The result of the debate was speedy delete. G1, A1, A7, take your pick.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
01:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Nominated by IP, I'm just picking up where they left off. I have tagged this as a speedy.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
00:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, non-notable journalist.
51 hits on Google.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
00:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was move to book safe. -- King of Hearts talk 01:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-nom, as part of my project to weed out articles I created with made-up names for real things. There really are such things, of course, but the term itself is a neologism and should probably be done away with. - Litefantastic 01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable/vanity KHM03 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable guitare player — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.130.57 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was speedy deleted, per vanity bio → A z a Toth 08:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
false bio/vanity, the only google hits found for this name are for a teenager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximusveritas ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, non-notable software company.
214 Google hits, which I believe is low for a software company.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- bainer ( talk) 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was deleted speedily but I am recreating it and placing it up for deletion Mineralè 02:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity piece, all three (3) hits are wikipedia related •Jim62sch• 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn car dealership; less than 400 google hits Wh e re (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge to
Flaw--
Adam
(
talk) 15:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
non-notable album by non-notable group •Jim62sch• 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Geogre with summary (author blanked). -- JLaTondre 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is vanity benhughes 13:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not verifiable, no instant sources are avalible to support claims and the entire listing is saturated with original research. Currently, no official statements from Cpacom verify the factual observations of this article. Zero Talk 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki to commons. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a repository of images Nv8200p talk 02:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Page is a definition for a non-notable ("not very commonly used") term from an MMORPG. — LrdChaos 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 05:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 05:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Article has been moved to Kiwa (mythology) Proto|| type 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with Kupua Proto|| type 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore( T) 17:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename Proto|| type 14:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This list is unnecessary. We should just move all of the articles in it to Category:Contract killers and then make a subcategory for the fictional ones. A Clown in the Dark 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Mrs. Keyes does not with for this articles to exist. She is not a public figure and, as such, she has a right to privacy. She has never sought office, nor does she plan to and because of this, she is covered under privacy laws. Sethxy 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep Proto|| type 14:15, 7 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}} . |
This article contains the non-notable pranks that don't quite make it into April 1, 2006. But since these pranks are non-notable and the April 1, 2006 article contains a message stating all non-notable pranks will be deleted, the pranks here should not belong in any article. joturner 04:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn hospital Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article on NN website created by person who started it, only 138 members Mikker (...) 05:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy to User:Shannonmuir. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity bio of VERY minor animation production co-ordinator (created by Shannonmuir ( talk · contribs), funnily enough). Calton | Talk 05:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete with a big stick. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. A supposed relationship but "neither has admitted to have a romantic interest in the other", which makes it totally unverifiable. GeorgeStepanek\ talk 05:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
POV fork, original research; should be in relevant article (e.g. British Mandate of Palestine). Sub-articles hive off only when they get so large they need to. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Utter nonsense, sections copied from global warming mixed with apparent test edits Mikker (...) 05:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete; Per A7. Moe ε 06:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non Notable Religious Organization, reviewed Google under Colin Lok, 40 hits, not sure if those were even him. Montco 05:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. G1, A1, A7, take your pick. Moe ε 06:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Tom Rood is an incredibly cool and daraing person. While he is cooler than everyone else on the planet, he is also much hotter. every girl in the world wants him because he is so hott. if a girl does not want him, she is almost certainly a lesbian.
REMEMBER, IF YOU THINK YOU ARE COOLER THAN TOM, YOU ARE AN IDIOT. NOONE IS.
MWUHAHAHAHA
The result of the debate was Keep. Kusma (討論) 15:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about design making on a mototrcycle. It's written in a POV by the author. Information as far as I can see is not encyclopedic enough to keep. Moe ε 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) 09:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT an instruction manual or how-to guide. Mikker (...) 06:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN athlete per WP:BIO Mikker (...) 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:CORP Dalamori 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, with only a small number of Google hits that aren't part of usernames. Brian Kendig 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The winner will be review in Gold medalists at the IBF World Championships & the future competiton will be noted down in IBF World Championships. As you know, the competition is hard to list down the result all. Aleenf1 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because [as reason above]:
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a non-notable group. Turnstep 15:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
advertising, non notable band, plays parties in Tennessee Montco 07:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Anonymous dePROD without comment. Non-notable blog. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB; not Alexa rankable, obviously, since it's hosted on Blogspot. Likely WP:VSCA, as author is User:Brendonconnelly. Weak Google presence; most results are either linkbacks from other blogs or for irrelevant phrases such as " Gigli was a bad film... ick!" Delete. Kinu t/ c 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Cadiz. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No context for a seemingly un-notable topic. Brought to AfD on account of it being sourced. cj | talk 07:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Unannounced game, Impossible to verify. I added a prod template which was removed. jaco plane 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirected to Kuala Lumpur. (aeropagitica) 09:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
DeleteThis article offers nothing that isn't arleady included in the Kuala Lumpur article. Tombride 08:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy kept withdraw nomination. → A z a Toth 20:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no references so the whole article can be defined as OR. Therefor I think it's deletable. → A z a Toth 08:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was All deleted (aeropagitica) 09:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Article contains nothing but links. Tombride 08:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as not notable. Google returns a whole 8 results. Tombride 08:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was squeeze through the gaps in the database delete.
Tito
xd(
?!? -
help us) 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
WP:NFT. Needless to say this word has 0 Google hits. Punkmorten 08:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Ankara. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I'd suggest a merge with ankara but there's not really any information to merge Tombride 08:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Bigchoofer (along with a number of other users in the article's history) points out that this supposed exchange doesn't appear to be referenced anywhere on the Web; doing a Google search on the terms "American Energy Exchange" and "amenx" (their domain name) gives basically no results; it appears that this may actually be part of a scam. Even if the exchange is real, the article is written extremely poorly. Delete unless the existence of the exchange can be proven by something other than their own web site. Zetawoof( ζ) 11:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted, A7 -- Arnzy ( Talk) 15:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn bio, presumably of and by the original author himself. -- ΜιĿː talk 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete
WP:CSD: (A1, A7) vanispamcruft
Politepunk 10:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Added to Jtmichcock's Sandbox and deleted (aeropagitica) 09:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
However terrible the incident was, this is still just a list of non-notable people. Wikipedia is not for obituaries. Precedents are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillsborough disaster casualties and above all "9/11". user:Jtmichcock removed a {{ prod}} requesting two days grace. Nothing has happened in two days. Jtmichcock please note it is perfectly OK to create a link from the Bath School disaster article to an external website listing the victims. -- RHaworth 09:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — FireFox • T [11:34, 2 April 2006]
Speedy Delete - Uncivil advert. ΜιĿː talk 10:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Proto|| type 09:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contains inaccurate and unverifiable information ( WP:V). There is no real need for this page to exist as she isn't notable enough ( WP:BIO). Stokesay34 10:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page of a non-notable district councillor. — Trilobite 10:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Ball in a Cup. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:09, 9 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}} . |
Non-notable game. Wikipedia is not for things made up in the pub one day. Has already been speedily deleted as nonsense and recreated. -- RHaworth 11:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a sport dammit and its not Ball in A Cup its ball in cup. We have a league...there are dozens of us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.132.104 ( talk • contribs)
*Keep and redirect
Ball in a Cup here. This is the stronger article, and I think the anon above is correct as to the preferred name.
ProhibitOnions 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
What can be changed or added that would allow the page to remain as a part of this encylopedia?
Redirect to Ball in a Cup Pegasus1138 Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn-messageboard, appears to fail WP:WEB. Deprodded without comment. Henrik 11:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreleased mod for Battlefield 1942. 494 unique Googles unique hits for searchstring ["G.I. Joe" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Many of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites, while others are for websites selling bot the Battlefield game and GI Joe action figures. Can't find any critival reviews. Can't find anything on the Hasbro-caused shutdown for copyright infringemnt (which is surprising because that makes up 75% of the article's content. Project website has ceased to exist, and the link provided to their forums is broken. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn as per WP:CORP -- ΜιĿː talk 11:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) 09:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 171 unique Googles for searchstring ["Homefront" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Project website has ceased to exist. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 141 unique Googles for searchstring ["HydroRacers" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contains very little information in regard to the mod, and what is there appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A group for whom 45 Google hits exist. No gnews hits, no evidence of significance, no evidence that this is widely considered a genuine field of study or that this group are significant within that field (though they might be - it could just be that the entire field of study is not significant). Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
(Also JzG, I don't think you have considered this properly if you genuinely believe I am a sockpuppet for James Q Jacobs!) 158-152-12-77 22:54, 2 April 2006 (BST)
158-152-12-77 11:47, 3 April 2006 (BST)
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 46 unique Googles for searchstring ["Next Threat" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Project website has ceased to exist. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for Prod but contested by one of the many incarnations of James Q. Jacobs, who seems intent on using this article as a vehicle for personal aggrandisement. Term is clearly very minor, it may be considered significant I guess but it looks from the linked sources as if this is not a serious field of study. All the sources appear to trace back to a very small number of authors. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
My view is that for the moment there should be a short article simply listing the alternative definitions of the field (of which I am aware of two), linking to various works. Editors should then, in the fullness of time, create a lovely article that accurately summarises the scope and history of the field. Far from being invented by either Jacobs or the AgA, it dates back for more than a century. Big names for example are William Black, Alfred Watkins, and Guy Underwood. (Alexander Thom is mentioned in the article on 'ley lines' but, as far as I am aware, he confined his studies, where alignments were concerned, to much shorter ones than are studied in archaeogeodesy. Archaeogeodesy overlaps with, but is certainly not coterminous with, the study of leylines).
It is unfair to say that archaeogeodesy is not a serious field of study. This suggests it is merely the realm of hoaxers or people who seek to amuse themselves, which isn't true. I quite agree that the field attracts crackpots. In fact I think Mr Jacobs is a crackpot, but that's just my POV, and is no reason for deletion of an article on the field. In fact, it's no reason even to exclude mention of Jacobs's work. Other fields that attract crackpots include religion, evolutionary biology, psychology, etc.
If it was all a hoax, I think the proposal would be on stronger ground. But I don't think the idea can be seriously maintained by anyone who has read e.g. the 'Great Conjunction' pamphlet, or who has attended AgA lectures.
It is true that the field is fairly obscure and the term has been used only by a small number of authors...but this too is no good reason for deletion IMO.
AIUI, the term archaeoastronomy is fairly new - dating back maybe to the 1960s. It's a good name for a certain field of study which dates back much longer. If Wikipedia had existed in say 1975, when the term had been going for only about 15 years, and let's say it wasn't in very widespread use at that time, would there have been good reason to delete an article on it? I don't think so.
Let's just have a short NPOV article for the time being...and if anyone tries to 'own' it, take what measures are necessary to prevent that from happening.
-- 158-152-12-77 22:43, 2 April 2006 (BST)
158-152-12-77 17:12, 3 April 2006 (BST)
Several issues of the LPA's newsletter are online. I can't see the relevance of whether Matthew Watkins's interests are traditional or non-traditional. He currently only holds a lowly post at the university of Exeter, but he has done noteworthy work in physics (e.g. study of retro-PK using the internet) and published a number of academic papers, and at least one book (possibly more). Did you see the references to AgA work in the other sources I referred to, on the other deletion-debate page? The AgA has been referred to in Neoist publications (e.g. here)and philosophical publications (e.g. here).
The way to contact the AgA (other than using personal connections) is to go through the publisher. The pamphlet was not published jointly by the AgA and the LPA. It was authored by them. The publisher was Unpopular Books, which has published books in a number of different fields, including politics.
It's not merely 'possible' that the field of archaeogeodesy (or whatever we want to call it - i.e. long-distance alignments of ancient sites) is old. It's a fact. I have listed the names of three big authors above.
158-152-12-77 18:50, 3 April 2006 (BST)
Sorry - I missed your question about Alfred Watkins. No, he didn't differentiate terminologically, but he did study alignments of different lengths. Bear in mind that the ' geodesy' part of 'archaeogeodesy' is basically about making measurements on the earth's surface, and conceiving of the shape of that surface, taking into account its curvature (using a spherical model, and in some contexts, a spheroidal model). See in particular what geodesists call the 'principal' and 'inverse' geodetic problems, referred to in the geodesy article. (This terminology is standard). People making alignments over long distances have got to have some sort of appreciation of these problems. Which begs the question, of course, as to whether anyone made such alignments in ancient times. I'm not sure how much you know about the field, but some of the work by Alexander Thom (a professor of engineering) on archaeoastronomy appeared first in a statistics journal, and a fair amount of the AgA's work is also statistical.
If you put a 1m-wide stone half a mile from another, it makes very little appreciable difference whether you take into account the curvature of the earth or not. If you do it over a distance of 500 miles, it does make a difference. At any rate, when you're talking short-distance sight-lines, there isn't the data to support an opinion as to whether or nor the curvature of the earth was taken into account. The distances are too short. So that's one of the reasons why long-distance alignments are seen as a separate field, or sub-field, or whatever you want to call it. None of what I've just said is controversial. Whether such alignments exist, of course, is.
I should also mention that many leyhunters don't think there's any case for believing that long-distance alignments exist. E.g. Paul Devereux and the 'Ley Hunter' magazine crew. They think the idea is kooky. It conflicts with their 'paradigms'. But they still accept the distinction. I haven't come across any author who doesn't.
Oh, and the lines have got to be straight. Various authors talk of wiggly lines, 'dragon' lines, lines tracing pictures, and so on. Questions concerning these, or their existence or otherwise, are not included in the subject-matter of archaeogeodesy, for the simple reason that geodesy isn't involved.
I don't know what you would suggest as the comon current terminology to take the place of archaeogeodesy. I'm afraid leylines is a very loaded term, and is insufficiently specific.
158-152-12-77 19:23, 3 April 2006 (BST)
DELETE. James Q. Jacobs here. Get rid of the slander against me. Someone is unwilling to have any history of archaeogeodesy posted on this page, and continually vandalizes the content. I would prefer to have the page deleted because of the conduct of the person who will not allow any history of this research to be posted, and uses the page to slander me.
Archaeo- is a combining form meaning ancient. Therefore, archaeogeodesy means "ancient geodesy." Geodesy is a known science and not available for redefinition by ley hunters or followers of some unscientific and much criticized author. Geodesy is science, a very large science encompassing surveying and cartography, and hundreds of thousands of professionals worldwide. Ancient geodesy encompassed all geodesy in prehistory; all navigation, surveying, measure and representation of the earth, and map making.
Archaeogeodesy is the specialized area of scientific study I defined. I have worked on this research for 20 years. I am an anthropologist and archaeologist, and an academic instructor. I attained 4.0 GPAs in undergraduate study at two institutions and graduated summa cum laude. I have taught college anthropology, archaeology, education, mathematics, and computer information systems. But, call me whatever you wish. I was one of the first people creating Wikipedia, when it was worth the effort. Now it has devolved into this sort of banality! I can't even fix typos or capitalizations any longer w/o someone reverting to the previous errors. Why bother.
Archaeogeodesy has nothing to do with occultism, the ley line concept, or other new age ideation. From the discussion above, it is obvious that geodesy is being confused with new-age pseudoscience. If someone used the word "archaeogeodetic" once in 1992, fine--Let them write a book about it if they wish. But printing the word once does not justify erasing a history of serious scientific study. Nonetheless, at this point I vote DELETE the slander.
158-152-12-77 02:13, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Latest version
Rather than concentrating exclusively on delete/don't-delete, I'd encourage anyone interested in improving the article, to try to do so, with the aim of getting it as good as we can while the discussion is going on. I've just added a hopefully non-controversial first bit and an explanation of what is relevant about geodesy. 158-152-12-77 02:17, 7 April 2006 (BST)
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, not verifiable, found no related results on Google, probably a sport invented by the creator of the article. – Elisson • Talk 12:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No signs of being notable at all, not verifiable, gives almost no hits on Google. – Elisson • Talk 12:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Pointless, lacks info...speedy deletion candidate Me677 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
What would a merge achieve? There really is not a single bit of info on there.... Me677 09:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete
Vanity Nv8200p talk 13:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The entire page is nothing but original research, and is poorly written to boot. There is no basis in any area of this page in anything coming close to fact or canon- it doesn't belong here.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think a diary or log is notable enough for an entry. The article describes logging events of two bats. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An article on this topic was previously deleted in January (although this is not a recreation). The subject is a comic, only two issues have been 'published', one in a "limited run of 50 copies" on "photocopy paper". While wiki is not paper, this is nothing more than an advertisement for an utterly insignificant comic. Delete. bainer ( talk) 13:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
hot air, no content. Austrian 14:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable periodical with a short history (fewer than 10 issues) and limited distribution (fewer than a dozen outlets) in local market (Albany, New York). I edited the article for NPOV a couple of weeks ago with request for someone to make a case for notability. No one did. Numerous other alternative newsweeklies have lasted longer and reached further in this market than Valley Voice has to date. Nothing yet sets it apart as the one newcomer that merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Recommend Delete. Gnhn 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I find no evidence of a Northern Irish runner called Mark Long. See for instance this list of UK all-time lists for 60-600 metres, where his name doesn't show up. Internet searches yield nothing that support the article contents. Punkmorten 14:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Orphan AfD. AfD'ed by Anirudhsbh ( talk · contribs). Completing AfD. Fan1967 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN blog. Scores ~3000 on Technorati (fairly high) but only PR6 and my Alexa rank is higher Computerjoe 's talk 14:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Consists of original research by twiw ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It makes nonsensical pseudostatistical claims. The only source is one weblog entry of dubious seriousness. This does not constitute the viewpoint of the fundamentalist Christian intelligent design movement who consider the designer to be God. It is remarkably similar to a previously deleted page of patent nonsense " Multiple Designers Theory" — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple Designers Theory. The suggested course of action is delete/redirect to the article on intelligent designer. — Dunc| ☺ 15:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep as rewritten. Kusma (討論) 23:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article looks much like a dictionary entry. After three months without change I think it is unlikely the article will be expanded. Bakanov 15:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:14, 9 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}} . |
Non-notable gaming website. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
neologism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/667 Dark Avenue -- W( t) 20:43, 2 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}} . |
Non-notable chat forum. 18 unique google hits for "667 Dark Avenue Forum", 28 for "asoue.proboards11.com". Prod tag removed without comment. Weregerbil 15:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local restaurant guide website. Delete. DMG413 15:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{ nn-bio}}. Stifle 23:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like self-promotion. The text "was first heard of", without referring to his work at all, suggest that he is still not notable at all. But please, prove me wrong! Austrian 16:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 16:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Geogre with summary of (copyvio & totally non-encyclopedic). -- JLaTondre 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod tag was removed by Kbh3rd and marked the edit as minor with the comment rv v (revert vandalism). The proposed deletion was "Game review, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought WP:NOT/ WP:NOR". Blue520 16:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Sent to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. -- JLaTondre 18:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Was part of an April Fool's Day hoax, as can be seen at the site who made the joke Ryu Kaze 16:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was - speedy delete as hoax -- Durin 20:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No reputable sources and an obvious April Fools' Day hoax. ~ Hibana 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Confirmed hoax - (ref) — CuaHL ☺ 11:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (It really satisfies the criteria for "speedy", I think) Aleph4 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, removing WotW52s vote as a salvage attempt. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
KeepI am objected to this proposal for deletion and will be editing the entry to, hopefully, make it better.-- Waroftheworlds52 17:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
After considering the above points I've come to the conclusion that I'm not going to be able to satisfy the criteria of the site. As the author I no longer hold an objection to this entry being deleted. -- Waroftheworlds52 18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Waroftheworlds52 did not create this entry for any reason other than a reference to the site, who's popularity is growing rapidly, NOT as an advertisement. MagicalTrevor
Keep.User MagicalTrevor's statement is correct. This wikipedia entry was intended as a site reference and not an advertisement for the site. Furthermore, as proof of Ctrl-click.com's notability, it is the 7th result produced by the PageRank technology when searching for the query Ctrl-click on Google- http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Ctrl-click&btnG=Google+Search&meta= . I realise this comment perhaps does not mirror my earlier sentiments but in the light of the recent comment by MagicalTrevor I felt it best to verify his statement. I would also like to point out that there is now a link to the ctrl-click.com collection of podcasts found via Apple Computer's iTunes software- surely the site is of some not if it produces podcasts worthy enough of a music download service which has recently sold over 1 billion tracks?-- Waroftheworlds52 19:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
UPDATE: We're changing to a full site, with many subdomains. MagicalTrevor
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non notable. Couldn't find google hits. Soumyasch 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nn, web, autobio, van, unrelated info. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-02 t17:51z
The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted. — TheKMan talk 19:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm fairly sure this article is a joke, it seems more suited to Uncyclopedia. Modular. [[User_talk:Modular|(Talk.)]] 18:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unless verified - it has had a verify tag and comments on it since January, and no action has occurred, and it is now high in the Google ranking for this subject. Midgley 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
keep: Oh, come on now, the objective is to build an encyclopedia, not gum up the process with ill-conceived serial AfDs. The article was cleaned up and expanded before the nuisance verify tag was added. There is plenty of evidence around the net that this practitioner has had a long and noteworthy career that a quick goofle search would have confirmed, for whomever put on the nuisance tag, which in turn has been proffered unreasonably as an excuse for deletion. Ombudsman 19:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Brian G. Crawford 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
"""Appears to me that Midgley has a problem with Ombudsman. Who was the "Invisible Anon"? Is Midgley the official Wikopedia guardian? Is there one? I am a newer editor, but it appears that there are some vicious battles.
The result of the debate was Keep, nomination withdrawn and closed early by nominator. Kusma (討論) 15:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep per withdrawal. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
poorly written, non-wikified and highly opiniated article grafikm_fr 19:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a poorly written, non-wikified and highly opiniated article. It was proposed on the talk page to delete it and redirect Child time-out. grafikm_fr 18:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, seems like everyone agrees to keep the new version of the article. I'm removing the afd tag on the page! grafikm_fr 14:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN, vanity. Initially tagged as speedy, but tag was removed by page creator. Listing here now. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 19:08, 2 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}} . |
Note The Policy on Vanity Articles states that; Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. Therefore this is not a CSD A7
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{ nn-bio}}. Stifle 23:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN, vanity. Initially tagged as speedy, but page creator removed the tag. Listing here now. See also AfD-Richard 'the Lionheart' Morris, page created by same editor. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 19:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Note The Policy on Vanity Articles states that; Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. Therefore this is not a CSD A7
The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails 1, 2 and 3 of WP:CORP Mikker (...) 19:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet another non-referenced and poorly written page on a non-notable cocktail. Already transwikied. Previously prodded but that was contested. Quale 19:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was created to parody the student author of a controversial article at my school. It is not a factual page, serves no informational purpose, and should be deleted. Murkywave 19:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No evidence there is such a style. The article is an incoherent, unsourced, POV essay. Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV -- noosphere 19:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by User:Geogre under A7, G4 Kotepho 02:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no evidence of current notability. -- W( t) 20:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Doc ask? 22:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I began this article on Rabbi Howard Z. Plummer, however, I cannot easily cite sources beyond the literature (books, website) published by the Church he once pastored. Hence, I recommend deletion. Cogasoc member 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as Advertisement for non-notable software. 0 Ghits - didn't know that was possible. Still scoring Zero but prod tag has been removed.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as now relocated to correct namespace. Esteffect 22:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe the creator of this article wanted to start a WikiProject, so I moved all of the information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy of Mechanicians. The page is not a suitable encyclopedia article. ~ MDD 46 96 21:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Rob 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently this article is only on the name of the team, and not the team itself, and thus isn't notable. Delete
Ardenn 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Couldn't find anything on Google about her Snailwalker | talk 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I think that this article should be deleted, as it has no meaningful content and does not have any references--Snailwalker | talk 21:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete never heard of the book 82.36.107.54 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is a copy of Rio Grande do Sul. Lithorapto is not a word that has anything to do with Rio Grande do Sul or anything else in the world. It's just a nonsensical test by a user and should be deleted. Ricardo630 21:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No claim to notability. Sounds like an ad Bige1977 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 22:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A Zelda-based manga. Seems to be internet only - Less than 1,000 Google hits for quote "Bad Zelda", the bulk of which seem to be simply the term, and not about this manga. Thus not notable - Seems to just be a minor web thing between fans. Nowhere to redirect page so delete. Esteffect 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like a hoax (possibly an April Fool). Can't find any reference to Patrick Clare online and the photo uploaded is of George Cartwright [16]. All other edits by the author Kolkra ( talk · contribs) have been vandalism. johnSLADE (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, article is an advertisement Bige1977 22:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense/hoax/unsourced. -- W( t) 22:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This has been reprodded for the second or third time, so I'm moving it here. The last prodder gave no reason, but the first, User:Mithent, said "just a list of cable channels". Relevant policy is probably WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. NickelShoe ( Talk) 22:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 22:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software (first release less than a week ago). -- W( t) 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Already deleted once before and I feel it should be deleted again. This is simply a fansite. I did not vote speeedy as this is much longer than it was before. J.J.Sagnella 22:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Move to List of famous Rutgers University alumni Proto|| type 09:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move to List of famous Rutgers University faculty Proto|| type 09:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) 09:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
non-encyclopedic Austrian 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
How can you delete?- this is source based research as defined by Wikipedia rules "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." If it needs editing please give direction. I have responded to your comments already regarding blue links. I have also edited out personal analysis. Thx P. H. Betancourt-author
The result of the debate was speedy keep. (Nomination withdrawn) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable geographic entry. Alex (t) 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, how do I withdraw my nomination? Alex (t) 04:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable geographic entry. Alex (t) 23:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Alright, I'm withdrawing my nomination. Alex (t) 19:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep Proto|| type 09:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply
~~Survival guide of sorts for global warming. ~~ Alex (t) 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I admit that the original article was anemic because the content was just text extracted (perhaps prematurely) from the Mitigation of global warming article. I have expanded the original article substantially and I believe it no longer is subject to the criticisms leveled below.
This is not to say that the article rises to the full quality standards of a "good" Wikipedia article. Not yet anyway.
I'm just saying that it is as good as many other articles. It still needs further work but I think that could be tagged as {needs cleanup} instead of {candidate for deletion}.
Please reconsider and vote as appropriate.
Richard 05:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
In retrospect, I see that my original response to
Alex's criticism missed the point of his criticism. I thought he was suggesting that it was a bad idea to try to adapt to global warming. I see from the comments of others that the point is that Wikipedia should not have "how-to" instruction manuals. The article is not and was never intended to be a "how-to" instruction manual and
Alex was wrong in characterizing it as such.
Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
IPCC Working Group II makes the following observations:
1) Adaptation is a necessary strategy at all scales to complement climate change mitigation Efforts.
2) Those with the least resources have the least capacity to adapt and are the most vulnerable
3) Adaptation, sustainable development, and enhancement of equity can be mutually reinforcing
No it doesn't. Read the article again. The proscription against "instruction manuals" is about "how-to" manuals primarily for individuals (tutorials, cookbooks, etc.). This isn't a how-to for individuals. It is a list of policy alternatives. Read the article again, please. Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I think it is extremely POV to assert that the article cannot adapt to wiki standards. The original article was admittedly a stub and perhaps should have been labelled as such. I don't know if it is OR (original research?). Somebody else wrote the text. I do know that there is an IPCC report on Adaptation so the methods in that report would not constitute OR. It is no more a how-to article than the article on Mitigation is. Both articles are about policy alternatives and recommendations. Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, it would seem redundant of Mitigation of global warming. That's where the original text was pulled from (at the suggestion of people on Talk:Mitigation of global warming).
No, it's not an instruction manual. Read the article again, please.
No, it's not original research (at least not by me). If there is OR in it, we can pull it out. There is a reputable source for the general topic and that is the IPCC report cited in the article and above. I cannot certify at this time that every item in the article can be sourced in the IPCC report but that's an argument for deleting parts of the article not the article itself. Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
All of the above comments are missing the point of the article. I admit that I contributed to this by not immediately challenging the characterization of this article as a "survival guide". Thus, the above comments seem to be based on the idea that this is a "how-to" guide. It is, sort of. It is a "how to guide" for policymakers and, as such, is describing policy alternatives that can be implemented at all scales from personal to national to regional and international. As such, it is the same type of article as Mitigation of global warming. All we're doing is separating out "Mitigation" from "Adaptation".
Please re-read the article. While some of the topics may seem like "how-to survive global warming" for individuals, at least half of the recommended measures are things that only corporations and governments can do (e.g. damming glacial moraines, weather control and increasing the capacity of stormwater systems).
Also, please read the discussion on [[Talk:Mitigation of global warming] about separating that article into two articles which is exactly what I have done in creating this article. I have already expanded the original article beyond the original stub text that was extracted from Mitigation of global warming.
Finally, please note that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) specifically calls out Adaptation as being a necessary complement to Mitigation. (see references in my response to the original deletion recommendation by Alex Richard 00:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This criticism of the article is also off the mark. My defense of the article here may be a bit of a "soapbox". The article itself is not meant to be one and, if you read it again, is not one. Well, at least, no more than the Global warming and Global warming controversy articles are.
If not deleted, it needs lots of work to become more than essentially a list of related topics. Alex (t) 01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am continually frustrated by this kind of comment. The topic is encyclopedic although the article in its current form may not be.
I think that one contribution to Montco's POV is the following text in the article:
"If global warming is a fact and if the world is unable to mitigate it quickly enough, there will be significant effects on the environment. We cannot be pollyannaish and assume that global warming can and will be stopped. We must be prepared for the possibility that the predicted temperature rises will happen and that the expected climate changes will occur. If these "doomsday scenarios" do come to pass, how will mankind survive?
There is significant evidence that the world is being very slow to address global warming and that current attempts won't decrease the generation of CO2 quickly enough. Some people argue that irreparable damage has already been done and that temperatures will rise. From their POV, the only question is how much they will rise and whether we can stop them from rising even further."
I stand behind the ideas in the text but I suspect the wording sounds unencylopedic. I have deleted it from the article and will eventually put back something more encyclopedic.
Richard 04:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm withdrawing my nomination and hoping the article continues to improve. Alex (t) 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about an random P2P site which offers illegal downloads chowells 00:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. G1, A1, A7, take your pick.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
01:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Nominated by IP, I'm just picking up where they left off. I have tagged this as a speedy.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
00:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, non-notable journalist.
51 hits on Google.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
00:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was move to book safe. -- King of Hearts talk 01:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-nom, as part of my project to weed out articles I created with made-up names for real things. There really are such things, of course, but the term itself is a neologism and should probably be done away with. - Litefantastic 01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable/vanity KHM03 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable guitare player — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.130.57 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was speedy deleted, per vanity bio → A z a Toth 08:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
false bio/vanity, the only google hits found for this name are for a teenager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximusveritas ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, non-notable software company.
214 Google hits, which I believe is low for a software company.
Roy
boy
crash
fan
02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- bainer ( talk) 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was deleted speedily but I am recreating it and placing it up for deletion Mineralè 02:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity piece, all three (3) hits are wikipedia related •Jim62sch• 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn car dealership; less than 400 google hits Wh e re (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge to
Flaw--
Adam
(
talk) 15:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
non-notable album by non-notable group •Jim62sch• 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Geogre with summary (author blanked). -- JLaTondre 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is vanity benhughes 13:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Not verifiable, no instant sources are avalible to support claims and the entire listing is saturated with original research. Currently, no official statements from Cpacom verify the factual observations of this article. Zero Talk 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki to commons. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a repository of images Nv8200p talk 02:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Page is a definition for a non-notable ("not very commonly used") term from an MMORPG. — LrdChaos 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 05:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 05:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Article has been moved to Kiwa (mythology) Proto|| type 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with Kupua Proto|| type 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore( T) 17:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename Proto|| type 14:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness... wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This list is unnecessary. We should just move all of the articles in it to Category:Contract killers and then make a subcategory for the fictional ones. A Clown in the Dark 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Mrs. Keyes does not with for this articles to exist. She is not a public figure and, as such, she has a right to privacy. She has never sought office, nor does she plan to and because of this, she is covered under privacy laws. Sethxy 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep Proto|| type 14:15, 7 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}} . |
This article contains the non-notable pranks that don't quite make it into April 1, 2006. But since these pranks are non-notable and the April 1, 2006 article contains a message stating all non-notable pranks will be deleted, the pranks here should not belong in any article. joturner 04:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn hospital Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article on NN website created by person who started it, only 138 members Mikker (...) 05:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy to User:Shannonmuir. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity bio of VERY minor animation production co-ordinator (created by Shannonmuir ( talk · contribs), funnily enough). Calton | Talk 05:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete with a big stick. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. A supposed relationship but "neither has admitted to have a romantic interest in the other", which makes it totally unverifiable. GeorgeStepanek\ talk 05:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
POV fork, original research; should be in relevant article (e.g. British Mandate of Palestine). Sub-articles hive off only when they get so large they need to. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Utter nonsense, sections copied from global warming mixed with apparent test edits Mikker (...) 05:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete; Per A7. Moe ε 06:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non Notable Religious Organization, reviewed Google under Colin Lok, 40 hits, not sure if those were even him. Montco 05:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. G1, A1, A7, take your pick. Moe ε 06:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Tom Rood is an incredibly cool and daraing person. While he is cooler than everyone else on the planet, he is also much hotter. every girl in the world wants him because he is so hott. if a girl does not want him, she is almost certainly a lesbian.
REMEMBER, IF YOU THINK YOU ARE COOLER THAN TOM, YOU ARE AN IDIOT. NOONE IS.
MWUHAHAHAHA
The result of the debate was Keep. Kusma (討論) 15:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about design making on a mototrcycle. It's written in a POV by the author. Information as far as I can see is not encyclopedic enough to keep. Moe ε 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) 09:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT an instruction manual or how-to guide. Mikker (...) 06:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN athlete per WP:BIO Mikker (...) 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:CORP Dalamori 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, with only a small number of Google hits that aren't part of usernames. Brian Kendig 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The winner will be review in Gold medalists at the IBF World Championships & the future competiton will be noted down in IBF World Championships. As you know, the competition is hard to list down the result all. Aleenf1 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because [as reason above]:
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a non-notable group. Turnstep 15:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
advertising, non notable band, plays parties in Tennessee Montco 07:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Anonymous dePROD without comment. Non-notable blog. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB; not Alexa rankable, obviously, since it's hosted on Blogspot. Likely WP:VSCA, as author is User:Brendonconnelly. Weak Google presence; most results are either linkbacks from other blogs or for irrelevant phrases such as " Gigli was a bad film... ick!" Delete. Kinu t/ c 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Cadiz. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No context for a seemingly un-notable topic. Brought to AfD on account of it being sourced. cj | talk 07:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Unannounced game, Impossible to verify. I added a prod template which was removed. jaco plane 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirected to Kuala Lumpur. (aeropagitica) 09:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
DeleteThis article offers nothing that isn't arleady included in the Kuala Lumpur article. Tombride 08:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy kept withdraw nomination. → A z a Toth 20:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no references so the whole article can be defined as OR. Therefor I think it's deletable. → A z a Toth 08:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was All deleted (aeropagitica) 09:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Article contains nothing but links. Tombride 08:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as not notable. Google returns a whole 8 results. Tombride 08:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was squeeze through the gaps in the database delete.
Tito
xd(
?!? -
help us) 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
WP:NFT. Needless to say this word has 0 Google hits. Punkmorten 08:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Ankara. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I'd suggest a merge with ankara but there's not really any information to merge Tombride 08:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Bigchoofer (along with a number of other users in the article's history) points out that this supposed exchange doesn't appear to be referenced anywhere on the Web; doing a Google search on the terms "American Energy Exchange" and "amenx" (their domain name) gives basically no results; it appears that this may actually be part of a scam. Even if the exchange is real, the article is written extremely poorly. Delete unless the existence of the exchange can be proven by something other than their own web site. Zetawoof( ζ) 11:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted, A7 -- Arnzy ( Talk) 15:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn bio, presumably of and by the original author himself. -- ΜιĿː talk 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete
WP:CSD: (A1, A7) vanispamcruft
Politepunk 10:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Added to Jtmichcock's Sandbox and deleted (aeropagitica) 09:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
However terrible the incident was, this is still just a list of non-notable people. Wikipedia is not for obituaries. Precedents are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillsborough disaster casualties and above all "9/11". user:Jtmichcock removed a {{ prod}} requesting two days grace. Nothing has happened in two days. Jtmichcock please note it is perfectly OK to create a link from the Bath School disaster article to an external website listing the victims. -- RHaworth 09:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — FireFox • T [11:34, 2 April 2006]
Speedy Delete - Uncivil advert. ΜιĿː talk 10:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Proto|| type 09:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Contains inaccurate and unverifiable information ( WP:V). There is no real need for this page to exist as she isn't notable enough ( WP:BIO). Stokesay34 10:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page of a non-notable district councillor. — Trilobite 10:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Ball in a Cup. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:09, 9 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}} . |
Non-notable game. Wikipedia is not for things made up in the pub one day. Has already been speedily deleted as nonsense and recreated. -- RHaworth 11:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a sport dammit and its not Ball in A Cup its ball in cup. We have a league...there are dozens of us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.132.104 ( talk • contribs)
*Keep and redirect
Ball in a Cup here. This is the stronger article, and I think the anon above is correct as to the preferred name.
ProhibitOnions 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
What can be changed or added that would allow the page to remain as a part of this encylopedia?
Redirect to Ball in a Cup Pegasus1138 Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn-messageboard, appears to fail WP:WEB. Deprodded without comment. Henrik 11:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreleased mod for Battlefield 1942. 494 unique Googles unique hits for searchstring ["G.I. Joe" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Many of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites, while others are for websites selling bot the Battlefield game and GI Joe action figures. Can't find any critival reviews. Can't find anything on the Hasbro-caused shutdown for copyright infringemnt (which is surprising because that makes up 75% of the article's content. Project website has ceased to exist, and the link provided to their forums is broken. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
nn as per WP:CORP -- ΜιĿː talk 11:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) 09:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 171 unique Googles for searchstring ["Homefront" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Project website has ceased to exist. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 141 unique Googles for searchstring ["HydroRacers" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contains very little information in regard to the mod, and what is there appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A group for whom 45 Google hits exist. No gnews hits, no evidence of significance, no evidence that this is widely considered a genuine field of study or that this group are significant within that field (though they might be - it could just be that the entire field of study is not significant). Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
(Also JzG, I don't think you have considered this properly if you genuinely believe I am a sockpuppet for James Q Jacobs!) 158-152-12-77 22:54, 2 April 2006 (BST)
158-152-12-77 11:47, 3 April 2006 (BST)
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Mod for Battlefield 1942. 46 unique Googles for searchstring ["Next Threat" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Project website has ceased to exist. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for Prod but contested by one of the many incarnations of James Q. Jacobs, who seems intent on using this article as a vehicle for personal aggrandisement. Term is clearly very minor, it may be considered significant I guess but it looks from the linked sources as if this is not a serious field of study. All the sources appear to trace back to a very small number of authors. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
My view is that for the moment there should be a short article simply listing the alternative definitions of the field (of which I am aware of two), linking to various works. Editors should then, in the fullness of time, create a lovely article that accurately summarises the scope and history of the field. Far from being invented by either Jacobs or the AgA, it dates back for more than a century. Big names for example are William Black, Alfred Watkins, and Guy Underwood. (Alexander Thom is mentioned in the article on 'ley lines' but, as far as I am aware, he confined his studies, where alignments were concerned, to much shorter ones than are studied in archaeogeodesy. Archaeogeodesy overlaps with, but is certainly not coterminous with, the study of leylines).
It is unfair to say that archaeogeodesy is not a serious field of study. This suggests it is merely the realm of hoaxers or people who seek to amuse themselves, which isn't true. I quite agree that the field attracts crackpots. In fact I think Mr Jacobs is a crackpot, but that's just my POV, and is no reason for deletion of an article on the field. In fact, it's no reason even to exclude mention of Jacobs's work. Other fields that attract crackpots include religion, evolutionary biology, psychology, etc.
If it was all a hoax, I think the proposal would be on stronger ground. But I don't think the idea can be seriously maintained by anyone who has read e.g. the 'Great Conjunction' pamphlet, or who has attended AgA lectures.
It is true that the field is fairly obscure and the term has been used only by a small number of authors...but this too is no good reason for deletion IMO.
AIUI, the term archaeoastronomy is fairly new - dating back maybe to the 1960s. It's a good name for a certain field of study which dates back much longer. If Wikipedia had existed in say 1975, when the term had been going for only about 15 years, and let's say it wasn't in very widespread use at that time, would there have been good reason to delete an article on it? I don't think so.
Let's just have a short NPOV article for the time being...and if anyone tries to 'own' it, take what measures are necessary to prevent that from happening.
-- 158-152-12-77 22:43, 2 April 2006 (BST)
158-152-12-77 17:12, 3 April 2006 (BST)
Several issues of the LPA's newsletter are online. I can't see the relevance of whether Matthew Watkins's interests are traditional or non-traditional. He currently only holds a lowly post at the university of Exeter, but he has done noteworthy work in physics (e.g. study of retro-PK using the internet) and published a number of academic papers, and at least one book (possibly more). Did you see the references to AgA work in the other sources I referred to, on the other deletion-debate page? The AgA has been referred to in Neoist publications (e.g. here)and philosophical publications (e.g. here).
The way to contact the AgA (other than using personal connections) is to go through the publisher. The pamphlet was not published jointly by the AgA and the LPA. It was authored by them. The publisher was Unpopular Books, which has published books in a number of different fields, including politics.
It's not merely 'possible' that the field of archaeogeodesy (or whatever we want to call it - i.e. long-distance alignments of ancient sites) is old. It's a fact. I have listed the names of three big authors above.
158-152-12-77 18:50, 3 April 2006 (BST)
Sorry - I missed your question about Alfred Watkins. No, he didn't differentiate terminologically, but he did study alignments of different lengths. Bear in mind that the ' geodesy' part of 'archaeogeodesy' is basically about making measurements on the earth's surface, and conceiving of the shape of that surface, taking into account its curvature (using a spherical model, and in some contexts, a spheroidal model). See in particular what geodesists call the 'principal' and 'inverse' geodetic problems, referred to in the geodesy article. (This terminology is standard). People making alignments over long distances have got to have some sort of appreciation of these problems. Which begs the question, of course, as to whether anyone made such alignments in ancient times. I'm not sure how much you know about the field, but some of the work by Alexander Thom (a professor of engineering) on archaeoastronomy appeared first in a statistics journal, and a fair amount of the AgA's work is also statistical.
If you put a 1m-wide stone half a mile from another, it makes very little appreciable difference whether you take into account the curvature of the earth or not. If you do it over a distance of 500 miles, it does make a difference. At any rate, when you're talking short-distance sight-lines, there isn't the data to support an opinion as to whether or nor the curvature of the earth was taken into account. The distances are too short. So that's one of the reasons why long-distance alignments are seen as a separate field, or sub-field, or whatever you want to call it. None of what I've just said is controversial. Whether such alignments exist, of course, is.
I should also mention that many leyhunters don't think there's any case for believing that long-distance alignments exist. E.g. Paul Devereux and the 'Ley Hunter' magazine crew. They think the idea is kooky. It conflicts with their 'paradigms'. But they still accept the distinction. I haven't come across any author who doesn't.
Oh, and the lines have got to be straight. Various authors talk of wiggly lines, 'dragon' lines, lines tracing pictures, and so on. Questions concerning these, or their existence or otherwise, are not included in the subject-matter of archaeogeodesy, for the simple reason that geodesy isn't involved.
I don't know what you would suggest as the comon current terminology to take the place of archaeogeodesy. I'm afraid leylines is a very loaded term, and is insufficiently specific.
158-152-12-77 19:23, 3 April 2006 (BST)
DELETE. James Q. Jacobs here. Get rid of the slander against me. Someone is unwilling to have any history of archaeogeodesy posted on this page, and continually vandalizes the content. I would prefer to have the page deleted because of the conduct of the person who will not allow any history of this research to be posted, and uses the page to slander me.
Archaeo- is a combining form meaning ancient. Therefore, archaeogeodesy means "ancient geodesy." Geodesy is a known science and not available for redefinition by ley hunters or followers of some unscientific and much criticized author. Geodesy is science, a very large science encompassing surveying and cartography, and hundreds of thousands of professionals worldwide. Ancient geodesy encompassed all geodesy in prehistory; all navigation, surveying, measure and representation of the earth, and map making.
Archaeogeodesy is the specialized area of scientific study I defined. I have worked on this research for 20 years. I am an anthropologist and archaeologist, and an academic instructor. I attained 4.0 GPAs in undergraduate study at two institutions and graduated summa cum laude. I have taught college anthropology, archaeology, education, mathematics, and computer information systems. But, call me whatever you wish. I was one of the first people creating Wikipedia, when it was worth the effort. Now it has devolved into this sort of banality! I can't even fix typos or capitalizations any longer w/o someone reverting to the previous errors. Why bother.
Archaeogeodesy has nothing to do with occultism, the ley line concept, or other new age ideation. From the discussion above, it is obvious that geodesy is being confused with new-age pseudoscience. If someone used the word "archaeogeodetic" once in 1992, fine--Let them write a book about it if they wish. But printing the word once does not justify erasing a history of serious scientific study. Nonetheless, at this point I vote DELETE the slander.
158-152-12-77 02:13, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Latest version
Rather than concentrating exclusively on delete/don't-delete, I'd encourage anyone interested in improving the article, to try to do so, with the aim of getting it as good as we can while the discussion is going on. I've just added a hopefully non-controversial first bit and an explanation of what is relevant about geodesy. 158-152-12-77 02:17, 7 April 2006 (BST)
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, not verifiable, found no related results on Google, probably a sport invented by the creator of the article. – Elisson • Talk 12:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No signs of being notable at all, not verifiable, gives almost no hits on Google. – Elisson • Talk 12:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Pointless, lacks info...speedy deletion candidate Me677 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
What would a merge achieve? There really is not a single bit of info on there.... Me677 09:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete
Vanity Nv8200p talk 13:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The entire page is nothing but original research, and is poorly written to boot. There is no basis in any area of this page in anything coming close to fact or canon- it doesn't belong here.
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think a diary or log is notable enough for an entry. The article describes logging events of two bats. K ilo-Lima| (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
An article on this topic was previously deleted in January (although this is not a recreation). The subject is a comic, only two issues have been 'published', one in a "limited run of 50 copies" on "photocopy paper". While wiki is not paper, this is nothing more than an advertisement for an utterly insignificant comic. Delete. bainer ( talk) 13:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
hot air, no content. Austrian 14:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable periodical with a short history (fewer than 10 issues) and limited distribution (fewer than a dozen outlets) in local market (Albany, New York). I edited the article for NPOV a couple of weeks ago with request for someone to make a case for notability. No one did. Numerous other alternative newsweeklies have lasted longer and reached further in this market than Valley Voice has to date. Nothing yet sets it apart as the one newcomer that merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Recommend Delete. Gnhn 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I find no evidence of a Northern Irish runner called Mark Long. See for instance this list of UK all-time lists for 60-600 metres, where his name doesn't show up. Internet searches yield nothing that support the article contents. Punkmorten 14:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Orphan AfD. AfD'ed by Anirudhsbh ( talk · contribs). Completing AfD. Fan1967 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN blog. Scores ~3000 on Technorati (fairly high) but only PR6 and my Alexa rank is higher Computerjoe 's talk 14:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Consists of original research by twiw ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It makes nonsensical pseudostatistical claims. The only source is one weblog entry of dubious seriousness. This does not constitute the viewpoint of the fundamentalist Christian intelligent design movement who consider the designer to be God. It is remarkably similar to a previously deleted page of patent nonsense " Multiple Designers Theory" — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple Designers Theory. The suggested course of action is delete/redirect to the article on intelligent designer. — Dunc| ☺ 15:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep as rewritten. Kusma (討論) 23:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article looks much like a dictionary entry. After three months without change I think it is unlikely the article will be expanded. Bakanov 15:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:14, 9 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}} . |
Non-notable gaming website. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
neologism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/667 Dark Avenue -- W( t) 20:43, 2 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}} . |
Non-notable chat forum. 18 unique google hits for "667 Dark Avenue Forum", 28 for "asoue.proboards11.com". Prod tag removed without comment. Weregerbil 15:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local restaurant guide website. Delete. DMG413 15:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{ nn-bio}}. Stifle 23:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like self-promotion. The text "was first heard of", without referring to his work at all, suggest that he is still not notable at all. But please, prove me wrong! Austrian 16:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 16:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Geogre with summary of (copyvio & totally non-encyclopedic). -- JLaTondre 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod tag was removed by Kbh3rd and marked the edit as minor with the comment rv v (revert vandalism). The proposed deletion was "Game review, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought WP:NOT/ WP:NOR". Blue520 16:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Sent to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. -- JLaTondre 18:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Was part of an April Fool's Day hoax, as can be seen at the site who made the joke Ryu Kaze 16:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was - speedy delete as hoax -- Durin 20:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No reputable sources and an obvious April Fools' Day hoax. ~ Hibana 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Confirmed hoax - (ref) — CuaHL ☺ 11:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (It really satisfies the criteria for "speedy", I think) Aleph4 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, removing WotW52s vote as a salvage attempt. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
KeepI am objected to this proposal for deletion and will be editing the entry to, hopefully, make it better.-- Waroftheworlds52 17:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
After considering the above points I've come to the conclusion that I'm not going to be able to satisfy the criteria of the site. As the author I no longer hold an objection to this entry being deleted. -- Waroftheworlds52 18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Waroftheworlds52 did not create this entry for any reason other than a reference to the site, who's popularity is growing rapidly, NOT as an advertisement. MagicalTrevor
Keep.User MagicalTrevor's statement is correct. This wikipedia entry was intended as a site reference and not an advertisement for the site. Furthermore, as proof of Ctrl-click.com's notability, it is the 7th result produced by the PageRank technology when searching for the query Ctrl-click on Google- http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Ctrl-click&btnG=Google+Search&meta= . I realise this comment perhaps does not mirror my earlier sentiments but in the light of the recent comment by MagicalTrevor I felt it best to verify his statement. I would also like to point out that there is now a link to the ctrl-click.com collection of podcasts found via Apple Computer's iTunes software- surely the site is of some not if it produces podcasts worthy enough of a music download service which has recently sold over 1 billion tracks?-- Waroftheworlds52 19:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
UPDATE: We're changing to a full site, with many subdomains. MagicalTrevor
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non notable. Couldn't find google hits. Soumyasch 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nn, web, autobio, van, unrelated info. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-02 t17:51z
The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted. — TheKMan talk 19:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm fairly sure this article is a joke, it seems more suited to Uncyclopedia. Modular. [[User_talk:Modular|(Talk.)]] 18:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unless verified - it has had a verify tag and comments on it since January, and no action has occurred, and it is now high in the Google ranking for this subject. Midgley 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
keep: Oh, come on now, the objective is to build an encyclopedia, not gum up the process with ill-conceived serial AfDs. The article was cleaned up and expanded before the nuisance verify tag was added. There is plenty of evidence around the net that this practitioner has had a long and noteworthy career that a quick goofle search would have confirmed, for whomever put on the nuisance tag, which in turn has been proffered unreasonably as an excuse for deletion. Ombudsman 19:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Brian G. Crawford 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
"""Appears to me that Midgley has a problem with Ombudsman. Who was the "Invisible Anon"? Is Midgley the official Wikopedia guardian? Is there one? I am a newer editor, but it appears that there are some vicious battles.
The result of the debate was Keep, nomination withdrawn and closed early by nominator. Kusma (討論) 15:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep per withdrawal. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
poorly written, non-wikified and highly opiniated article grafikm_fr 19:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a poorly written, non-wikified and highly opiniated article. It was proposed on the talk page to delete it and redirect Child time-out. grafikm_fr 18:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, seems like everyone agrees to keep the new version of the article. I'm removing the afd tag on the page! grafikm_fr 14:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN, vanity. Initially tagged as speedy, but tag was removed by page creator. Listing here now. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 19:08, 2 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}} . |
Note The Policy on Vanity Articles states that; Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. Therefore this is not a CSD A7
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as {{ nn-bio}}. Stifle 23:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN, vanity. Initially tagged as speedy, but page creator removed the tag. Listing here now. See also AfD-Richard 'the Lionheart' Morris, page created by same editor. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 19:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Note The Policy on Vanity Articles states that; Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. Therefore this is not a CSD A7
The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails 1, 2 and 3 of WP:CORP Mikker (...) 19:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet another non-referenced and poorly written page on a non-notable cocktail. Already transwikied. Previously prodded but that was contested. Quale 19:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This was created to parody the student author of a controversial article at my school. It is not a factual page, serves no informational purpose, and should be deleted. Murkywave 19:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No evidence there is such a style. The article is an incoherent, unsourced, POV essay. Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV -- noosphere 19:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by User:Geogre under A7, G4 Kotepho 02:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no evidence of current notability. -- W( t) 20:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Doc ask? 22:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I began this article on Rabbi Howard Z. Plummer, however, I cannot easily cite sources beyond the literature (books, website) published by the Church he once pastored. Hence, I recommend deletion. Cogasoc member 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as Advertisement for non-notable software. 0 Ghits - didn't know that was possible. Still scoring Zero but prod tag has been removed.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as now relocated to correct namespace. Esteffect 22:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe the creator of this article wanted to start a WikiProject, so I moved all of the information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy of Mechanicians. The page is not a suitable encyclopedia article. ~ MDD 46 96 21:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Rob 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently this article is only on the name of the team, and not the team itself, and thus isn't notable. Delete
Ardenn 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Couldn't find anything on Google about her Snailwalker | talk 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I think that this article should be deleted, as it has no meaningful content and does not have any references--Snailwalker | talk 21:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete never heard of the book 82.36.107.54 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is a copy of Rio Grande do Sul. Lithorapto is not a word that has anything to do with Rio Grande do Sul or anything else in the world. It's just a nonsensical test by a user and should be deleted. Ricardo630 21:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
No claim to notability. Sounds like an ad Bige1977 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 22:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply
A Zelda-based manga. Seems to be internet only - Less than 1,000 Google hits for quote "Bad Zelda", the bulk of which seem to be simply the term, and not about this manga. Thus not notable - Seems to just be a minor web thing between fans. Nowhere to redirect page so delete. Esteffect 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like a hoax (possibly an April Fool). Can't find any reference to Patrick Clare online and the photo uploaded is of George Cartwright [16]. All other edits by the author Kolkra ( talk · contribs) have been vandalism. johnSLADE (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, article is an advertisement Bige1977 22:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense/hoax/unsourced. -- W( t) 22:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This has been reprodded for the second or third time, so I'm moving it here. The last prodder gave no reason, but the first, User:Mithent, said "just a list of cable channels". Relevant policy is probably WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. NickelShoe ( Talk) 22:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 22:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software (first release less than a week ago). -- W( t) 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Already deleted once before and I feel it should be deleted again. This is simply a fansite. I did not vote speeedy as this is much longer than it was before. J.J.Sagnella 22:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Move to List of famous Rutgers University alumni Proto|| type 09:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move to List of famous Rutgers University faculty Proto|| type 09:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) 09:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
non-encyclopedic Austrian 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
How can you delete?- this is source based research as defined by Wikipedia rules "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." If it needs editing please give direction. I have responded to your comments already regarding blue links. I have also edited out personal analysis. Thx P. H. Betancourt-author
The result of the debate was speedy keep. (Nomination withdrawn) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable geographic entry. Alex (t) 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, how do I withdraw my nomination? Alex (t) 04:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable geographic entry. Alex (t) 23:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Alright, I'm withdrawing my nomination. Alex (t) 19:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep Proto|| type 09:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply
~~Survival guide of sorts for global warming. ~~ Alex (t) 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I admit that the original article was anemic because the content was just text extracted (perhaps prematurely) from the Mitigation of global warming article. I have expanded the original article substantially and I believe it no longer is subject to the criticisms leveled below.
This is not to say that the article rises to the full quality standards of a "good" Wikipedia article. Not yet anyway.
I'm just saying that it is as good as many other articles. It still needs further work but I think that could be tagged as {needs cleanup} instead of {candidate for deletion}.
Please reconsider and vote as appropriate.
Richard 05:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
In retrospect, I see that my original response to
Alex's criticism missed the point of his criticism. I thought he was suggesting that it was a bad idea to try to adapt to global warming. I see from the comments of others that the point is that Wikipedia should not have "how-to" instruction manuals. The article is not and was never intended to be a "how-to" instruction manual and
Alex was wrong in characterizing it as such.
Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
IPCC Working Group II makes the following observations:
1) Adaptation is a necessary strategy at all scales to complement climate change mitigation Efforts.
2) Those with the least resources have the least capacity to adapt and are the most vulnerable
3) Adaptation, sustainable development, and enhancement of equity can be mutually reinforcing
No it doesn't. Read the article again. The proscription against "instruction manuals" is about "how-to" manuals primarily for individuals (tutorials, cookbooks, etc.). This isn't a how-to for individuals. It is a list of policy alternatives. Read the article again, please. Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I think it is extremely POV to assert that the article cannot adapt to wiki standards. The original article was admittedly a stub and perhaps should have been labelled as such. I don't know if it is OR (original research?). Somebody else wrote the text. I do know that there is an IPCC report on Adaptation so the methods in that report would not constitute OR. It is no more a how-to article than the article on Mitigation is. Both articles are about policy alternatives and recommendations. Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, it would seem redundant of Mitigation of global warming. That's where the original text was pulled from (at the suggestion of people on Talk:Mitigation of global warming).
No, it's not an instruction manual. Read the article again, please.
No, it's not original research (at least not by me). If there is OR in it, we can pull it out. There is a reputable source for the general topic and that is the IPCC report cited in the article and above. I cannot certify at this time that every item in the article can be sourced in the IPCC report but that's an argument for deleting parts of the article not the article itself. Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
All of the above comments are missing the point of the article. I admit that I contributed to this by not immediately challenging the characterization of this article as a "survival guide". Thus, the above comments seem to be based on the idea that this is a "how-to" guide. It is, sort of. It is a "how to guide" for policymakers and, as such, is describing policy alternatives that can be implemented at all scales from personal to national to regional and international. As such, it is the same type of article as Mitigation of global warming. All we're doing is separating out "Mitigation" from "Adaptation".
Please re-read the article. While some of the topics may seem like "how-to survive global warming" for individuals, at least half of the recommended measures are things that only corporations and governments can do (e.g. damming glacial moraines, weather control and increasing the capacity of stormwater systems).
Also, please read the discussion on [[Talk:Mitigation of global warming] about separating that article into two articles which is exactly what I have done in creating this article. I have already expanded the original article beyond the original stub text that was extracted from Mitigation of global warming.
Finally, please note that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) specifically calls out Adaptation as being a necessary complement to Mitigation. (see references in my response to the original deletion recommendation by Alex Richard 00:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This criticism of the article is also off the mark. My defense of the article here may be a bit of a "soapbox". The article itself is not meant to be one and, if you read it again, is not one. Well, at least, no more than the Global warming and Global warming controversy articles are.
If not deleted, it needs lots of work to become more than essentially a list of related topics. Alex (t) 01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I am continually frustrated by this kind of comment. The topic is encyclopedic although the article in its current form may not be.
I think that one contribution to Montco's POV is the following text in the article:
"If global warming is a fact and if the world is unable to mitigate it quickly enough, there will be significant effects on the environment. We cannot be pollyannaish and assume that global warming can and will be stopped. We must be prepared for the possibility that the predicted temperature rises will happen and that the expected climate changes will occur. If these "doomsday scenarios" do come to pass, how will mankind survive?
There is significant evidence that the world is being very slow to address global warming and that current attempts won't decrease the generation of CO2 quickly enough. Some people argue that irreparable damage has already been done and that temperatures will rise. From their POV, the only question is how much they will rise and whether we can stop them from rising even further."
I stand behind the ideas in the text but I suspect the wording sounds unencylopedic. I have deleted it from the article and will eventually put back something more encyclopedic.
Richard 04:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm withdrawing my nomination and hoping the article continues to improve. Alex (t) 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about an random P2P site which offers illegal downloads chowells 00:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply