiki-community noteriety =! general notability. Yes, Brandt is infamous within Wikipedia, and yes, this website 'names' a number of wikipedians (including myself), but that does not make his every action worth an individual article. The detailed blow-by-blow content of this article, describing the history of the website would simply not be tolerated in any other web-related article. The article exists only because of a perceived battle between Brandt and Wikipedia, but actually it only serves to feed and exacerbate that same silly foolishness. It feeds trolls, and it is, in itself, basically trolling. -- Doc ask? 15:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (Additional reason - read it - it's just Brandt's blog) note to closing admin - I'll go for merge as a second choice-- Doc ask? 20:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
::User's first edit. Almost certainly a sock of some banned user. But perhaps the suggestion does merit some discussion. -- Doc ask? 14:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a site; doesn't exactly state about tourism in Switzerland. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The 911 Commission Report is on Wikisource; no other content. Tom Harrison Talk 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, vanity (prod contested) Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 05:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge Nutz to The Colbert Report. Thryduulf 22:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Excruciatingly minor joke on one episode. Tysto 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Change title or delete Iran and weapons of mass destruction, which is misleading since it automatically forces the conclusion that Iran has got such weapons of mass destruction. Although Iran does have a nuclear program, started in the 1950s, there is no proof whatsoever that Iran possess WMD. As there are very real threats of a US "pre-emptive" attack on Iran, I do not think that Wikipedia should advocate this position using titles good for propaganda. Read the article carefully: the first section on chemical weapons deals with... the Iraqi use of chemicals! The part on the nuclear program is well treated in the specific article concerning it. What else is there? Whatever the effective content of the article, such a title automatically leads to the confusing conclusion that Iran does has WMD, ready to use for today. After the Iraqi War and the proved conclusion that Iraq did not dispose of any WMD, I think everybody should be a bit more careful with stuff like that. Satyagit 16:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The tilte does not insinuate anything. It does not read "Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction", which would make the previous stance correct. The tilte effectively seperates the two ideas of "Iran" and "WMD" but at the same time seeks to explore the relationship between the two. It shows both sides (the Iranian view and the U.S./E.U. view) and links to support both theories.
User:Brian Steeves 00:22, 12 April 2006
The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 22:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Arniep 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect Kotepho 19:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to have any information which is not already on wednesday article -- PhiJ 16:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Redirected. grafikm_fr 22:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep seems to also be just shy of a WP:POINT nomination. With a 100% consensus for keep I am closing this early. ALKIVAR ™ 00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't much expect this nomination to succeed. But let me make something clear. I know people love this. I know it's fun. I also happen to know that it sets a precedent for all these other unnotable internet phenomena which barely effect anyone but a percentage of the bored internet population. Please vote with the encyclopedia in mind. Thanks, Urthogie 16:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. This AfD page was rather hard to follow, and I think that the article was changed part way though. So if anyone still wants it deleted, then this closure should not preclude a second nomination. Thryduulf 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A company with seven employees, not publicly traded, whose major claim to fame is apparently a blog. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP . Just zis Guy you know? 16:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete per WP:NMG and WP:VAIN among other arguments. Just zis Guy you know? 14:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. Author (who is the subject of the article) asserts that since this music is "underground", no reliable sources are neccessary or available. Friday (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Suggest Delete Per: WP:NMG Non Notable new band. Original Author removed speedy deletion tag. Orangutan 17:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by
JesseW.
Rory
0
96
(block)
18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
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}} . |
Only 183 google hits for "The Long Island Project" + film and only a few of those hits are about a film of that title. The only links I see are imdb and myspace, and the "official site" is on geocities. This seems like a use of WP as promotion. Delete. Gamaliel 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I would ask the administrators on this site to reconsider the deletion of this article. The existence of the subject can be varified at the links below. The subject matter of the film itself is of public interest and is the reason for its existence on wikipedia. Please reconsider. EZZIE 17:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: I refactored all of that information to the Talk page, where it belongs. RasputinAXP c 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: I refactored all of the massive discussion back to the talk page again. RasputinAXP c 00:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, no claim approaching WP:CORP. Contested prod. Weregerbil 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, nominated as failing WP:WEB. Delete TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Forum was recently restarted, has had over 1000 members at a time. Would have to get over 20 unique hits as there have been more members posting at a time then that on April 1st. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RavenM ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
bad article IJK Principle 18:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not encyclopedic, and is probably a vanity page EvilOverlordX 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was weak-consensus to delete, but I don't forsee any objections to someone writing a section on this in the Not in Our Name article. For the record my final vote tally was 37 delete, 20 keep, 11 merge, 5 merge and/or delete, 2 merge and/or keep, discounting anons and very new users. I based the final result on the comments as well as the numbers however. Thryduulf 22:32, 20 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}} . |
danieljames626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljames626 ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 April 2006
This was posted on a talk page on another article. I think it's worth considering:
The only question AFD is intended to answer is whether the subject matter - the Commission in this case - deserves an article. The criteria is not "what editors think of the subject" or of the Commission, not personal views on Bush and politics, but whether studied dispassionately, it is encyclopedic and notable. Arguments that it is biased, or politically slanted, are arguments to correct an article and write it better. They are not arguments to delete it. The question can be framed relatively simply: Does the subject matter exist (is it verifiable)? If so, is it notable and deserving of an article? The fact that it is an informal group, that relatively few people may look at it, are not arguments that it is non-notable, because relatively few people look up many obscure articles. Within its own field - the Bush, crime allegations, impeachment and similar controversies, is the Commission likely to be considered interesting or notable, or otherwise valuable, to the people looking up related issues on Wikipedia? At the risk of restating what should be obvious, that is closer to the issue. Not whether the article is politically this way or the other, or who wrote it, or who thinks what of Bush.
FT2 ( Talk) 18:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
After reviewing some of the comments and checking into it a little deeper I would like to withdraw the AFD and say this should be maerged into the Not in our Name article Aeon 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm pretty sure there definatly isn't a consensus to keep or merge and more like it's a 60/40 split in favor of delete. -- Riconoen 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The bottom line is if it was nominated for AFD before and passed it shouldn't be up for a vote again. That's like continuing elections until your candidate wins or you get the outcome you're looking for. I think everyone stated their cases here except for the various votes for delete that had no reason for deletion which I don't understand why a person can't express why it should or shouldn't be deleted. Regardless if it already passed AFD and was renominated then all of this is irrelevant because it has passed before. We can't keep nominating articles until we get the outcome we want. Aeon explained that he didn't ooriginally nominate and wants to withdraw, it is not too late for that. Especially since it has already passed AFD before.-- Gnosis 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Confused did the admin change his mind about his decision to delete?--
RWR8189
01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete - Not Noteable, no action has come out of this minor group. PPGMD 19:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Delete TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 18:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A closed pub of no apparent notability. Prod contested with reason of "this article is an improtant part of Mitchams history and culture. It is not an advertisment for a corporation, as the Three Kings pub is deserted and up for sale." Just doesn't sound convincing without any sources confirming this pub's importance. Sandstein 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Not even in the top 100,000 on Alexa. TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 18:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is on a rumoured 5th installment of the acclaimed series, as astute editors may be able to tell from the title. The article was speedily deleted by an administrator who felt it failed to comply with the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The article's principal editor appealed the question at Wikipedia:Deletion review, where most felt that whether or not the NOT policy was infringed is a matter for the wisdom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, not the discretion of a single administrator, however thoughtful. And so here we are, ladies and gentlemen. Your thoughts, please. — Encephalon 18:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Thryduulf 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Already at wikt:pro rata. The Rod ( ☎ Smith) 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a child actor that appeared in 5 episodes. Not notable.
I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. -- Ton e 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable child actresses. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. -- Ton e 19:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sango 123 (e) 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
It is just copied from the FIFA World Cup article, although I can see scope for a good article here, but it is just a copy of the history section in orginial article. -- Differentgravy 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is apparently about a race in someone's mod for Starcraft. As such, it seems like something that belongs in the readme file for that mod, not in Wikipedia. As the article itself notes, it is definitely not part of the Starcraft canon, but instead it's just fanfiction. Fanfiction belongs on a different site, not on Wikipedia. Domenic Denicola 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Note that recommendations of unregistered and/or very new users are generally discounted in AFDs. Stifle ( talk) 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article about an online fanzine and webforum community which does not appear to make any claim of notability. It might be a borderline A7 (unremarkable group/vanity page) but I felt it would be best to bring this before WP:AFD for consensus. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
everybody is picking on me celticghirl7 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.184.188 ( talk • contribs) .
More description about the purposes of the site and the community has been added for this new and prosperous organisation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seanmwalsh10 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It is an online community and has many remarkable people on this site. You could say The Beatles were unremarkable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.137 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
KEEP If celtic fc and is fans are not notable then please tell me a club that is worthy of non deletion on this site,remember GLASGOW CELTIC started the ball rolling when it comes to brittish clubs winning the EUROPEAN CUP and as for those unremarkable fans that use this forum these are the same fans that haver won awards for taking over one hundred thousand fans to seville with no problems whatsoever,as for the forum they do say nothing is intersting unless your interested in it obviously the decision makers on wilkipedia arent interested in celtic or a forum dedicated to its history and fans but im sure worldwide their are celtic and football fans who are and i thin k personally it would be an act of folly to delete this as this club its forums and it affiliates have a great following.As for the comments of mr owen below i fear anybody who spells THE BHOYS with a Z isnt all they seem and could well be a sheep in wolves clothing,as for celtic websites being equally noted if it wasnt for the fan base that celtic has around the world then their would not be anything notable anout celtic so shame on you for suggesting that celtic are bigger than the fans who put them where they are now, all inclusive is what celtic are. paul......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.133.178.161 ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Tell me, if this entry is deleted then how come other fanzines such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follow_follow are allowed to exist even when that site was shut down by the police for displaying pictures of catholics being hung and mocked? -- Sean Walsh
Yes, a song that just so has sectarian verses in......
Equaly look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Monster_Trucks which is a much smaller fazine, less active and for a far smaller club
" article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)."
The site in question has well over 1,000 members who have taken time to register it is also well know in circles of people involved in Celtic FC.
"It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject."
It has been added to over the past day and is over 2000 words now. That is longer than what would be described as a stub.
"Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance. If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:
of insufficient importance, fame or relevance currently small or a stub, or obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.) Note that notwithstanding these criteria, other Wikipedia deletion policy may still apply to an article."
It is important as has been shown above by myself and therefore meets criteria set by Wikipedia so should cause no problems to the site
- 3CS. Member of the GG
Having read the information on the subject matter i see no reason to delete THE GALLOWGATE as it seems to me to be informing me off a website relating to celtic and also an area of glasgow with historic value and i very much enjoyed reading about lord haw haw as i have an interest in WW2 history as for this word vandal being thrown about i think that is just nit picking as its not as if its real vandalism like graffitti in the bronx that is stubborn to move and costs manpower to clean up,all you do on here is delete it,quite simple really and maybe some people take things to serious in life and therefore should just chill out a tad.im sure we all know the importance of being PC but to go overboard about a few typed words is utterly astonishing. lestat —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.132 ( talk • contribs) .
Comment I only have your word on the vandalism issue but maybe you could elaborate on it was it explicit or maybe just an observation or opinion on the information available on your user page,do you actually work for WIKIPEDIA and if not i cant understand why you are relentlessly pursuing this issue.I also agree that some of the material may not be relevent to the uneducated but to anybody in the extended celtic family around the world ex pats and suchlike any information about the gallowgate,celtic and the history of the area is welcomed with open arms,im afraid you can quote the rules all night if you feel you must that is your right to do so anat the risk of repeating myself you realy dont know the history as for lord haw haw i can assure you that if you take the time to delve into the history archives you will probably find out that the in formation posted by theuser is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.116.132 ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge what is verifiable and significant to Personal rapid transit. Only one user with an edit history wants it kept. Just zis Guy you know? 08:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a hypothetical proposed system of Personal Rapid Transit, which includes in much less critical form a lot of data discussed in the (much edit-warred) parent article. I'm not sure if we have a project where it could go, but this is not, I would say, it - it's pretty close to 100% speculation for a contentious and unproven transportation system, with as yet no full-scale implementations from any manufacturer, let alone anyting of the scale, speed and technical features described here. Just zis Guy you know? 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
"Skytran" is just a concept... and a silly one too. Avidor 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, is that enough evidence to declare PRT a total joke? Why aren't the other so-called PRT companies condemning Skytran for being such a joke and giving the rest of them a bad name? Why haven't the anonymous PRT proponents mentioned that Skytran is supposed to be built by robots? You can't get sillier than this statement "The light weight per foot of the track design also allows the use of a semi-automated track forming manufacturing robot (much simpler than the Robosaurus machine)." Here's the Robosaurus [38]
Administrator, it's time to declare this and other PRT pages a bad joke and delete them. Avidor 03:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC) reply
SkyTran has existed for at least 10 years, and its roots extend back to maybe 1990. It was incorporated as a business once, for a short time. UniModal began a few years ago. It is incorporated as a business now. Both efforts are closely related, sharing several of the same persons. The SkyTran/UniModal system is unique in being very lightweight, relative to many other proposed PRT implementations. From these perspectives, as long as an article is not excessively one-sided, or factually incorrect, then it should be acceptable, except where it duplicates information in the general PRT article; such information should be moved from the SkyTran/UniModal article and merged into the general PRT article. Thank you. 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Fancruft? How about fraud? Millions of dollars worth of shares have been sold by these phony PRT "companies". They have also received millions of $ in public funding...all wasted. Wikipedia shouldn't help the PRT scam artists anymore. Avidor 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
It is not up to skeptics like myself to prove a negative...that Skytran, for example doesn't exist when there is no credible evidence to the contrary ..or even that this "company" is making any effort to build a PRT system. In fact, the inventor himself states on his website that he doesn't have sufficient energy to pursue the creation of Skytran. I suggest that instead of insulting me, bowdlerizing my comments and deleting my posts, that PRT proponents like "Fresheneez" make an effort to prove that these PRT companies really are "going concerns" It wouldn't be hard to do. For instance, they could ask the officers of these companies to send proof that they are more than just flashy Photoshoped visuals on the internet.... good luck. Avidor 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AfD is not a vote.
I think that more than 5 votes should be counted here before any action is taken (neither removing deletion proposal tag, nor actual deletion). Fresheneesz 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
- Disagree with deletion, the page needs work, but it contains useful information on a company some would find interesting. Fresheneesz 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
-DISAGREE with deletion. The Malewicki quote under "Current Status of Skytran" was made as early as the year 2000 [40]. Since the company has been active since then, the quote is historical and not "current".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.144.141 ( talk • contribs)
-Disagree with deletion. Fix the problems with the page quality. Wiki pages exist to explain things in ways that help readers make up their own minds. Wiki editors are not censors who do people's thinking for them. 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.235.189 ( talk • contribs)
-Disagree with deletion. However, I strongly suggest a more clear Wikipedia strategy on how to handle company and product information. Basically I think Wikipedia should contain a lof of information about the ideas behind systems and products, not the products themselves. For example a "car" or "automobile" is much more relevant than a "Ford", "Volvo" or "Toyota". The "car" section should the have links to known homepages of car makers over the world. Similary, I suggest that the emphasis should be put on "PRT", "Podcars" etc. in this case, and that the "Unimodal" information should be shorter and maybe connected to the inventor instead (Douglas Malewicki). However, I stronly disagree with deleting the entire entry, as all products, regardless of status, is a result of human effort and therefore is of interest now and later for various reasons - even if the product never sees the ligh of the day. Christer Lindström, IST (www.podcar.org) Sweden
-Disagree with deletion. The comment that because some PRT companies are frauds, therefor Unimodal and Skytran are probably a fraud is libelous. I just ran for City Council in Scottsdale Arizona, and my sole platform plank was that Scottsdale should seriously consider SkyTran or a similar PRT system. Obviously I don't think it's a fraud. (see http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/loomisforcouncil.htm ) I did not win a seat on the council, but I did not come in last, either. At any rate, this is fascinating stuff and deserves an entry.
-Disagree with deletion. SkyTran is a legitimate engineering project that has been granted USA Utility and Design Patents and is now in the early prototyping stages. 9:30 PM PST, April 18, 2006.
-Disagree with deletion. I have been aquainted with Skytran/Unimodal for ,ore then 4 years. It is a ligitmate concept that has a solid theoretical basis. 10:25 pm PDT April 18, 2006
-Disagree with deletion. The idea looks quite fleshed-out to me; I see useful/interesting information in this page. But as Christer mentioned above, it may be worthwhile to refactor the Personal Rapid Transit group of pages. -- EricTalevich 05:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
DISAGREE with deletion. The unimodal skytran idea has been in published form for more than five years. The concept has been endorsed by Professor Jerry Schneider, in an issue of I.D. Magazine (International Design), and in Scientific American, January 2000. There seems to be one particular vocal individual who for whatever reason is against even the idea of modal/skytran in Wiki. The term "mode" as dictionary defined can mean one way of doing something, such as in transportation, or logical. Obviously that would apply here with this concept. Practical or not, feasible or not, this is a company that has an idea and patented invention that regardless of its current status of development or implementation does exist and should remain on Wiki. Just because a person does not like the concept, does not warrant the entry to be deleted. They just need to find something else better to do and let ideas like unimodal/skytran be available for others to read and learn about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.36.138 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestler, only 40 Ghits for "tony santiago" wrestling. [41] Delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 08:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising, non-notable RayaruB 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep in its rewritten form. -- RHaworth 08:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am no expert on the subject, bringing the article here as a courtesy to the user who reprodded it. According to the
talk page and the
creator's talk page, this is misinformation. Although the article creator probably did not intend it as a hoax, they may have believed a hoax. Trusting
User:Choess's explanation, I vote delete as not
verifiable by
reliable sources. Failing that, the article gives little reason to believe this person is notable enough for an article to herself, even if she existed, since there is no information other than her parentage.
NickelShoe (
Talk)
20:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Vote negated this datetime as the article is now utterly different to that on which the nomination was made -- Simon Cursitor 07:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Going back to mere GCSE Economics, I'm sure this is called something similar, but not this. Dangherous 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 22:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)7 reply
no notable Dangherous 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted by Geogre. Sango 123 (e) 22:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An Internet abbreviation. It could go in Wiktionary, maybe with a {wi} link. U reckon? Dangherous 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This brief bio has been speedied, recreated with more content, and tagged speedy again in the space of a few minutes. I'm bringing it here for clarity. Marginally published journalist probably not meeting WP:BIO; "by Bhumika Ghimire" gets me about 20 unique hits in google, but she has written for www.nepalnews.com.np and americanchronicle.com (with which I am not familiar, but which seems to be syndicated around under various "... Chronicle" names). I would vote weak delete, but since the article is written by User:Bhumikag I go for a delete. bikeable (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm completing this nomination for another user. The article seems to be about a game based on capture the flag in Unreal Tournament, possibly a "mod". "Unreal Tournament bunnytrack" only gets about 10 unique Google results if you exclude Wikipedia mirrors and duplicates. I think that the article should be deleted as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Although there's only been one other person than the nominator assenting to deletion, it's a {{ db-bio}} candidate anyway. Stifle ( talk) 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bio. Only claim to fame is starring in one series of commercials and playing in a band, which isn't well known enough to have an article on Wikipedia.-- Carabinieri TTaallkk 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle ( talk) 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Mistake on my part, thought he was the man who portrayed Barry Burton, apparently this information came from some member of GameFAQs without citing sources. Since this is in error, there's no need to have a page for a person that may not exist (Google shows no record of such a person). TonicBH 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Probably could have been speedied as a short article with little or no context, but whatever. Stifle ( talk) 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - This article serves no purpose; it's not even a timeline, just a single sentence statement that doesn't make much sense on its own. JerryOrr 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or Merge with Columbia University. -- Strothra 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Transwiki to the Commons. I don't have the time to go do this myself but I will be putting {{ move to Commons}} on it and as soon as it has been properly transwikied, just put {{ db-transwiki}} on it. Stifle ( talk) 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Anything not already in Commons:Calgary should be moved there. JamesTeterenko 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable child actresses. I renominated the article for deletion as it was first listed with many other child actors and some editors advised me to nominate them individually. -- Ton e 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 08:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - prod removed, without explanation of course. No apparent claim to fame. Wickethewok 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Stifle ( talk) 17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The article makes no claim to notability. "Kolibri distro" gets two unique Google results, excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors. -- Kjkolb 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Not verifiable. No appearance in usenet archives or Google Blog search where this sort of thing is regularly discussed.
Ande B
22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Keep This alternative Google search shows a bunch more. It's at least verifiable because it links to the Kolibri OS Project page. Brillig20 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 08:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Under WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. This article is pretty clearly an advertisement for an obscure weblog (Alexa.com won't even generate pageview/reader graphs, because it's ranked so low), and a collection of external links to the weblogs of their contributors. Under the Deletion Policy, this article should be removed from Wikipedia. Nortelrye 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I should also add that the author of the original article just so happens to be one of the featured authors of Regenerate Our Culture. While I am trying to Assume Good Faith, it's pretty clear that this user is creating articles about "subjects in which they are personally involved", in violation of WP:NOT. Nortelrye 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Anything not already in Commons:Vancouver should be moved there. Arch26 23:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- light darkness ( talk) 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is an autobiography. Snargle 00:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply