The result of the debate was Keep and recommend merge to lolicon. The only argument advanced for deletion is "non-notability." This is the author of published lolicon. Since we have an article on that subject, the Wikipedia:Deletion policy suggests merge. -- Tony Sidaway 23:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as article was created to fix a redlink from an image which is now broken. Not particularly notable.; deprodded on grounds appears notable as published if unsavory manga artist meeting notability standards. However, asserted notability seems questionable given 95 distinct Google hits [1] (admittedly in English, not Japanese). Could be merged to Lolicon as an example of said practice. Eusebeus 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
NN webcomic that doesn't even orbit WP:WEB. Coren 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The article does not assert notability and does not seem to meet WP:CORP's criteria for inclusion. The author, Andrewhill ( talk · contribs), has only made edits to this article and one other that added a link to this article, leading me to believe this is vanispamcruftisement that should be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure whether this article fails WP:WEB more than WP:CORP or vice-versa. Coren 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep as the nominator has implicitly withdrawn the nomination. Turnstep 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't see how this subject is at all notable. I'm listing here because there have been a few editors already. Kevin 09:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This article does not appear to be very notable. A google search reveals 56 hits. Delete The Genesis 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Although the suggestion of merging doesn't seem to have persuaded here, this doesn't preclude merging in the future. A discussion on the talk page would be more suitable for the purpose that another deletion nomination. -- Tony Sidaway 23:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Too specialized a topic to have an article on its researchers. Perhaps merge or move to an article about researchers of Korean history in general, but I think even that's pushing it Hirudo 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The info on these pages is already well-suited on June 1 and 2003, and the page doesn't appear to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on dates (the only exception I've seen is for September 11, 2001, which was a much more notable event than the events listed in this page. Gadren 00:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert: If you are interested in this sort of article, please contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events to help make date-based pages work better on Wikipedia.
Keep This is a legit date in history
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
previously deleted; lack of notability Robocoder 00:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
In the article on my school, Christian Heritage, I put in the staff list on Suzanne Levy that she is is Abe's mother, incase somebody was wondering if there was any relation between the two, or just to know as an interesting fact, so they could then come to this article to learn about him. Also, if people who read Abe's articles wanted to know about him, they could come here to do just that. (This is an encyclopedia, anyway.) Last, it's not like Wikipedia can only contain a certain amount of articles.-- WatchHawk 00:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok, I'll just put this on the school page and put a re-direct here. By the way, he has written many more than three articles.-- WatchHawk 20:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
While my initial feeling was that there could be a notable article written on this subject, I think this is just unsalvagable original research. Cheapestcostavoider 00:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was AfD retracted by proposer. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Duplicate. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Fairly empty, nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Hybrid Tea. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
First, it's fairly empty. Second of all, it's nn. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable band. Delete. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Incorrectly renominated. Listing now. Reasoning was: "note, this is the second time this list has been put up for afd, The result of the debate was Delete all first in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_26#List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges." by User:Kintetsubuffalo here — Rebelguys2 talk 01:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Virtually unknown actress. 13 mostly unrelated hits on Google (!). Does not satisfy criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~ MDD 46 96 01:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 03:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was originally listed for deletion a year ago, and was kept (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Gun (movie)). This film is not happening, it is so not happening that both IMDB and BCDB, gossip-snatchers as they are, have removed the film from their databases. This is a perfect example of why we should not have articles on rumoured films: far more of them don't get made than actually do get made. This article should be deleted unless anyone can provide any recent evidence that it is going to be made in the immediate future. Rje 01:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Numbercruft. Wikipedia does not need an article on every number- there's nothing in the article to indicate there's anything interesting at all about 10001 The El Reyko 01:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy A7 Delete - content posted to user page. Tawker 03:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article meets WP:NN, WP:VAIN, and others. The author (the same person the article is about) has persistantly removed the deletion tag. Please make a swift decision for speedy deletion. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 02:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - lacks notability, importance, and appears to be original research -- mtz206 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 04:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography. Was tagged for speedy deletion, tag removed by page creator (who may be the subject of the page). Eron 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Attempt at an original synthesis. Brian G. Crawford 02:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A one-sentence article about someone who married an actor. Having been married to an actor does not mean the person's notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Tyrenius has helped establish her notability, the article has been expanded, and that's good enough for me. I withdraw the nomination.
ekedolphin
02:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Creatures of Magic: The Gathering; more information can be moved Broodstar to Creatures of Magic: The Gathering by recovering it from history (this is a regular editing decision) - Liberatore( T) 11:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The first nomination was closed with a result of merge into Creatures of Magic: The Gathering...after apparently only three votes. Also, apparently, the page was never merged. I'm relisting here, and unlike the first nominator, I'm voting delete because individual CCG cards aren't notable enough for their own page. -- Grev 03:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus (article is kept) - Liberatore( T) 11:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Do we consider Miss USA runners-up to be notable? NawlinWiki 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for {{ prod}} as a "non-notable forum", but the tag was removed by anonymous gremlins. Ashibaka tock 03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Also:
Nn vanispam. Just the word Wavescorx alone only garners 167 non-wikipedia hits. "Wavescorx Independent" gets two. The company was founded a couple of years ago - the film hasn't been released, it's the actor's first role... These articles form a nice little walled gareden of articles - the WI one is the only one which links elsewhere (again thanks to the same editor, who added it to List of animation studios). Spam or vanity, you take your pick. Grutness... wha? 03:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 04:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Violation of WP:CORP jmd 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by JDoorjam as copyright violation of a commercial site. Kotepho 05:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non notable, self promotion Nationalparks 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I put a {{ prod}} tag on this article, but the creater, removed it. I am nominating it for deletion here. I reproduce the text that I put in the prod nomination: This person has acted in only two films that imdb.com knows about, and had very small parts in each one. That's not very notable. NatusRoma | Talk 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted. — TheKMan talk 10:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsensical. T e ke 05:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable person; just
29 Google hits. See also
first nom
Rory
0
96
(block)
05:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Not any more notable than any other game server. Prod removed without explanation. Also, vanity/spam (article editor is a founder). Wickethewok 06:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was still no consensus. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable fake language; only
518 Ghits.
Rory
0
96
(block)
06:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Note: Here is the first nomination, which resulted in no consensus. Grand master ka 06:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - author blanked. Tawker 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This has been created four times. The first two times it was created here and deleted as nn-bio (A7), the third it was created by moving it here from User:Vusal Mesiyev and was re-userfied; the fourth time it was again created by moving from User:Vusal Mesiyev and hence this Afd. Self-authored article, does not appear to be a sufficiently encyclopedic subject, and for what it's worth this user does not have any other contributions other than this article. -- Curps 06:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus to delete (but must be sourced to comply with Wikipedia policy). — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Some Australian rules football players and coaching staff (past and present) have interesting nicknames, but very likely almost every one in the league has one. There is also the problem of verifiability WP:V. The notable, worthy of mention and/or verifiable ones should be mentioned or included on the players page where appropriate (short explanations in some cases may be necessary). blue 520 06:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Can't we merge with the individual players articles? That way we keep the knowledge, lose the page and everyones happy! (were it only that simple.....) Jcuk 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
More of these can be found in the See also section of nickname. If this page were to be deleted, all of the pages should be deleted to keep consistency. Gizza Chat © 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe that this is a vanity article on a non-notable subject. There are additional factors to consider:
The result of the debate was Keep - notable. Tawker 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Professor Gerardo Ribeiro was deleted (and restarted). This one should be deleted too. - Slo-mo 07:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is either a vanity page for someone's pet project, or else unverifiable OR Mgekelly - Talk 08:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I have actually seen evidence of this movement. It should stay, but doesnt deserve an individual article. I say merge. .--
HEARTBOUND64
The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
NN website.
38,528, though it did get a bit of press (but all Microsoft things do).
Rory
0
96
(block)
08:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like an advertisement for a non-notable band. And it doesn't give any information about the actual performers, for that matter-- just their characters. Kinda like writing a Tenacious D article by only mentioning the history of Wonder Boy and Young Nasty Man.
The result of the debate was Withdrawn. Rob 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable secondary school, and a one-sentence article at that. The page has been expanded significantly, and I withdraw my request for deletion.
ekedolphin
09:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
de-prodded Vanity/advertising - O bli ( Talk) ? 10:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Why can we talk about big companies and not small??? There is no advertising. I just want to inform the community about the company? What do I have to change then??? Thanks for your help. M.stefani (email address removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.stefani ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as a nn website, although with an artificailly high Google hit result. Prod contested, so bringing it to AfD. Wrt WP:WEB, Alexa rank is 524,061. Eusebeus 10:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Flower party☀ 23:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as a minor cartoonist, prod contested without explanation. Non-notable cartoonist. His webcomic site boasts an Alexa ranking of 571,917. Eusebeus 10:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded, not astonishingly, as a non-notable road. Contested without explanation. Delete Eusebeus 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as non-notable <10 non-WP Google hits; additionally, the article appears to be total fantasy with respect to the appearing artists. Here is the album's Allmusic entry [11] Eusebeus 10:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Flower party☀ 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable. Advertisement. Biased article. so U m y a S ch 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable> This is a new article and will be expanded on as and when new contributors find it. It is already linked from the GIS page, and a sister page for GRASS GIS (opensource) has been on Wikipedia for some time without deletion. This page has taken some time to compose by hand - all a voluntary contribution.
Advertisement> If Soumyasch had read it properly, he/she would understand that QGIS is a free, opensource project which has been around for several years. If Soumyasch thinks this is an advertisment, then perhaps he/she would add further arrogance and consider removing the entire GIS page along with anything computer related! GRASS GIS and commercial packages already have mention/pages on Wikipedia. This is nonsense.
Bias article> This is a new article and will be expanded on as and when new contributors find it. There is no basis to judge this article as bias. It is exactly as the application is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwood ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Neither boxipuss, boxipus, or boxypuss turn up any results on Google. Delete as hoax. porges 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE -- Fr a ncs2000 11:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. Advertisement. POV. so U m y a S ch 11:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Flower party☀ 23:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded on grounds This article lacks information on the notability of the subject, as per WP:BIO. Deprodded on grounds that subject teaches at Harvard so bringing to AfD. Eusebeus 11:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Any Harvard or other Ivy League professor should have a large amount of published work, leading to a high hit count on Google, so a high Ghit is not in and of itself notable. San Saba 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. An adequately sourced article. -- Tony Sidaway 00:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded on grounds No sources and no assertion of notability, fails WP:BIO; deprodded as sounds notable. Bringing to AfD. Verifiability is a major issue here, although the notability raised by the original prod is certainly salient. Eusebeus 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep and expand Failing expansion, may be considered for a merge with US Census. The sole argument advanced for deletion is non-notability--which is difficult to sustain given the role of the company in compressing US Census data, and the subsequent headache for archivists caused by the use of their proprietary algorithm. -- Tony Sidaway 00:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Some crazed Russian prodded this on grounds fails WP:CORP; deprodded on grounds deprod company of historical interest). The interesting information about the technology employed could probably be usefully merged to US_Census, but the company appears to fall below notbaility standards. Eusebeus 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
From the "write if you find work" category, we have Macaulay Culkin's little brother, who appeared in one film when he was 7. Prodded on WP:BIO grounds, and deprodded because had named role in real film we bring it to AfD. Eusebeus 12:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable blogger/journalist, puff piece, only publications cited are in redlinked periodical. Delete. · rodii · 12:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded on grounds that he lost his election bid, deprodded as major party candidate for national office. Per consensus, failed candidates need to have notability other than failed bids for office and this candidate appears marginal in this regard wrt WP:BIO. Eusebeus 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn (page will be moved) └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Unpublished "podcast-only" novel. 370 unique google hits for "earthcore and sigler". Article reads like an ad. Are readership figures verifiable? Should we evaluate this as a book or as a website? I will consider changing my vote if cogent arguments for retention are advanced. -
CrazyRussian
talk/
contribs/
email
12:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Nomination withdrawn Isotope and I have conferred and I decided it's better to move this to Scott Sigler and defluff it, which I will do as soon as this AfD is closed. Thanks for voting. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 18:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Speady Delete non-notable YoungWebster 12:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - Does not meet WP:BIO criteria; specifically, Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. A junior wing of a party is non-notable -- YoungWebster 12:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Anyone is free of course to create any redirect they see fit, or to add information about Mr. Diamond to his organization's article. Chick Bowen 18:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Speady Delete - non-notable YoungWebster 12:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect, no consensus to delete. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unencyclopedic, an article about the "nationality", not clear why needed separately from the article for the country. Nothing useful to merge, useless as redirect as not a likely search term. Note: interesting article history, was my first foray into AfD, and I botched it up. Do disregard my commentary from way back when. I am no longer that uh... stupid. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 12:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore( T) 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable football player for Watford. Has only played 22 minutes for the club and is still a member of the club's Academy. Furthermore, he is now covered in Current Watford F.C. players HornetMike 12:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Do we need a list of people who were who were non adherents of the Dharmic religions to be cremated? Yeah, let's have it cremated. — Home Row Keysplurge 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The page has been around for months, and I'm simply not seeing any claim of notability. Bachrach44 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable. -- Nlu ( talk) 05:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable band, just
954 Google hits.
first VfD.
Rory
0
96
(block)
13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Do I really have to say? There are flashes created for just about every possible thing existed. This doesn't deserve an article of its own, less so one that just seems to have been created to plug one flash. -- Cyberdude93 14:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, apparently the name of an asteroid. James Kendall [talk] 14:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was originally a PROD, but the PROD was contested. This is a list of proverbs. It would be better housed at wikisource or possibly wikiquote if any of them could be sourced.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Deleted under A7 but re-created, which counts as contested deletion, therefore bringing to AfD. Unverifiable, uncited, probable hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
prodded as nn, with only a handful of google hits. Deprodded and then an out-of-process reprod, so bringing it to AfD instead. The group is very new and its notability is as yet unestablished. Eusebeus 15:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Created by a band member (always a bad start). The dozen or so articles with various capitalisations on the band, its predecessor, its members and even (God help us) its tour van have all now been speedied, leaving just this, which contains some assertion of notability. But without anAllmusic entry or any other sources proving WP:NMG I am not convinced. Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
First afd resulted in a delete vote. db-repost tag was contested; talk page claims that new article is better written and sourced. I still say it merits a wiktionary entry at best. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus for deleting, moving, merging, burying in soft peat and recycling as firelighters or whatever. See Wikipedia:Merge if anyone wants to pursue that option. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
These two articles appear to be - and probably only ever will be - dictdefs. I think commentary on what might or might not have caused the Prestige oil spill belongs in that article, not in one paragraph stubs on naval terminology. kingboyk 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
far too minor a character to warrant his own article Dunstan talk 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, already transwikied. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This was PROD'd but the PROD was contested. This is a list of sayings/proverbs, mostly without direct translation, but with a rough idea of the meaning, and no context. This would fall under WP:NOT an indiscrimate collection of information in my opinion. Transwiki to wikisource is a viable option though. I'm tagging it for cleanup and wikification as well if the consensus is to keep.-- Isotope23 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy, contested. This is not about Xoom but about an Indian rip-off clone.
Just zis Guy you know?
16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy The company is not launched yet. Nonverifiable promo 18:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC) `' mikka (t) 18:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks to me like an advertising piece for a micropayment service which I've never heard of and which has no Alexa rating. It has been built up by an unregistered user. Dunstan talk 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - lethe talk + 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The content of this article, which is only loosely related to its title, is already covered in divisibility rule. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 16:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
Delete/Speedy Delete Less than 20 related Google hits, completely nn J.J.Sagnella 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
If you weren't part of the music scene in North London in mid 1990s, then you wouldn't have heard of The 0898z perhaps. Bet you've heard of Soul Tax though right? And Sound Garden, formally Libery Hall, and John Somerville. Eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moker ( talk • contribs) .
Please refer to the discussion page on The 0898z for further points from other Wikipedia members on why this post should be kept.—the preceding comment is by Moker - 14:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC): Please sign your posts! reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). We have a slight majority for deletion, but not a consensus, and I find Mangojuice's and Capitalistroadster's arguments as sensible. Recommend adding info on that award to the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
At the risk of incurring yet more accusations of bad faith, harming Wikipedia, wantonly dishonest nominations, vandalising, etc... we bring another contested prod to AfD for consideration. Prodded as this article lacks information on the notability of the subject, as per WP:BIO and deprodded as article describes notable work and subject has significant Google Scholar presence. Subject receives some 56 hits on Google Scholar, although counting for the duplication from bibliography listings as well as links to extraneous material not germane to the subject (such as [29], [30]) the overall count is lower. Montgomery did, however, win the James_S._Coleman_Award which, with 30 hits on Google, is not necessarily notable, hence soliciting consensus at AfD. Eusebeus 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Now if you will excuse me, I need to run very fast in order to escape the oncoming stampede of editors rushing to source and clean up this orphan article. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like an ad, unsourced, nn company. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete An article about a gift shop
Delete. Non-notable university gift shop. Grand master ka 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 18:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems a shame to delete this, but I've recently become aware of the fact that I've got deletionist tendencies, and the doctir said the best way to deal with this is by AFDing articles. This one deserves AFDing as it seems rather non notable. Its a shame, because it is harmless, but it is my duty as a future admin and a netball enthusiast (OK, I lie about the netball enthusiasm) to open a small discussion about the Wikipedia worthiness of this article. Dangherous 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
del, a chaotic essay by anon. Useless title. Topics covered elsewhere. `' mikka (t) 18:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy. Shanel § 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article, see WP:VAIN Codyrank 18:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article, see WP:VAIN Codyrank 18:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Wales; target of redirect can be later changed if needed - Liberatore( T) 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a POV fork of Wales, edited only by User:Cardiff, who has also been making POV edits to Cardiff today. It has no links within the main namespace. The list of Princes of Wales should possibly be merged to Wales, but the commentary ("The Principality of Wales was created by the Crown in 1301 when Edward I unifyed the country as one for the first time in its history", for instance), is POV and liable to cause extreme offence. Vashti 18:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) more As detailed at Talk:Cardiff, this user has also been making POV changes at Saint David's Day. Vashti 19:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) His talk page history is also instructive, as he has been warned several times for this kind of behaviour, but refuses to engage in any discussion and simply blanks the page. I'm beginning to suspect a vandal at work. Vashti 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Nothing in this article establishes its notability. Wikipedia is not a directory, blog, or free web space.. Delete Ardenn 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Total of 31 hits on Google. Of the 31 hits, at least half are from encyclopedia articles such as Wikipedia, and other sources that allow self posting. Non-notable, possible vanity page. rhmoore 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - This list is an indiscriminate collection of information ( WP:NOT). It just contains names of tourist resorts in India, which reads like an advertisement - Aksi_great ( talk) 18:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. There are intelligent arguments on both sides, and ultimately it came down to the numbers. Chick Bowen 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO criteria: is not a political figure holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office, or a member of a national, state or provincial legislature. A junior wing of a party is not notable. HistoryBA 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
National Council, for those of you who don't know, was the highest governing body of the party - a National board of directors of the 2nd largest political party in Canada (at the time).
Elected at age 21, David proposed the resolution, which Council approved, that gave the leader Stephen Harper the constitutional authority to move ahead with the merger process of the Conservative Party.
Not only was that merger highly newsworthy in Canada, but it led to the conditions which brought the Conservative Party to government, ironically on David's birthday this year.
Moreover, David has published many articles in the National Post (a Nationally read newspaper in Canada) as well as the Montreal Gazette. From the latter publication are quotations in this article on the subject of former prime minister Paul Martin.
I am not suggesting that he's highly renown, but in the spirit of Wikipedia, he qualifies as a young Canadian who is so immersed in politics, at such high levels, that someone may reasonably want to learn about him. That's what Wikipedia is for.
Finally, some of you might wonder why I have not submitted any other articles. Well, David was the first I had planned to submit and there were a few other names from their involvement in the Canadian Alliance who I was going to post, but I never got around to it. CLEAR POLI SCI JUNKIE 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete He simply isn't notable. We wouldn't include every member of the council. The accomplishments listed seem relatively slight. Two letters to the editor, a motion passed at council to support the premise that the party was built upon (and which user 24.43.87.250 noted was an ongoing process in the article). As for his age, the McGill link in the article indicates that his acclamation resulted from the party's lack of a following in Quebec, where all candidates were acclaimed. In any event his young age doesn't seem to justify inclusion. I understand that the two "keep" votes know him and I'm sure that he's a nice guy but I think that it would be unusual if this article was kept. -- JGGardiner 17:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a comment because I've already voted. I'm not sure if this really is the appropriate place to say this but I would take any opportunity to promote Wikipedia. I've noticed that there are a number of new users who are interested in keeping the article, particularily Canpolijunkie who created the article and user:24.43.87.250 who I know has spent a lot of effort on it. And I see that Britannia1 has taken an interest here and perhaps decided to move from a WP reader to an editor. Yet it seems as though the article is headed for deletion. All three of these users have made articulate, reasoned and detailed comments along with your votes and I really hope that this doesn't turn you off of Wikipedia. It really is a wonderful project and it truly is for everybody, just like the slogan says. Unfortunately it is the nature of Wikipedia that our first experience as editors is a often negative one. I just hope that, whatever the vote outcome, you guys can give it a chance and see the way things work around here and hopefully you will all stick around so that we can all work together at improving the project. We don't always agree but there is definitely a place for everyone here. Once you get used to the process and the other editors I'm sure that you will find many more positive than negative experiences here. If David Anber has created an interest that has created three new articulate and energetic editors, then I'd like to thank him for that. And thanks for the space to everyone else. -- JGGardiner 19:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy. -- RHaworth 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a vanity page for a non-noteworthy band Amina skywalker 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
seems like a vanity page - no more notable than many other preachers. Referred here after author deleted my prod w/no explanation NawlinWiki 19:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no other mentions of this party to be found through Google. If not a hoax, then certainly non-notable.-- Joann e B 19:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NEO Neologism - almost no Google appearances other than Wikipedia mirrors. Not even listed in Urban Dictionary. John Nagle 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability not established. Seems to be advertising. Speedy attempted Bjones 19:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod:Non-notable new web site. Alexa rank 3,000,000+, google finds few links to the site. TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, author blanked. — xaosflux Talk 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN software, prod removed without comment.
774 Google hits.
Rory
0
96
(block)
20:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete; no keep votes from established Wikipedians. Chick Bowen 18:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism; no verifiable usage given beyond a blog which does not meet WP:RS. -- BillC 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
More like YOU'RE teribble stuff! Deletionists are not to be trusted (see Enron). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.145.58.251 ( talk • contribs)
DON'T DELETE THIS - mule is in every sense a huge part of the New England youth vernacular. When I think of my high school experience in New England I think of the Red Sox, Cape Cod, Dropkick Murphys, and MULES. Please keept his entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.181.114 ( talk • contribs)
As the original creator of this article, I feel that given the youth culture associations of the term (the hand-sign, the particular celebrities thought to be examplary) place it beyond the purview of a dictionary. Wikipedia does have an entry on the devil horns. Admittedly, millions of people know that sign, while only hundreds know this one. Nonetheless, it's legitimate and accurate. Obscure, but legitimate. To delete it would simply be to make the Wikipedia less complete. There are two external links here. Avery Score was not a blogger for Gamespot, he was a columnist, with over 300 articles credited to him. The Eskapade page is not a blog either; it's the homepage of an established band. I understand the counterarguments, but I respectfully disagree with them. Peter Smith, 27 April 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbomcphazer ( talk • contribs)
Good point. Unfortunately one fact shoots a hole ithrough your argument: a term such as this could not -possibly- be made up in school one day. Or made up in school over the course of several days. What muledom is and what it stands for is as organic as soy milk: hearty, earthy and completely un-squalid. Something so un-squalid, in fact, that it must be experienced to be believed. But you're all mules, we know this, and we have faith in you to do the right thing. In summary: Wikipedia -IS- for things formed -organically- through -life- over the course of -experience-! 05:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) St. Alexi the camera-man.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.44.231 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was speedy. Shanel § 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an advertisement for a non-notable company. Content consisted of a copy and paste from their website. — WAvegetarian• CONTRIBUTIONS TALK• EMAIL• 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Probably not meeting WP:BAND, but I'm not sure, so I'm bringing it here. Stifle ( talk) 21:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was withdrawn after verifiable source of notability claim. `' mikka (t) 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was withdrawn. Notability added. `' mikka (t) 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Where have you all been before?
The result of the debate was withdrawn Notability added. `' mikka (t) 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
writers of such stubs (probably university website cutters-and-pasters) should be punished by deletion such articles on sight. `' mikka (t) 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Not even a list, just a collection of school seals. Over and over and over again. Utter violation of WP:NOT. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep Kotepho 22:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nothing but one big long leftist diatribe, should be removed and covered from scratch in a more NPOV style-- Ham and jelly butter 21:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete - vanity/crystal ball. DS 02:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a personal project/self-promotion. There are no Google hits I can find that refer to "Sakura Skies" in the context of this article. Gadren 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not an encyclopedia article, only a collection of book reviews. There is no plot summary, information about the author, or explanation of the work's cultural significance. The only other information in the article is a link to Torah, with no explanation of any relationship between these novels and the Torah. CyborgTosser ( Only half the battle) 22:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Is this really notable enough to deserve its own page? We already have a page on Uncyclopedia which covers all the information in this page. Gadren 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong keep Pure first world prejudice toward a third world nation. Should clearly be a speedy keep. Why is it if it was American nobody woulddare put an Afd on it or we are writing the American encyclopedia of everything American? SqueakBox 03:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep 63.245.57.197 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (merge tag already added). -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
As noted on the talk page, there has been longstanding issues with verifiability in this article. Many of the expressions are localised, and cannot be substantiated as being current anywhere and with anyone. Others are common outside Canada. The list is entertaining, but it is listcruft. And unverifiable, capricious listcruft at that Fishhead64 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete as misinformation. I will readily send any verifiable, non-defamatory content from this article to anyone who wishes to write a proper article on this subject. In the meantime, I think the best thing we can do with this strongly biased and confusing concoction is to delete it lest some innocent party should be wrongly associated with the random wrongdoings alleged. -- Tony Sidaway 01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article on behalf of Executor-usa ( talk · contribs), whom I have indefinitely blocked for legal threats relating to this article. However, he has asked admins to delete the article, and I think there needs to be some outside eyes on it. The article cites sources, but I haven't yet checked them out (some of them are in a Hispanic language) and there are some POV problems, starting with its title, which should be Office of International Treasury Control (currently a redirect, but it should be the central title). Obviously POV can be fixed, but we should start by considering whether it is worth it. I copy Executor-usa's reasoning below, and abstain for the moment. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
"This is part of a worldwide disinformation campaign against OITC. Waffelknocker is a police officer who has investigated OITC. He has posted accurate information supported by fact.OITC is a classified UN Chartered institution.The full jacket, security level 3-5, is held by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.Verification requires authorization. Chapter One on Redcat's Precious Metals Board has published a letter from the General Counsel of the US Treasury in support of OITC and its' Chairman. He has had the letter verified. The writers of this article only publish falsehoods, misinformation, and lies. They do so knowingly. They delete all writings countrary to their own misinformation campaign. They do so even when their own writings are left alone. Any lawsuit against these writers will have as witnesses the US Attorney General, as well as other such positioned officials. This is a fact based upon personal knowledge. Do not damage this site by allowing it to be used for malicious defamers. No amount of discussion on this site by the uninformed will bear any fruit. You cannot resolve this conflict."
Speedy Delete. Comment. This articles carries dangers that are beyond comprehension. In both cases, Ecuador and Fiji, the newspaper reports are based upon supposition, they are totally based upon flawed information and in the Ecuador case, the press is using its power to destroy a rival. The MG Rover situation stating that OITC offered $10 is nonsense. There is a great deal more to it than that. I am a retired police officer, but I spent a lot of time years ago investigating Keith Scott who is an Australian citizen. I have found that while he does engage in unusual financial dealings, as stated by Police Commissioner Hughes, he also delivers. I know of no case where Scott or OITC have ever engaged in fraud, and they have been operating for more than ten years. Yes there is a file a foot thick on Scott, but there is NO evidence that he has ever committed or intended to commit fraud. When under such surveillance, he would have been arrested and incarcerated years ago if he was a scammer. The newspapers rage in Fiji that landowners will have to mortgage their lands, which has been proven to be total nonsense.
Here is why I say this article is dangerous. 1. It definitely impairs the capacity to do correct due diligence which is available through official sources. 2. OITC will eventually sue these newspapers, of that I am sure. Sefanaia Kaumaitotoya warned the press on this. The Prime Minister in Fiji is now very careful what he says about OITC today, Andrew Hughes has gone silent, even though the government and police websites still carry these statements. Extension of these falsehoods and the perpetuating of them is not only irresponsible, for they are merely supposition born from ignorance, these attacks on OITC are criminal. I know OITC lawyers will be asking for the IP address and identity of the person posting these falsehoods. I am told that a leading law firm in Fiji will be paid by OITC in this coming week to file against the Fiji Times and FijiSun Newspapers and to file against The Commissioner of Police. Is this an empty threat. No. As will be learned this week,it is a fact. I am not certain of the legal liabilities of Wikipedia as such, but you will be hearing from OITC lawyers this coming week
The Reserve Bank of Fiji have constantly refused to denounce OITC. Why? Because they know better. Posted by Waffleknocka 28/4/2006
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Group nomination - Where to begin? First item is an unnamed and non-yet made film by non-notable writer/director, the second item. Google search on Jaren Anderson brings back 88 returns, only 41 unique, and only a handful of those relating to film - and those are almost all Wikipedia links. Third item is a not yet released short film. Delete. TheRealFennShysa 23:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Other Links for arguement:
Here are my takes, from research.
Check [ [41]] under short fiction I nominations and [ [42]] under Jaren Anderson as director and One Last Job as film.
Googled Jaren Anderson One Last Job and it brought up, 2 counts of Wikipedia, 1 count of NY film festival and 1 count of forest film, 2 counts of filmerica festival (where it seemed he made a short film for a 72 hour contest, donation charity, etc.).
I think as a viewer of film, and independent films all, shorts including films made by people with out 20 million dollar budgets, its unfair and people independent films (expecially ones that got nominations from film festivals and what not) should be fought for by wikipedians. More power to you.
Also, I remember looking this up a while ago when it first passed and remember it was IMDB.com but im not so sure anymore. Oh well, hope you guys give it a second look.
I agree on this one only because its a short no credable film- I don't think this a true fact, that hes making this film... so I say delete, but one last job is indeed a film, and since I live near the west village theater in New york, I'm gonna see what its all about when it premieres.
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
The comments of two very new users (
Ebn6701 and
Mbn01291) were disregarded. The comments of all anonymous users were disregarded.
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}} . |
Having encountered this article for the first time today, I'm struck by an overwhelming sense that it is part of an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a very long-running and successful troll. There is very little verifiable information in the article to support the idea that "Michael Crook" even exists as an individual, as opposed to a public persona or a project undertaken by an unknown number of people. Of the citations and external links listed at the end of the article, half of them ultimately originate from Crook himself (who, if the article is any indication, can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything), half of the remaining ones are not available at the URLs given, and the one anti-Crook site that can actually be reached is far from meeting WP:V standards and may in fact have been created by Crook himself, for all we know. The talk page is dominated by IP addresses and registered users who have never edited on any non-Crook-related subject ever, as was the last AfD on this article; how many of these are sock puppets of Michael Crook? This individual/troll organization/whatever is probably notable enough to deserve an article, but the current one is fatally compromised and should either be rebuilt from the ground up using only independently verifiable information, or deleted altogether. phh ( t/ c) 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I originally prod'ed this article on April 17. User:Jordanmills removed the tag, which I erroneously replaced. However, it appears that this article was never deleted, possibly due to the toolserver being down at the time. This article describes a mod for a video game, which is not an encyclopedic topic sans additional importance or notability. The fact that there are only 288 Google hits ( [43]), 113 of which are unique, shows that this mod is not notable. NatusRoma | Talk 23:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Google "Trey kirk"+art gives 38 hits, some of which are blogs, some refer to work he did in high school, plus he won a poster contest. The "Dadada movement" which the article asserts he pioneered draws no hits linked to his name (perhaps another example of his being a "playful man" instanced by things "such as drawing on people's artwork in Lane Hall at Tufts University and peeing on things people don't know about"). Perhaps he is a fine artist, and perhaps he will be notable one day, but that day is not today. Mwanner | Talk 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO and it's probably not advisable to have an article about her according to WP:LIVING. There's already been a decision not to publish the real name of an internet pornography personality, Jordan Capri and furthermore, Libby Hoeller never intended to become famous for internet pornography. Also, reliable sources are absent, and verifiablility is a serious problem, as shown on the talk page. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. Brian G. Crawford 23:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
In the same vein as January 12, 2006 M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Withdrawn. -- Rory096 00:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable encyclopaedia. Just 11 Google hits! Rory096 23:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, well-written nonsense; also seems to fit in the 'made this up at school one day' category. Argon233 T C @ ¶ 00:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Quality Article - DO NOT DELETE
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
72.38.186.167 (
talk •
contribs) 2006-04-28 00:29:01.
This page is 100% real and has infact reveived cult status at Bayside Secondary school
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Logom29 ( talk • contribs) 2006-04-28 02:17:21.The basis for the deletion of this page is the true nonsense—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.189.28 ( talk • contribs) .
Discounting two obvious sock votes, mostly based on the lack of proper signing / content of the vote -- Tawker 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; nonsense article paired with Shut down period; seems to fit in the 'made this up at school one day' category. -- Argon233 T C @ ¶ 00:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a non-notable sports team/club, and there's only one major information contributor, who is a student at the school. Evan Seeds (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, despite merge votes. This is an article about a youth orchestra, the supposed target is a festival. I don't see compatibility between the articles except to insert a sentence 'AIYF manages GYO', and if you want to insert that sentence, well, I just gave it to you, you don't need the article. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a non-notable youth group, and may qualify for db-band. Precedence set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Orchestra of Greater Columbus. Evan Seeds (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I Highly doubt a MySpace game passes WP:WEB. Dspserpico 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep and recommend merge to lolicon. The only argument advanced for deletion is "non-notability." This is the author of published lolicon. Since we have an article on that subject, the Wikipedia:Deletion policy suggests merge. -- Tony Sidaway 23:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as article was created to fix a redlink from an image which is now broken. Not particularly notable.; deprodded on grounds appears notable as published if unsavory manga artist meeting notability standards. However, asserted notability seems questionable given 95 distinct Google hits [1] (admittedly in English, not Japanese). Could be merged to Lolicon as an example of said practice. Eusebeus 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
NN webcomic that doesn't even orbit WP:WEB. Coren 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The article does not assert notability and does not seem to meet WP:CORP's criteria for inclusion. The author, Andrewhill ( talk · contribs), has only made edits to this article and one other that added a link to this article, leading me to believe this is vanispamcruftisement that should be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure whether this article fails WP:WEB more than WP:CORP or vice-versa. Coren 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep as the nominator has implicitly withdrawn the nomination. Turnstep 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't see how this subject is at all notable. I'm listing here because there have been a few editors already. Kevin 09:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This article does not appear to be very notable. A google search reveals 56 hits. Delete The Genesis 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Although the suggestion of merging doesn't seem to have persuaded here, this doesn't preclude merging in the future. A discussion on the talk page would be more suitable for the purpose that another deletion nomination. -- Tony Sidaway 23:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Too specialized a topic to have an article on its researchers. Perhaps merge or move to an article about researchers of Korean history in general, but I think even that's pushing it Hirudo 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- Tony Sidaway 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The info on these pages is already well-suited on June 1 and 2003, and the page doesn't appear to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on dates (the only exception I've seen is for September 11, 2001, which was a much more notable event than the events listed in this page. Gadren 00:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert: If you are interested in this sort of article, please contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events to help make date-based pages work better on Wikipedia.
Keep This is a legit date in history
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
previously deleted; lack of notability Robocoder 00:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
In the article on my school, Christian Heritage, I put in the staff list on Suzanne Levy that she is is Abe's mother, incase somebody was wondering if there was any relation between the two, or just to know as an interesting fact, so they could then come to this article to learn about him. Also, if people who read Abe's articles wanted to know about him, they could come here to do just that. (This is an encyclopedia, anyway.) Last, it's not like Wikipedia can only contain a certain amount of articles.-- WatchHawk 00:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok, I'll just put this on the school page and put a re-direct here. By the way, he has written many more than three articles.-- WatchHawk 20:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
While my initial feeling was that there could be a notable article written on this subject, I think this is just unsalvagable original research. Cheapestcostavoider 00:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was AfD retracted by proposer. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Duplicate. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Fairly empty, nn M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Hybrid Tea. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
First, it's fairly empty. Second of all, it's nn. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable band. Delete. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Incorrectly renominated. Listing now. Reasoning was: "note, this is the second time this list has been put up for afd, The result of the debate was Delete all first in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_26#List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges." by User:Kintetsubuffalo here — Rebelguys2 talk 01:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Virtually unknown actress. 13 mostly unrelated hits on Google (!). Does not satisfy criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~ MDD 46 96 01:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 03:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was originally listed for deletion a year ago, and was kept (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Gun (movie)). This film is not happening, it is so not happening that both IMDB and BCDB, gossip-snatchers as they are, have removed the film from their databases. This is a perfect example of why we should not have articles on rumoured films: far more of them don't get made than actually do get made. This article should be deleted unless anyone can provide any recent evidence that it is going to be made in the immediate future. Rje 01:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Numbercruft. Wikipedia does not need an article on every number- there's nothing in the article to indicate there's anything interesting at all about 10001 The El Reyko 01:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy A7 Delete - content posted to user page. Tawker 03:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article meets WP:NN, WP:VAIN, and others. The author (the same person the article is about) has persistantly removed the deletion tag. Please make a swift decision for speedy deletion. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 02:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - lacks notability, importance, and appears to be original research -- mtz206 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 04:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography. Was tagged for speedy deletion, tag removed by page creator (who may be the subject of the page). Eron 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Attempt at an original synthesis. Brian G. Crawford 02:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
A one-sentence article about someone who married an actor. Having been married to an actor does not mean the person's notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Tyrenius has helped establish her notability, the article has been expanded, and that's good enough for me. I withdraw the nomination.
ekedolphin
02:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Creatures of Magic: The Gathering; more information can be moved Broodstar to Creatures of Magic: The Gathering by recovering it from history (this is a regular editing decision) - Liberatore( T) 11:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The first nomination was closed with a result of merge into Creatures of Magic: The Gathering...after apparently only three votes. Also, apparently, the page was never merged. I'm relisting here, and unlike the first nominator, I'm voting delete because individual CCG cards aren't notable enough for their own page. -- Grev 03:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus (article is kept) - Liberatore( T) 11:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Do we consider Miss USA runners-up to be notable? NawlinWiki 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for {{ prod}} as a "non-notable forum", but the tag was removed by anonymous gremlins. Ashibaka tock 03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Also:
Nn vanispam. Just the word Wavescorx alone only garners 167 non-wikipedia hits. "Wavescorx Independent" gets two. The company was founded a couple of years ago - the film hasn't been released, it's the actor's first role... These articles form a nice little walled gareden of articles - the WI one is the only one which links elsewhere (again thanks to the same editor, who added it to List of animation studios). Spam or vanity, you take your pick. Grutness... wha? 03:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 04:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Violation of WP:CORP jmd 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by JDoorjam as copyright violation of a commercial site. Kotepho 05:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non notable, self promotion Nationalparks 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I put a {{ prod}} tag on this article, but the creater, removed it. I am nominating it for deletion here. I reproduce the text that I put in the prod nomination: This person has acted in only two films that imdb.com knows about, and had very small parts in each one. That's not very notable. NatusRoma | Talk 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted. — TheKMan talk 10:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsensical. T e ke 05:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable person; just
29 Google hits. See also
first nom
Rory
0
96
(block)
05:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Not any more notable than any other game server. Prod removed without explanation. Also, vanity/spam (article editor is a founder). Wickethewok 06:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was still no consensus. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable fake language; only
518 Ghits.
Rory
0
96
(block)
06:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Note: Here is the first nomination, which resulted in no consensus. Grand master ka 06:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - author blanked. Tawker 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This has been created four times. The first two times it was created here and deleted as nn-bio (A7), the third it was created by moving it here from User:Vusal Mesiyev and was re-userfied; the fourth time it was again created by moving from User:Vusal Mesiyev and hence this Afd. Self-authored article, does not appear to be a sufficiently encyclopedic subject, and for what it's worth this user does not have any other contributions other than this article. -- Curps 06:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus to delete (but must be sourced to comply with Wikipedia policy). — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Some Australian rules football players and coaching staff (past and present) have interesting nicknames, but very likely almost every one in the league has one. There is also the problem of verifiability WP:V. The notable, worthy of mention and/or verifiable ones should be mentioned or included on the players page where appropriate (short explanations in some cases may be necessary). blue 520 06:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Can't we merge with the individual players articles? That way we keep the knowledge, lose the page and everyones happy! (were it only that simple.....) Jcuk 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
More of these can be found in the See also section of nickname. If this page were to be deleted, all of the pages should be deleted to keep consistency. Gizza Chat © 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe that this is a vanity article on a non-notable subject. There are additional factors to consider:
The result of the debate was Keep - notable. Tawker 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Professor Gerardo Ribeiro was deleted (and restarted). This one should be deleted too. - Slo-mo 07:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is either a vanity page for someone's pet project, or else unverifiable OR Mgekelly - Talk 08:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
I have actually seen evidence of this movement. It should stay, but doesnt deserve an individual article. I say merge. .--
HEARTBOUND64
The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
NN website.
38,528, though it did get a bit of press (but all Microsoft things do).
Rory
0
96
(block)
08:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like an advertisement for a non-notable band. And it doesn't give any information about the actual performers, for that matter-- just their characters. Kinda like writing a Tenacious D article by only mentioning the history of Wonder Boy and Young Nasty Man.
The result of the debate was Withdrawn. Rob 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable secondary school, and a one-sentence article at that. The page has been expanded significantly, and I withdraw my request for deletion.
ekedolphin
09:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
de-prodded Vanity/advertising - O bli ( Talk) ? 10:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Why can we talk about big companies and not small??? There is no advertising. I just want to inform the community about the company? What do I have to change then??? Thanks for your help. M.stefani (email address removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.stefani ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as a nn website, although with an artificailly high Google hit result. Prod contested, so bringing it to AfD. Wrt WP:WEB, Alexa rank is 524,061. Eusebeus 10:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Flower party☀ 23:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as a minor cartoonist, prod contested without explanation. Non-notable cartoonist. His webcomic site boasts an Alexa ranking of 571,917. Eusebeus 10:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded, not astonishingly, as a non-notable road. Contested without explanation. Delete Eusebeus 10:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as non-notable <10 non-WP Google hits; additionally, the article appears to be total fantasy with respect to the appearing artists. Here is the album's Allmusic entry [11] Eusebeus 10:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Flower party☀ 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable. Advertisement. Biased article. so U m y a S ch 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable> This is a new article and will be expanded on as and when new contributors find it. It is already linked from the GIS page, and a sister page for GRASS GIS (opensource) has been on Wikipedia for some time without deletion. This page has taken some time to compose by hand - all a voluntary contribution.
Advertisement> If Soumyasch had read it properly, he/she would understand that QGIS is a free, opensource project which has been around for several years. If Soumyasch thinks this is an advertisment, then perhaps he/she would add further arrogance and consider removing the entire GIS page along with anything computer related! GRASS GIS and commercial packages already have mention/pages on Wikipedia. This is nonsense.
Bias article> This is a new article and will be expanded on as and when new contributors find it. There is no basis to judge this article as bias. It is exactly as the application is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwood ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Neither boxipuss, boxipus, or boxypuss turn up any results on Google. Delete as hoax. porges 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE -- Fr a ncs2000 11:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. Advertisement. POV. so U m y a S ch 11:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Flower party☀ 23:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded on grounds This article lacks information on the notability of the subject, as per WP:BIO. Deprodded on grounds that subject teaches at Harvard so bringing to AfD. Eusebeus 11:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Any Harvard or other Ivy League professor should have a large amount of published work, leading to a high hit count on Google, so a high Ghit is not in and of itself notable. San Saba 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. An adequately sourced article. -- Tony Sidaway 00:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded on grounds No sources and no assertion of notability, fails WP:BIO; deprodded as sounds notable. Bringing to AfD. Verifiability is a major issue here, although the notability raised by the original prod is certainly salient. Eusebeus 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep and expand Failing expansion, may be considered for a merge with US Census. The sole argument advanced for deletion is non-notability--which is difficult to sustain given the role of the company in compressing US Census data, and the subsequent headache for archivists caused by the use of their proprietary algorithm. -- Tony Sidaway 00:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Some crazed Russian prodded this on grounds fails WP:CORP; deprodded on grounds deprod company of historical interest). The interesting information about the technology employed could probably be usefully merged to US_Census, but the company appears to fall below notbaility standards. Eusebeus 11:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
From the "write if you find work" category, we have Macaulay Culkin's little brother, who appeared in one film when he was 7. Prodded on WP:BIO grounds, and deprodded because had named role in real film we bring it to AfD. Eusebeus 12:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable blogger/journalist, puff piece, only publications cited are in redlinked periodical. Delete. · rodii · 12:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded on grounds that he lost his election bid, deprodded as major party candidate for national office. Per consensus, failed candidates need to have notability other than failed bids for office and this candidate appears marginal in this regard wrt WP:BIO. Eusebeus 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn (page will be moved) └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Unpublished "podcast-only" novel. 370 unique google hits for "earthcore and sigler". Article reads like an ad. Are readership figures verifiable? Should we evaluate this as a book or as a website? I will consider changing my vote if cogent arguments for retention are advanced. -
CrazyRussian
talk/
contribs/
email
12:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Nomination withdrawn Isotope and I have conferred and I decided it's better to move this to Scott Sigler and defluff it, which I will do as soon as this AfD is closed. Thanks for voting. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 18:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Speady Delete non-notable YoungWebster 12:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - Does not meet WP:BIO criteria; specifically, Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. A junior wing of a party is non-notable -- YoungWebster 12:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Anyone is free of course to create any redirect they see fit, or to add information about Mr. Diamond to his organization's article. Chick Bowen 18:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Speady Delete - non-notable YoungWebster 12:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect, no consensus to delete. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unencyclopedic, an article about the "nationality", not clear why needed separately from the article for the country. Nothing useful to merge, useless as redirect as not a likely search term. Note: interesting article history, was my first foray into AfD, and I botched it up. Do disregard my commentary from way back when. I am no longer that uh... stupid. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 12:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore( T) 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable football player for Watford. Has only played 22 minutes for the club and is still a member of the club's Academy. Furthermore, he is now covered in Current Watford F.C. players HornetMike 12:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Do we need a list of people who were who were non adherents of the Dharmic religions to be cremated? Yeah, let's have it cremated. — Home Row Keysplurge 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The page has been around for months, and I'm simply not seeing any claim of notability. Bachrach44 13:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable. -- Nlu ( talk) 05:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable band, just
954 Google hits.
first VfD.
Rory
0
96
(block)
13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Do I really have to say? There are flashes created for just about every possible thing existed. This doesn't deserve an article of its own, less so one that just seems to have been created to plug one flash. -- Cyberdude93 14:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, apparently the name of an asteroid. James Kendall [talk] 14:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was originally a PROD, but the PROD was contested. This is a list of proverbs. It would be better housed at wikisource or possibly wikiquote if any of them could be sourced.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Deleted under A7 but re-created, which counts as contested deletion, therefore bringing to AfD. Unverifiable, uncited, probable hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
prodded as nn, with only a handful of google hits. Deprodded and then an out-of-process reprod, so bringing it to AfD instead. The group is very new and its notability is as yet unestablished. Eusebeus 15:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Created by a band member (always a bad start). The dozen or so articles with various capitalisations on the band, its predecessor, its members and even (God help us) its tour van have all now been speedied, leaving just this, which contains some assertion of notability. But without anAllmusic entry or any other sources proving WP:NMG I am not convinced. Just zis Guy you know? 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
First afd resulted in a delete vote. db-repost tag was contested; talk page claims that new article is better written and sourced. I still say it merits a wiktionary entry at best. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus for deleting, moving, merging, burying in soft peat and recycling as firelighters or whatever. See Wikipedia:Merge if anyone wants to pursue that option. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
These two articles appear to be - and probably only ever will be - dictdefs. I think commentary on what might or might not have caused the Prestige oil spill belongs in that article, not in one paragraph stubs on naval terminology. kingboyk 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
far too minor a character to warrant his own article Dunstan talk 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, already transwikied. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This was PROD'd but the PROD was contested. This is a list of sayings/proverbs, mostly without direct translation, but with a rough idea of the meaning, and no context. This would fall under WP:NOT an indiscrimate collection of information in my opinion. Transwiki to wikisource is a viable option though. I'm tagging it for cleanup and wikification as well if the consensus is to keep.-- Isotope23 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy, contested. This is not about Xoom but about an Indian rip-off clone.
Just zis Guy you know?
16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy The company is not launched yet. Nonverifiable promo 18:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC) `' mikka (t) 18:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks to me like an advertising piece for a micropayment service which I've never heard of and which has no Alexa rating. It has been built up by an unregistered user. Dunstan talk 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - lethe talk + 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The content of this article, which is only loosely related to its title, is already covered in divisibility rule. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 16:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
Delete/Speedy Delete Less than 20 related Google hits, completely nn J.J.Sagnella 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
If you weren't part of the music scene in North London in mid 1990s, then you wouldn't have heard of The 0898z perhaps. Bet you've heard of Soul Tax though right? And Sound Garden, formally Libery Hall, and John Somerville. Eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moker ( talk • contribs) .
Please refer to the discussion page on The 0898z for further points from other Wikipedia members on why this post should be kept.—the preceding comment is by Moker - 14:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC): Please sign your posts! reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). We have a slight majority for deletion, but not a consensus, and I find Mangojuice's and Capitalistroadster's arguments as sensible. Recommend adding info on that award to the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
At the risk of incurring yet more accusations of bad faith, harming Wikipedia, wantonly dishonest nominations, vandalising, etc... we bring another contested prod to AfD for consideration. Prodded as this article lacks information on the notability of the subject, as per WP:BIO and deprodded as article describes notable work and subject has significant Google Scholar presence. Subject receives some 56 hits on Google Scholar, although counting for the duplication from bibliography listings as well as links to extraneous material not germane to the subject (such as [29], [30]) the overall count is lower. Montgomery did, however, win the James_S._Coleman_Award which, with 30 hits on Google, is not necessarily notable, hence soliciting consensus at AfD. Eusebeus 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Now if you will excuse me, I need to run very fast in order to escape the oncoming stampede of editors rushing to source and clean up this orphan article. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like an ad, unsourced, nn company. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete An article about a gift shop
Delete. Non-notable university gift shop. Grand master ka 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 18:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems a shame to delete this, but I've recently become aware of the fact that I've got deletionist tendencies, and the doctir said the best way to deal with this is by AFDing articles. This one deserves AFDing as it seems rather non notable. Its a shame, because it is harmless, but it is my duty as a future admin and a netball enthusiast (OK, I lie about the netball enthusiasm) to open a small discussion about the Wikipedia worthiness of this article. Dangherous 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
del, a chaotic essay by anon. Useless title. Topics covered elsewhere. `' mikka (t) 18:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy. Shanel § 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article, see WP:VAIN Codyrank 18:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article, see WP:VAIN Codyrank 18:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Wales; target of redirect can be later changed if needed - Liberatore( T) 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a POV fork of Wales, edited only by User:Cardiff, who has also been making POV edits to Cardiff today. It has no links within the main namespace. The list of Princes of Wales should possibly be merged to Wales, but the commentary ("The Principality of Wales was created by the Crown in 1301 when Edward I unifyed the country as one for the first time in its history", for instance), is POV and liable to cause extreme offence. Vashti 18:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) more As detailed at Talk:Cardiff, this user has also been making POV changes at Saint David's Day. Vashti 19:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC) His talk page history is also instructive, as he has been warned several times for this kind of behaviour, but refuses to engage in any discussion and simply blanks the page. I'm beginning to suspect a vandal at work. Vashti 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Nothing in this article establishes its notability. Wikipedia is not a directory, blog, or free web space.. Delete Ardenn 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Total of 31 hits on Google. Of the 31 hits, at least half are from encyclopedia articles such as Wikipedia, and other sources that allow self posting. Non-notable, possible vanity page. rhmoore 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - This list is an indiscriminate collection of information ( WP:NOT). It just contains names of tourist resorts in India, which reads like an advertisement - Aksi_great ( talk) 18:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. There are intelligent arguments on both sides, and ultimately it came down to the numbers. Chick Bowen 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO criteria: is not a political figure holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office, or a member of a national, state or provincial legislature. A junior wing of a party is not notable. HistoryBA 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
National Council, for those of you who don't know, was the highest governing body of the party - a National board of directors of the 2nd largest political party in Canada (at the time).
Elected at age 21, David proposed the resolution, which Council approved, that gave the leader Stephen Harper the constitutional authority to move ahead with the merger process of the Conservative Party.
Not only was that merger highly newsworthy in Canada, but it led to the conditions which brought the Conservative Party to government, ironically on David's birthday this year.
Moreover, David has published many articles in the National Post (a Nationally read newspaper in Canada) as well as the Montreal Gazette. From the latter publication are quotations in this article on the subject of former prime minister Paul Martin.
I am not suggesting that he's highly renown, but in the spirit of Wikipedia, he qualifies as a young Canadian who is so immersed in politics, at such high levels, that someone may reasonably want to learn about him. That's what Wikipedia is for.
Finally, some of you might wonder why I have not submitted any other articles. Well, David was the first I had planned to submit and there were a few other names from their involvement in the Canadian Alliance who I was going to post, but I never got around to it. CLEAR POLI SCI JUNKIE 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete He simply isn't notable. We wouldn't include every member of the council. The accomplishments listed seem relatively slight. Two letters to the editor, a motion passed at council to support the premise that the party was built upon (and which user 24.43.87.250 noted was an ongoing process in the article). As for his age, the McGill link in the article indicates that his acclamation resulted from the party's lack of a following in Quebec, where all candidates were acclaimed. In any event his young age doesn't seem to justify inclusion. I understand that the two "keep" votes know him and I'm sure that he's a nice guy but I think that it would be unusual if this article was kept. -- JGGardiner 17:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a comment because I've already voted. I'm not sure if this really is the appropriate place to say this but I would take any opportunity to promote Wikipedia. I've noticed that there are a number of new users who are interested in keeping the article, particularily Canpolijunkie who created the article and user:24.43.87.250 who I know has spent a lot of effort on it. And I see that Britannia1 has taken an interest here and perhaps decided to move from a WP reader to an editor. Yet it seems as though the article is headed for deletion. All three of these users have made articulate, reasoned and detailed comments along with your votes and I really hope that this doesn't turn you off of Wikipedia. It really is a wonderful project and it truly is for everybody, just like the slogan says. Unfortunately it is the nature of Wikipedia that our first experience as editors is a often negative one. I just hope that, whatever the vote outcome, you guys can give it a chance and see the way things work around here and hopefully you will all stick around so that we can all work together at improving the project. We don't always agree but there is definitely a place for everyone here. Once you get used to the process and the other editors I'm sure that you will find many more positive than negative experiences here. If David Anber has created an interest that has created three new articulate and energetic editors, then I'd like to thank him for that. And thanks for the space to everyone else. -- JGGardiner 19:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy. -- RHaworth 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a vanity page for a non-noteworthy band Amina skywalker 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
seems like a vanity page - no more notable than many other preachers. Referred here after author deleted my prod w/no explanation NawlinWiki 19:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no other mentions of this party to be found through Google. If not a hoax, then certainly non-notable.-- Joann e B 19:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NEO Neologism - almost no Google appearances other than Wikipedia mirrors. Not even listed in Urban Dictionary. John Nagle 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability not established. Seems to be advertising. Speedy attempted Bjones 19:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod:Non-notable new web site. Alexa rank 3,000,000+, google finds few links to the site. TheKoG ( talk| contribs) 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, author blanked. — xaosflux Talk 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
NN software, prod removed without comment.
774 Google hits.
Rory
0
96
(block)
20:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete; no keep votes from established Wikipedians. Chick Bowen 18:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism; no verifiable usage given beyond a blog which does not meet WP:RS. -- BillC 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
More like YOU'RE teribble stuff! Deletionists are not to be trusted (see Enron). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.145.58.251 ( talk • contribs)
DON'T DELETE THIS - mule is in every sense a huge part of the New England youth vernacular. When I think of my high school experience in New England I think of the Red Sox, Cape Cod, Dropkick Murphys, and MULES. Please keept his entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.181.114 ( talk • contribs)
As the original creator of this article, I feel that given the youth culture associations of the term (the hand-sign, the particular celebrities thought to be examplary) place it beyond the purview of a dictionary. Wikipedia does have an entry on the devil horns. Admittedly, millions of people know that sign, while only hundreds know this one. Nonetheless, it's legitimate and accurate. Obscure, but legitimate. To delete it would simply be to make the Wikipedia less complete. There are two external links here. Avery Score was not a blogger for Gamespot, he was a columnist, with over 300 articles credited to him. The Eskapade page is not a blog either; it's the homepage of an established band. I understand the counterarguments, but I respectfully disagree with them. Peter Smith, 27 April 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turbomcphazer ( talk • contribs)
Good point. Unfortunately one fact shoots a hole ithrough your argument: a term such as this could not -possibly- be made up in school one day. Or made up in school over the course of several days. What muledom is and what it stands for is as organic as soy milk: hearty, earthy and completely un-squalid. Something so un-squalid, in fact, that it must be experienced to be believed. But you're all mules, we know this, and we have faith in you to do the right thing. In summary: Wikipedia -IS- for things formed -organically- through -life- over the course of -experience-! 05:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) St. Alexi the camera-man.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.44.231 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was speedy. Shanel § 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an advertisement for a non-notable company. Content consisted of a copy and paste from their website. — WAvegetarian• CONTRIBUTIONS TALK• EMAIL• 21:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Probably not meeting WP:BAND, but I'm not sure, so I'm bringing it here. Stifle ( talk) 21:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was withdrawn after verifiable source of notability claim. `' mikka (t) 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was withdrawn. Notability added. `' mikka (t) 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Where have you all been before?
The result of the debate was withdrawn Notability added. `' mikka (t) 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
writers of such stubs (probably university website cutters-and-pasters) should be punished by deletion such articles on sight. `' mikka (t) 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 20:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Not even a list, just a collection of school seals. Over and over and over again. Utter violation of WP:NOT. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep Kotepho 22:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Nothing but one big long leftist diatribe, should be removed and covered from scratch in a more NPOV style-- Ham and jelly butter 21:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete - vanity/crystal ball. DS 02:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a personal project/self-promotion. There are no Google hits I can find that refer to "Sakura Skies" in the context of this article. Gadren 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not an encyclopedia article, only a collection of book reviews. There is no plot summary, information about the author, or explanation of the work's cultural significance. The only other information in the article is a link to Torah, with no explanation of any relationship between these novels and the Torah. CyborgTosser ( Only half the battle) 22:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Is this really notable enough to deserve its own page? We already have a page on Uncyclopedia which covers all the information in this page. Gadren 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong keep Pure first world prejudice toward a third world nation. Should clearly be a speedy keep. Why is it if it was American nobody woulddare put an Afd on it or we are writing the American encyclopedia of everything American? SqueakBox 03:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep 63.245.57.197 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (merge tag already added). -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
As noted on the talk page, there has been longstanding issues with verifiability in this article. Many of the expressions are localised, and cannot be substantiated as being current anywhere and with anyone. Others are common outside Canada. The list is entertaining, but it is listcruft. And unverifiable, capricious listcruft at that Fishhead64 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete as misinformation. I will readily send any verifiable, non-defamatory content from this article to anyone who wishes to write a proper article on this subject. In the meantime, I think the best thing we can do with this strongly biased and confusing concoction is to delete it lest some innocent party should be wrongly associated with the random wrongdoings alleged. -- Tony Sidaway 01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this article on behalf of Executor-usa ( talk · contribs), whom I have indefinitely blocked for legal threats relating to this article. However, he has asked admins to delete the article, and I think there needs to be some outside eyes on it. The article cites sources, but I haven't yet checked them out (some of them are in a Hispanic language) and there are some POV problems, starting with its title, which should be Office of International Treasury Control (currently a redirect, but it should be the central title). Obviously POV can be fixed, but we should start by considering whether it is worth it. I copy Executor-usa's reasoning below, and abstain for the moment. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
"This is part of a worldwide disinformation campaign against OITC. Waffelknocker is a police officer who has investigated OITC. He has posted accurate information supported by fact.OITC is a classified UN Chartered institution.The full jacket, security level 3-5, is held by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.Verification requires authorization. Chapter One on Redcat's Precious Metals Board has published a letter from the General Counsel of the US Treasury in support of OITC and its' Chairman. He has had the letter verified. The writers of this article only publish falsehoods, misinformation, and lies. They do so knowingly. They delete all writings countrary to their own misinformation campaign. They do so even when their own writings are left alone. Any lawsuit against these writers will have as witnesses the US Attorney General, as well as other such positioned officials. This is a fact based upon personal knowledge. Do not damage this site by allowing it to be used for malicious defamers. No amount of discussion on this site by the uninformed will bear any fruit. You cannot resolve this conflict."
Speedy Delete. Comment. This articles carries dangers that are beyond comprehension. In both cases, Ecuador and Fiji, the newspaper reports are based upon supposition, they are totally based upon flawed information and in the Ecuador case, the press is using its power to destroy a rival. The MG Rover situation stating that OITC offered $10 is nonsense. There is a great deal more to it than that. I am a retired police officer, but I spent a lot of time years ago investigating Keith Scott who is an Australian citizen. I have found that while he does engage in unusual financial dealings, as stated by Police Commissioner Hughes, he also delivers. I know of no case where Scott or OITC have ever engaged in fraud, and they have been operating for more than ten years. Yes there is a file a foot thick on Scott, but there is NO evidence that he has ever committed or intended to commit fraud. When under such surveillance, he would have been arrested and incarcerated years ago if he was a scammer. The newspapers rage in Fiji that landowners will have to mortgage their lands, which has been proven to be total nonsense.
Here is why I say this article is dangerous. 1. It definitely impairs the capacity to do correct due diligence which is available through official sources. 2. OITC will eventually sue these newspapers, of that I am sure. Sefanaia Kaumaitotoya warned the press on this. The Prime Minister in Fiji is now very careful what he says about OITC today, Andrew Hughes has gone silent, even though the government and police websites still carry these statements. Extension of these falsehoods and the perpetuating of them is not only irresponsible, for they are merely supposition born from ignorance, these attacks on OITC are criminal. I know OITC lawyers will be asking for the IP address and identity of the person posting these falsehoods. I am told that a leading law firm in Fiji will be paid by OITC in this coming week to file against the Fiji Times and FijiSun Newspapers and to file against The Commissioner of Police. Is this an empty threat. No. As will be learned this week,it is a fact. I am not certain of the legal liabilities of Wikipedia as such, but you will be hearing from OITC lawyers this coming week
The Reserve Bank of Fiji have constantly refused to denounce OITC. Why? Because they know better. Posted by Waffleknocka 28/4/2006
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Group nomination - Where to begin? First item is an unnamed and non-yet made film by non-notable writer/director, the second item. Google search on Jaren Anderson brings back 88 returns, only 41 unique, and only a handful of those relating to film - and those are almost all Wikipedia links. Third item is a not yet released short film. Delete. TheRealFennShysa 23:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Other Links for arguement:
Here are my takes, from research.
Check [ [41]] under short fiction I nominations and [ [42]] under Jaren Anderson as director and One Last Job as film.
Googled Jaren Anderson One Last Job and it brought up, 2 counts of Wikipedia, 1 count of NY film festival and 1 count of forest film, 2 counts of filmerica festival (where it seemed he made a short film for a 72 hour contest, donation charity, etc.).
I think as a viewer of film, and independent films all, shorts including films made by people with out 20 million dollar budgets, its unfair and people independent films (expecially ones that got nominations from film festivals and what not) should be fought for by wikipedians. More power to you.
Also, I remember looking this up a while ago when it first passed and remember it was IMDB.com but im not so sure anymore. Oh well, hope you guys give it a second look.
I agree on this one only because its a short no credable film- I don't think this a true fact, that hes making this film... so I say delete, but one last job is indeed a film, and since I live near the west village theater in New york, I'm gonna see what its all about when it premieres.
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 01:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Closer's notes
The comments of two very new users (
Ebn6701 and
Mbn01291) were disregarded. The comments of all anonymous users were disregarded.
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}} . |
Having encountered this article for the first time today, I'm struck by an overwhelming sense that it is part of an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a very long-running and successful troll. There is very little verifiable information in the article to support the idea that "Michael Crook" even exists as an individual, as opposed to a public persona or a project undertaken by an unknown number of people. Of the citations and external links listed at the end of the article, half of them ultimately originate from Crook himself (who, if the article is any indication, can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything), half of the remaining ones are not available at the URLs given, and the one anti-Crook site that can actually be reached is far from meeting WP:V standards and may in fact have been created by Crook himself, for all we know. The talk page is dominated by IP addresses and registered users who have never edited on any non-Crook-related subject ever, as was the last AfD on this article; how many of these are sock puppets of Michael Crook? This individual/troll organization/whatever is probably notable enough to deserve an article, but the current one is fatally compromised and should either be rebuilt from the ground up using only independently verifiable information, or deleted altogether. phh ( t/ c) 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I originally prod'ed this article on April 17. User:Jordanmills removed the tag, which I erroneously replaced. However, it appears that this article was never deleted, possibly due to the toolserver being down at the time. This article describes a mod for a video game, which is not an encyclopedic topic sans additional importance or notability. The fact that there are only 288 Google hits ( [43]), 113 of which are unique, shows that this mod is not notable. NatusRoma | Talk 23:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Google "Trey kirk"+art gives 38 hits, some of which are blogs, some refer to work he did in high school, plus he won a poster contest. The "Dadada movement" which the article asserts he pioneered draws no hits linked to his name (perhaps another example of his being a "playful man" instanced by things "such as drawing on people's artwork in Lane Hall at Tufts University and peeing on things people don't know about"). Perhaps he is a fine artist, and perhaps he will be notable one day, but that day is not today. Mwanner | Talk 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO and it's probably not advisable to have an article about her according to WP:LIVING. There's already been a decision not to publish the real name of an internet pornography personality, Jordan Capri and furthermore, Libby Hoeller never intended to become famous for internet pornography. Also, reliable sources are absent, and verifiablility is a serious problem, as shown on the talk page. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. Brian G. Crawford 23:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Tawker 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
In the same vein as January 12, 2006 M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Withdrawn. -- Rory096 00:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable encyclopaedia. Just 11 Google hits! Rory096 23:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, well-written nonsense; also seems to fit in the 'made this up at school one day' category. Argon233 T C @ ¶ 00:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Quality Article - DO NOT DELETE
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
72.38.186.167 (
talk •
contribs) 2006-04-28 00:29:01.
This page is 100% real and has infact reveived cult status at Bayside Secondary school
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Logom29 ( talk • contribs) 2006-04-28 02:17:21.The basis for the deletion of this page is the true nonsense—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.189.28 ( talk • contribs) .
Discounting two obvious sock votes, mostly based on the lack of proper signing / content of the vote -- Tawker 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; nonsense article paired with Shut down period; seems to fit in the 'made this up at school one day' category. -- Argon233 T C @ ¶ 00:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a non-notable sports team/club, and there's only one major information contributor, who is a student at the school. Evan Seeds (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, despite merge votes. This is an article about a youth orchestra, the supposed target is a festival. I don't see compatibility between the articles except to insert a sentence 'AIYF manages GYO', and if you want to insert that sentence, well, I just gave it to you, you don't need the article. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a non-notable youth group, and may qualify for db-band. Precedence set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Orchestra of Greater Columbus. Evan Seeds (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
I Highly doubt a MySpace game passes WP:WEB. Dspserpico 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply