The result was speedy keep. Very bad faith nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Institute of Management. `' mikka (t) 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Boldly closed and listed on IfD feel free to revert if you feel I'm out of order.-- Isotope23 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I think this user was just playing around. -- evrik 15:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a cocktail recipe, which violates Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information point 4. I already transwikied it to wikibooks, where it was later deleted as apparently it was unwanted there, perhaps because there is already a Lemon Drop recipe as part of wikibooks:Bartending/Cocktails/Glossary. There's no point in transwikiing it again, so Delete Xyzzyplugh 19:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born to Be Wild (Ozzy Osbourne Cover). Another improperly capitalised, pointless stub. kingboyk 22:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Userfying in this case isn't that great of in idea, since it was the creator's only edit. This was already deleted twice before, and both times it was created by a user with no other edits (not the same user that started this one). User pages are only useful for people who actually contribute here, they're not a web host for people. - Bobet 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as a non-notable website; fails WP:WEB. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 08:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor league (AAA) baseball player killed in action in WWII. Not sure that either of those makes him sufficiently notable. NawlinWiki 14:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as a non-notable consumer product. This is a failed prod based on the unsourced "cult classic" claim. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an advertising service. No evidence presented in the article that this company meets WP:CORP. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertorial for a news service, scores around 130 unique Googles ( headline news%22&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=130&sa=N) offers no evidence of meetin WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Article has lots and lots of links into the site, suggests possible SEO (but might just be plain old-fashioned spam). Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - Keep in mind that it is itself a news source and a syndicator of content... you may want to rethink your methods.. Using your exact UK Google index Google.co.uk I get 476,000 entries. Looking for websites alone that link just to the home page there are over 900 entries ( http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=link:1vCZqn5vnOUJ:www.allheadlinenews.com/) Using the "GOOGLE" tests you'll see that news.google.com lists them as a source..... Besides the company is fairly well known in the news industry. If using WP:CORP as the measuring stick then ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22All+headline+news%22+-allheadlinenews.com) and ( http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&q=%22All%20headline%20news%22%20-allheadlinenews.com&sa=N&tab=wn) show that other news sources regularly attribe news to AHN. The site is referenced bu sourcewatch ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=All_Headline_News) and others.... if using WP:WEB then http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/event/1615 may apply or certainly google itself ( http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22all+headline+news%22) Talk To Eventus
I DO NOT agree with user JZG and I think he got it wrong.. this article should remain. -Martin
The result was no consensus, default to keep. - Bobet 08:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unique Google hits for "Medaille Trust" = 9. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) guidelines. Lack of available 3rd party references poses Wikipedia:Verifiability problems as well. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 08:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing a nomination. Rationale was "She is NOT notable..." ( Liberatore, 2006). 12:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Zero Google or Amazon hits for this "aborted" album. NawlinWiki 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 09:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable club. Google finds little signs of this existing outside Wikipedia and their own web site [2] [3]. Weregerbil 09:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
-- Arkayne Magii 02:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
-- Arkayne Magii 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and move to Jason Shevchuk. - Bobet 09:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was} Merge with Adelaide 36ers ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a future Australian basketball franchise. While this would normally be enough for inclusion, the team is only proposed, and there are no references at all to prove that this is anything more than just a proposal. fuzzy510 07:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus whether this should be deleted or merged to Legends of the Dark Knight. Given the unanimous consensus for this not being a standalone article I'm just going to redirect it, as the merge target does not currently cover individual storylines and given that this article covers two issues, it would be immensely long if it did to this extent. If anyone decides how they want to merge it they can follow the redirect back and look in the history. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A "storyline" consisting of two issues of a long-running comic. This story isn't particularly notable, and there isn't any article that would benefit from the merge. While it was deprodded with the comment "episode guide," WP:COMIC practice is to focus on encyclopedic overview of series, artists, and characters, instead of writing plot summaries of every single issue of every single comic. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
suspected hoax -- omtay38 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was: weak opinions all round roughly split either way, no consensus. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
does not seem to be important 151.201.60.121 03:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The entire article has been ripped out of the Farley Mowat's copyrighted description from the Sea Shepard site here [6]. I see no way the text can be salvaged, given it is entirely stolen. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 09:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
One line unsourced and uncited assertion. "What links here" suggests ambiguation, and Google sheds no light on the subject. Possible vandalism? Wastekiller 02:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, it was a copyvio and listed at copyright problems for long enough. - Bobet 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Per WP:WWIN: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. AED 23:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Stevens ( talk • contribs)
The result was Delete, though I won't object to recreation if more can be brought out to show meeting of WP:MUSIC. Yank sox 19:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This completely non-notable person previously had a short article on them containing details of their abilities in the whistle register, however these abilities were all discovered by original research and a quick search of Google provides nothing of use on this person, the stub left after i removed the OR is not worth keeping.-- I'll bring the food 11:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus. Yank sox 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 2,112,087. Peephole 13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable student organization at one school in India. NawlinWiki 16:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Rob ert 14:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising The bellman 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
STRONG KEEP.Not an ad at all... Important and complete information about this well known revue. Terveetkadet 12:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Website that appears to fail WP:WEB. 93 unique google hits for this online entity, most of which appear to be false positives [10]. An Alexa rank of 1,291,602 [11]. There is no clear assertion of notability in the article, which also states that the website appears to be winding down. Prod removed.-- Fuhghettaboutit 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The MRH discussion boards are not very active nowadays. On average, only 3.27 users are online at the time.
this quote is from the article itself. The creator of the article himself admits that the website has become non notable. Then why keep it? -- Ageo020 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable website per Wikipedia:Notability (web) -- JHunterJ 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Yank sox 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I created this page without knowing the WP:WEB policy. I do not feel it meets that policies criteria and thus put it up for deletion. NMajdan• talk 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Then you should use a {{
db-author}} tag. --
Avi
19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Maybe Slam Nation is notable, but at this point I don't think it's enough to support individual member bios. This article has been speedied once already. Rklawton 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not Notable (few ghits other than Wikipedia entry and website; nothing in IMDB); given the complete lack of English language content on QF, this article will only get improved if a Norwegian speaker works on it, and I doubt that is going to happen. I proposed this for deletion, I just forgot to sign in first. -- Brianyoumans 18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads to me like a corporate brochure. Based on WP:CORP, I'm not seeing why it should be considered notable. Dori 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was as follows: I took into account the arguments to delete, and at first glance, this looked like a clear "delete". However, having also (obviously) taken into account the arguments to keep, and given the circumstance that the article has been edited so that it is not plainly advertisement, I see no consensus either way. -- Ezeu 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
blantant advert Kungfu Adam ( talk) 13:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The Pink Pound Conference in June 2006 UK featured Out Now Consulting MD as the Keynote Speaker.
Time magazine today covers the organisation. This year has seen Out Now Consulting covered in other media and in fact over 15 years Out Now Consulting has been frequently covered in news media in relation to the company's leading role in what is a new development in marketing - developing strategies to target gay consumers.
Some of these publications include: The Independent (UK) The Times (UK) The Guardian (UK) The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) The Australian (Australia) Business Review Weekly (Australia) Het Financieele Dagblad (Netherlands) De Morgen (Belgium)
TV appearances by Out Now Consulting staff have been many and include: BBC TV (UK) Jim TV (Belgium) TCN 9 (Australia) Nederland 1 (Netherlands).
There has been much other media coverage of Out Now Consulting's role in this development during this period.
In each case, Out Now Consulting is reported upon as a "significant player" in the "major news event" of - the emergence of a visible gay and lesbian consumer market. Perhaps to you that isn't a major news event but today's issue of Time magazine obviously does as the story about the emergence of gay advertising in Europe quoting Out Now Consulting's work is the one item from the current issue that Time magazine has chosen to highlight at the top of their homepage http://www.time.com/time/europe/ and see also the article at http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060807-1220477,00.html
Other media events include the coverage in much UK media of the revelation that 49% of lesbian and gay people feel unable to come out at work. http://www.sundayherald.com/53693 (Scotland) and http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article341714.ece - again media coverage of gay community research that Out Now Consulting was the significant player in.
I again request undeletion of the Out Now Consulting page.
Thanks for your attention,
Ian - 31 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outnow ( talk • contribs)
I left this comment days ago when the article was much fuller, there is so little info on gay marketing available, that students like myself previously found this article of great use. It is not SPAM when it helps me do an assignment.
Original comment follows....
Hi There,
I am a mrketing student in the Netherlands, and have found the article on Out Now Consulting to be most helpful and of exceptional interest on the gay marketing phenomenon.
It was quite hard for me as well as other students to find the information that we needed, though there was plenty to say on the subject.
Keep up the good work and it may be worthwhile keeping the article here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.87.154.90 ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Out Now is the only gay marketing agency with offices in more than one country is a fact unique to the entity and increases the organisation's notability.
The deletions by Chris Griswold did far more than remove entries related to one survey. S/he removed many third party media reports of Out Now Consulting covering a range of issues, some related to Out Now's many different reports, some where the journalist sought Out Now Consulting as a notable source of expertise in its specific area. Given the extent to which s/he removed items and the little time it took for this user to do so I am somewhat concerned that s/he did not have time read through all these removed references sufficiently to see that they were clearly not just "a loosely related collection of references to brief mentions of [a single] survey". 37 minutes were spent deleting over 35 separate news articles, third party references and other citations from a range of sources. The article as left by this user this morning leaves only a single reference - to UK research from 2005 and removed everything else. There was also other research included previously. there was much more than reporting on research. For example, there were third party publications such as the Belgium Marketing Foundation, the Pink Pound Conference (UK), the Dutch marketing textbook "Principes van Marketing" (Principles of Marketing) also removed by this user - none of which was related to the British Gay Times and Diva research as s/he seemed to contend when removing it. On that point, where an esteemed newspaper such as the Sunday Independent - a leading national UK newspaper, devotes a double page spread feature article based primarily on, and extensively quoting research by, Out Now Consulting discussing a major workplace discrimination issue, which is also supported by remarks from other industry groups in the UK unrelated to Out Now Consulting, all commenting on the work of Out Now Consulting - does that not as C.Fred says: show Out Now Consulting to be a "company with major-media news coverage and that stands out in its industry/segment"? That seems to fall squarely within the Wikipedia guidelines as to notability for article's on companies being included.
For that matter, why would Time magazine this week in Europe choose to quote Out Now Consulting's opinion about the state of gay advertising in Europe if the company is not notable for readers of Time? That seems to fall within Wikipedia guidelines. That comment had absolutely nothing to do with the British research mentioned above. We were relied upon by the journalist of Time as a notable authority in the area of gay marketing. The magazine includes a photo of Out Now Consulting's campaign for the German National Tourist Office in their print edition as an example of gay advertising.
I note also that the comment made by the student 86.87.154.90 talk is a relevant one. Each week we usually receive several inquiries from students wanting our help. I agree our article is not SPAM to these students. Just today we received the following email -
"My name is Katharina and I study in Germany and have to write en essay for my university on gay marketing.It would be really helpful for me if you could send me some information, because it is such a new and present topic and I could not find any books so far. I would be really pleased if you could help me. Thank you very much, Katharina"
That sort of thing is fairly common here - if any of the Wikipedia editors wishes to contact me direct I would welcome them doing so to obtain more information about the similar student emails we regularly receive requesting assistance from Out Now Consulting with research about the gay market and other gay social issues. There really is a uniqueness to what we do - which is why media, students and others contact us. It is also why we are noted in such a leading textbook as Kotler's Principles of Marketing textbook in section 4 about niche marketing. That has nothing to do with our research - it features a full page discussion of advertising we created for Lufthansa and South African Tourism in the Dutch market. It also seems to fall squarely within Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion.
Any of the above factors taken alone should make you think our firm is notable but when taken in concert, - and in respect of so many third party citations about the company (removed today by Chris Griswold) I believe firmly that such a combination of factors renders this article well worth keeping and Out Now Consulting notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. To delete everything in the previous entries down to just what was left there this morning seems not in keeping with the Wikipedia principles. Finally, just in case you did not pick up on it above I am the author of the article and am the MD of the firm, so you might be tempted to discount all I say trying to believe that our article is SPAM however it is not just me saying it.
The search engines, the students such as 86.87.154.90, users such as C.Fred and Ageo020 and many media publications around the world seem to concur that our business has a unique industry position in a major new development in marketing. I would much prefer that there be restored some of what was deleted this morning from the article with a NPOV, and where third party items where the work of Out Now Consulting is the major aspect of the citation. Ian Johnson -- User:outnow
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Australia has multiple heat waves during summer, this particular article describes a pretty typical Austraia heat wave - not an unusual, notable or encyclopedic weather event. Delete.-- Peta 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - his userpage already exists. Sango 123 02:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - vanity entry, creator and subject are the same person, does not assert notability either-- Nobunaga24 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local chapter of an otherwise notable organization. This would be like an article on each Elks lodge or Boy Scout troop. No verifiability or independent sources offered. Metros232 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. RedRollerskate 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
merged into Airsoft, everything here is now redundant (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted. ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not Notable. Can't find any reference to anyone named David Willet in Slipknot, and that would be his only claim to fame as it seems, if such a person really exists. Wildnox 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Grand master ka 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Inward singing is a form of singing that involves singing an unroken series of words and notes, even while inhaling. Believed hoax. This is a completely different, more sensible article from the one that got deleted by the previous AfD discussion so I am giving it another chance. But what I still want to know is: circular breathing is a well established technique applicable to wind instruments and inflating balloons, so why can it not used by singers? -- RHaworth 01:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
"Sorry,... I didn't know how... thanks (~~~~)
Oops: Thanks, I got it now.. this is helpful (~~~~) Sugarboogy phalanx 02:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, no valid reasoning for deletion provided.-- SB | T 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable blogger, article appears to be self promotion (content by User:PStamatiou) Stormie 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable band, does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC - one independent release and a MySpace page. Stormie 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
-- After reviewing more documentation on Wikipedia, I believe I may have been in error when I posted the article. While the band has a fan base in the Greater Toronto Area and on the Internet, they may not not have had enough commercial success to warrant a Wikipedia article as of yet. The question is however: how many independent releases does a band need before they are immortalized with a Wikipedia page. In the history of music, there have been many bands which were obscure at the time that they were regularly performing.
Perhaps articles on independant bands who have had some commericial success but are largely unknown would be better suited to the proposed WikiMusic [17] site.
I don't agree with the argument that a band with a MySpace profile is irrelevant. Many bands have profiles on the site because MySpace is inherently useful for promoting entertainers.
I don't have any control over whether my article stays or goes but I think it deserves posting in some sort of wiki-form somewhere. I posted the article because I know they had a large fan base and because I have heard instrumental tracks from their second album.
Thanks Stormie for opening my eyes a bit. I'm gonna read some more documentation before I do much else.
Codus 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There are a ton of irrelevant articles on people with little or no notability. Search "independent musician" for comprehensive list. Asserting the notability of independent musicians seems like an exercise in futility. Most independent musicians with limited success are known only in their community. I don't have anything to lose from the article's deletion (other than time wasted), nor do I have anything to gain from it's acceptance. I wrote the article because I know the band has a following both in the GTA and on the Internet and therefore the likelihood that someone might search for information on the band on Wikipedia was good. It really is too bad that Wikipedia does not aim to collect information on all subjects, regardless of their overall relevance to the global community. Despite committment to notability, many wikipedia articles exist which list information about very obscure people.
Open Wide Music, like many artists in Canada, have yet to find commericial success on the scale comparible with American market, but they are not obscure in the culture of their city. In fact most Canadians bands are not well known until they break into the American market. Their lack of popularity outside their primary geographic location doesn't make them any less relevant to their fans. The only reason I am arguing for my article to stay is because I believe the band will generate a lot more fans upon the release of their second album which is likely going to be released in 2006. Once the band has a second independent release will they qualify for notability? Thanks for the taking time to participate in the discussion. Codus 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Everyone except Danielrocks has barely commented other to say "Delete it". This isn't discussion. It's a witchhunt for pages that don't interest you. I'm starting to feel very unwelcome in the Wikipedian community since no one is taking the time to discuss the issues I've raised above. I came here to discuss the issue because this is a discussion page yet there is very little actual discussion going on. 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codus ( talk • contribs)
The result was No Consensus. Yank sox 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable fictional game, that is mentioned in a mildly popular UK comedy show I would also like to include the following two
Green Wing related pages
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements and appears to be a vanity page (on Image:Linkgaetz1.jpg's deletion discussion, Terveetkadet (the creator of this article) says he is, in fact, Ian Bussières) LactoseTI 02:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
It survived a prod in March when it was branded advertising. It's a stub, barely more than a dicdef, now and hasn't changed much since then. It was proposed for deletion but, since that was its second prod, it has to go to AfD instead. Dictionary definition bordering on neologism, no cited sources, nothing that couldn't be adequately covered by the article on mortgages. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Yank sox 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the second AfD. I am not satisfied with the arguments made in favour of a keep. This is simply a part of a public park that has no notability other than having an internet ranking, which is hardly adequate. I believe it should go as we obviously should not have articles on every public playground in Ipswich, let alone Brisbane, Queensland, Australia or the world itself. There is nothing noteworthy about this place and thus nothing worthy of being kept. It has also required clean up for over a year without attracting any significant attention. SM247 My Talk 02:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - redirected to Scientific opinion on climate change by User:Sln3412. Sango 123 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fork of Scientific opinion on climate change, product of several bad page moves and content copies-- 172.147.153.86 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm speedying this... I'm sure Ed "shoot from the hip" Poor would approve... William M. Connolley 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no jurisdiction, possibly incorrect nomination. Take to MfD if required. JYolkowski // talk 02:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Essay in name space-- 172.147.153.86 02:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep after the rewrites, the consensus seems to have changed. - Bobet 09:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't make it at all clear what the subject of this personal essay is, or why it should be in article space at all-- 172.147.153.86 02:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. This isn't going anywhere, as far too many articles were bundled together into a single AFD.
If someone wants to open a much smaller (not more than four articles at a time, please) AFD on one or some of these articles so that the individual merits of specific articles can be discussed, feel free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I am retracting this nomination as it seems to be spiralling towards a brawl. I doubt any good faith consensus can result from this discussion. I'll approach this from another angle later. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Old discussion
This is a group nomination of a series of Warcraft character pages. My deletion rationale is as follows, in bulleted form but not necessarily in order of importance.
The information in these articles is freely (in the GFDL sense) available in a much more comprehensive form in
WoWWiki, which I have linked using the legend "ww" for comparison purposes. Many of WP's articles are word-for-word duplicates of their WoWWiki entries (eg.
Captain Placeholder), cite their counterpart on WoWWiki (eg.
Hakkar the Soulflayer), or are completely unsourced (eg.
Grom Hellscream). There is even a template, {{
wowwiki}}, designed to help citations of WoWWiki easier. I should hardly have to point out that
wikis do not qualify as reliable primary or secondary sources.
|
|
|
For precedents, see the following concluded AfD and the precedents therefrom.
Note: this AfD, if it achieves consensus either way, will become a strong precedent. Please carefully consider whether Wikipedia should contain unsourced (or improperly sourced) articles on individual NPCs, mobs, and "lore" entities of dubious notability in a MMORPG, or whether a summary article such as
List of Warcraft characters suffices for our encyclopedic purposes.
—
Kaustuv Chaudhuri
02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The Main Discussion
*Relist separately Someof these (like Grom Hellscream) are major characters. Some should be merged into something like
List of minor Warcraft characters. This AfD has about zero chance of determining which is which.
Ace of Sevens
08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
— Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I, a very long time ago, worked on several Starcraft-related pages which were later deleted. I wasn't too happy about that, but I completely understand that 'Starcraft battlecruiser' (for example) is probably comfortably in that obscurity/cruft zone. I cannot say the same for the character pages nominated here. AustinZ 03:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep many of these characters are important to the warcraft universe. When i say warcraft universe i dont only mean WoW. People like Sargeras,Jaina Proudmore,Arthas,Thrall,Medivh are main characters in the story of warcraft III not to mention they also appear in world of warcraft or at least mentioned. If your gonna delete those entries then you might as well delete the entries for the characters of Harry Potter or Lord of the rings. If you consider 6 million people as "a drop in the bucket" then i should go ahead and delete many articles about anime characters who have far less viewership — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.212.98 ( talk • contribs)
The result was speedy keep. Wickethewok 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Also associated albums: Vallejo (album), Beautiful Life (Vallejo album), Into the New, Stereo (album); and band member redirects: Bruce Castleberry, Omar Vallejo, Alejandro Vallejo, A.J. Vallejo.
Local band, non-notable. Fireplace 02:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Technical nomination. Found this on a speedy deletion run, and I think President of UCLA and UoF is a pretty big claim to notability, so I'm referring it here for fact-checking and a third opinion. By the way, if the article survives AfD, it will probably need to be moved to eliminate the "Dr.", per Wikipedia naming convention and disambiguated with the current article on Charles Young. theProject 02:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 09:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This group is made up of 200 people who are not a formal group, they are not mainstream with the LDS Church, and don't even have a website. It reads like a journal with the quote 'priesthood quorum support that they wish they had' This is a waste of bandwidth. Rossinicholas 02:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was CSD G7 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 23:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not assert meeting WP:WEB, nevertheless PROD tag was removed. I find no coverage of this site as prescribed by WP:WEB, also it's apparently only been mentioned on a total of 8 different websites [28] suggesting that it has an active community but is not of much interest to anyone outside that community. To meet WP:WEB, evidence needs to be presented that this site has been written about by reliable, independent sources. -- W.marsh 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article, not noteworthy and sourced only from a single website. No other articles link here that are not redirects, and article has been repeatedly removed from List of philosophies. Rosicrucian 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete at this time. The comments from anons/new users shouldn't be ignored because they actually make meaningful arguments. And several established contributers also want to keep... so there's clearly no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Delete textbook cruft. Unverified through anything other than listening to the show, of limited interest to a circumscribed minority. At the first AfD they glossed over this point. This could be smerged back in to the article on El Rushbo - a half dozen terms at most. But this article as currently constituted is ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.180.23 ( talk • contribs) .
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not assert meeting WP:WEB, which does apply to this article ("Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content"). Would need to present evidence of non-trivial coverage by independent, reliable sources. -- W.marsh 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted by Doc Glasglow. W.marsh 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity, does not really assert anything that meets WP:BIO. Per a google search [30], really nothing seems to have been written about this guy that isn't self promotional in nature, and very little of that even. Also most all of the claims in the article appear to be unverifiable. -- W.marsh 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge pschemp | talk 05:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads more like a "how to" than an encyclopedia article. My first thought was to merge the content with Blunt (cigar) but I'd rather the article go through AfD instead, and get a consensus on deletion, merge, or keep.-- KOS | talk 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
not major author, reads like vanity Tfine80 03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NEO. To quote the article, "It was discovered and promulgated by a man named Richard, who now lives in Byron Bay, Australia and communicates primarily via the internet." -- Peta 03:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A meterologist can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is actually an event known as a cold wave. Delete per WP:NEO. -- Peta 03:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by User:Ral315, author request. Morgan Wick 05:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Movie is complete crystal balling, as IMDB has 0 entries on this movie. Prod removed by author as well Wildthing61476 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
IMBD does not always have everything up that fast. This was all said in a press conference and Deborah Gregory said this in a interview. Jtervin 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't have the exact address but if you look on Google for The Cheetah Girls 3 i found a video for the press conference live and there is no promo pic. What promo pic? Jtervin 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I did not remove that image by the way. I thought you did Neo. Jtervin 04:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok i just found a link and i will post it in one sec!!! Jtervin 04:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Here is the link:
http://www.xanga.com/CheetahGirlsMovie3
and I did remove it the second time ( Personal attack removed)
Again, where is the proof? I'm REALLY gving you the benefit of a doubt, but was this mentioned in ANY major newspaper/publication/media source? Obviously a successful franchise, such as this, would be noteworthy enough if a sequel was being made. Wildthing61476 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Yank sox 19:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Given possible problems with the term coldwave, and the fact these articles seem to describe fairly normal weather, they are a product of recentism and don't appear to have ongoing encyclopedic value. Delete -- Peta 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. There is substantial support among established commenters that this word has now reached encyclopedic notability. The name "Santorum" will be redirected to the Senator, as I think consensus and common sense demand. There is widespread support for Santorum (neologism) as a renaming, but neologisms don't belong in Wikipedia: the result of this debate thus compels a different title. Santorum (sexual slang) is adopted as the most popular option consistent with WP:NOT. The question of how, exactly, to disambig. (a delicate matter, considering the Senator is deserving of personal respect, per BLP), I will leave to talk page discussion. Xoloz 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The neologism referred to, created by Savage Love, does not have any evidence of real currency as a neologism. It should be treated as a political act by Savage Love, and described under that article. Giving it a separate article implies that it is a generally accepted neologism. Mike Christie 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
→ straw poll (moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum#Straw poll as AfD is not the place for it. The straw poll asks about the preferred name for the article about the sexual slang term, and about where the link Santorum should go, and what the contents of the disambig page should be.)
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I know this has an organized template and everything, but isn't 2011 looking a little far ahead, especially since there's only one film listed and it's a red link? Opabinia regalis 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Destined to be unweidly: Motown has released literally thousands of albums, as this external link shows. Better if categorized (in the already available category Category:Motown albums. -- FuriousFreddy 03:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (since content is covered better in category), then redirect per W. Marsh as a reasonable search term. Xoloz 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No references (not that it isn't most likely true, of course, but still). An improperly formatted list. Also, POV in title: what denotes a slaveowner as being "prominent": his popularity by today's standards or by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries' standards? -- FuriousFreddy 03:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - non-notable person that fails WP:BIO, probably an autobiography (main contributor is User:JayFray84, whose only contribs have been related to this article). IMDB.com page lists two credits, one for a production assistant and one for a stand-in; the content of the page reveals he is just a minor regional actor yet to achieve much notability. not many Ghits when searching for the quoted name plus "actor." Fabricationary 04:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. Apparently their most notable product just barely entered beta. I am recommending deletion based on this article not meeting WP:CORP. -- Hetar 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
We don't need an article on a background component of a single Chappelle joke. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Career has apparently been primarily as an understudy or alternate thus far, with a brief stint as a lead that's not enough to be notable. Contested prod. Opabinia regalis 04:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. theProject 05:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable wiki. Peephole 04:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, possible vanity article SDC 04:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Sango 123 03:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Articles that are a part of this nom:
Several articles detailing what I assume are game mechanics for an apparently unpopular collectable minitures game. They lack sufficent context to merge them into one article, and per WP:NOT this game guide material is pretty unencyclopedic anyway. Delete-- Peta 04:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is about a behavioral model created by Paul J. Kurucz. It is nothing more than an advertisement. Nothing to indicate notability. No reliable sources or sign of any significant independant coverage. -- Hetar 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Petros471 16:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Evidence for the notability of this company/product has been provided since the last afd. It is not the same thing as a Z card. Delete. -- Peta 05:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 03:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC and reads a bit like WP:VAIN. -- Koffieyahoo 05:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
-- Brian G ( Talk) 21:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply"Playing nightly at local venues for two years as a solo artist, hosting open mic nights as well as performing three sets in just one evening to both packed and empty venues, Logan honed his skills as a solo musician. Over the years it has given his music room to breath. His music follows its own path with deep direction and soulful lyrics. Never losing touch with what commercial radio feels to be "listener-friendly."
The result was Delete. Discounting socks and newbies, the consensus seems fairly solid. As Jayjg points out, lists of this sort implicate fundamental questions of NPOV; at the very least, selectively permitted some "terrorist by nationality" lists and not others is problematic. As suggested also, imprecise definitions of "terrorist" and "Pakistani" call into question whether the list is meaningful and maintainable. Xoloz 15:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Article duplicates Category:Pakistani terrorists and is presently used by User:Robcotton for original research and crystal-ball gazing. Attention closer, please see the discussion about sockpuppets on the talk page. — Viriditas | Talk 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Since the Illuminati is supposed to be such a secret conspiracy and society (if it exists at all), I wasn't surprised at all that there are no Wikipedia:Reliable sources supporting this. One occultist's website does not count. No papers on Google Scholar referencing the term (so that discounts it as a cultural phenomenon that has been independently studied before). 54 unique Google hits for "Illuminati calendar" [73] Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability -- Netsnipe (Talk) 05:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, would be a speedy keep since no one is arguing for the deletion and the speedy nominator was trying to make a point, however I'm about a week late for that. - Bobet 09:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not a porn bio expert, so I'm referring it here. Was a speedy candidate. theProject 05:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, it's not an encyclopedia article, and there's no biographical information about the subject here so that it could be turned into one based on the text. - Bobet 09:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sure how to handle this one. This person appears to be notable, but as is the obvious cut-and-paste job suggests that this violates WP:WWIN (Wikipedia is not a mirror). AED 06:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep the band, no consensus on the EPs, since only two people mentioned them and others' arguments might or might not include the albums. - Bobet 09:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article for a non-notable band. Google hits for ("sounds like chicken" band -wikipedia -myspace) = 528. No listing on Allmusic or references in 3rd party sources (or press). Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (music). Also nominated: Slowly Going the Way of the Chicken (EP) and Slowly Going the Way of the Stump (EP)-- Netsnipe (Talk) 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
database, both in gig guides. The Herald-Sun mentioned that they have a single "Take a Bullet to the Grave". I cannot see the notable and verifiable sources. If they had verifiable evidence of a claim under WP:MUSIC I would support keeping it but I can't see one. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted (by me). — Xezbeth 17:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speaks for itself. Speedy tag removed by author (who also likes to push the snazzy angle on Doc Hammer). Danny Lilithborne 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is, as danntm says, original research, propounding as it does the novel concept of "snazzy birth defects". Delete. Uncle G 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. - Bobet 09:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unimportance and lack of interest of whoever created the page to make it informative. Not every website is a notable internet meme. - Rogsheng 06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy kept - WP:POINT. ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
SWGEmu was deleted for being unreleased, this should be no different. - Eiridan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiridan ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article with no claim to notability Bduke 08:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
We would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Duke for his comments and for making himself known to us. We took great pleasure in reading his article detailing his own notable and varied achievements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.17.189.2 ( talk • contribs) .
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been speedied twice as patent nonsense (which it's technically not, patent nonsense being gobblygook-type stuff) and deleted by prod once. It'd go by prod again, but if we get a solid AfD on it, it can be quickly speedied as db-repost. Google hits reveal nothing, and none of this is verified as required. Besides that, it's a dictionary definition, which is, without additional info, prohibited by policy.-- Kchase T 08:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Flutchue: Any globular object, usually of metal. Flutchues can take the form of spheres, cyclinders, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.103.178 ( talk) 09:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a gardening store. Makes no claim to notability. — Xezbeth 09:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, no one besides the nominator agrees with outright deletion, merging can always be done as an editorial decision by any interested party. - Bobet 09:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a commercial product, which although popular, surely does not deserve its own page Lurker haver 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Canadian university Ecology professor, 695 mainly relevant GHits, proving him to be an active ecologist in Canada. Is he an ecologist who has learned how to "soundbyte" or is he really credible? He has not apparently published books. Style of article heavily NPOV, and certainly needs tidying up. I put this to the vote Ohconfucius 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
a troublesome housing estate with a problem of racist thugs. Seems fairly typical if inner city council estates, but noteworthy enough for inclusion? Ohconfucius 10:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NFT. Nothing more to say. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as unsourced stub. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Already covered in Human sacrifice & Human sacrifice in Aztec culture. Nothing much to merge. Title sounds like an anti-Hispanic dig. -- Uncle Ed 01:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
appears to be an actress with fairly minor roles on 3 episodes of Dark Angel, 1 of sg1, and a starring role in 'Lucky Louis' and 'Along Came a Spider'. 1.78million Ghits, a lot of them to the obligatory movie-celeb sites but turn out to be not much more than dead ends. Not that notable, I think. Ohconfucius 10:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable. Almost definitely vanity. The one claim to notability is a gaming tournament consisting of 16 people with no ciation or verifiability. Note: I had listed this article for speedy delete but changed it since it makes a claim to notability, however remote it is. Konman72 11:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (all). - Bobet 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
As far as I can see, there is a clear majority. Should we now close this AfD? The tag on the articles look annoying :)-- Anupamsr| talk | contribs 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Most of the article's content suggests non-notability as a company. Vossanova o< 12:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No context or importance given. Few reviews on pouet.net. Entry on Scenery shows only a few non-notable releases. -- Vossanova o< 12:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was: redirected as variant spelling; AfD closed early as moot. Smerdis of Tlön 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a character from either a Dungeons & Dragons campaign or novel, it's not clear. No apparent claims for notability, not clear how to verify. Has been tagged for cleanup for a while. I am staying out of the discussion as I don't know the subject matter and am not sure if it needs to be deleted or not. Andrew Levine 13:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary usage or jargon guide: 'We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep' PeterGrecian 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pub crawl. No outside sources or references given. Google gives 375 hits but only 11 are unique. Metros232 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all articles. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable fantasy soccer league; will also add entries for the teams. NawlinWiki 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is unencyclopedic. The information is redundant with the information found on the Gracie's and Sakuraba's articles. If this articles stands in wikipedia we would have to write articles for any fighters that happened to have a rematch (Silva versus Sakuraba, Rogrigo Minotauro vs. Fedor, etc). Loudenvier 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, after discounting new user's comment that did not address the software's lack of notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Software article that makes no effort whatsoever to meed WP:SOFTWARE or otherwise assert notability. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems that this article is someone's original research and thus would violate WP:NOR. Frankchn 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this website is so important to be included in wiki. The author itself states in the article that it is a blog with just one entry! I think this is just acting as an advertisement collector which needs wiki for being pumped high in pagerank. Cantalamessa 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 21:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable podcast; vanity article. Prod removed by author. -- Merope 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Come on- deleting a legitimate comment about your policies? A little Hitleresque, don't you think?
Anyway, my point is that this entry is just as legitimate as many of the other entries on wikipedia. I figured you, as a self appointed protector of the Internet, would agree. I guess not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.246.179 ( talk • contribs) .
Fantagraphics advert for Johnny Ryan interview
Pete Bagge interview as reported on Wikipedia
Jason Crane (radio personality)link to CBH
2 CBH fans on some damn forum or other- come on, this shit counts.
Somebody put CBH up on some other pod thingy or other. Lots of these. Many by people, not bots
The result was delete, unverifiable. - Bobet 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Almost certainly a hoax. No googles. - Doc 14:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Tagged (for sources) in June and no edits since. -- Mereda 13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. This business location (garage?) seems to be part of a residence. The article on the company Farpoint Media ought to be a candidate for deletion too if editors don't assert notability soon. Mereda 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason the page should be deleted
Vanity article in breach of Wikipedia guidelines.
Subject of the article is a minor (local) politician in Northern Ireland. He is not a member of either the elected Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Parliament but is rather merely a local councillor and a former failed student politician. Pondersomething 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No consensus on merging, but if someone wants to do it, it's again an editorial decision. - Bobet 09:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Pointless Article, do we need individual articles that name heroin with each individual cutting agent? Aspensti 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It'd be happy to userfy this on request. Petros471 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete The subject of this biography may not be sufficiently notable for WP. The listed awards appear to be only scholarships and student awards. I could find no WP notability criteria for artists, but presumably they would include major shows reviewed by prominent art critics. Although "Odhiambo Siangla" produces a moderate number of google hits, most of these seem to be self-created or WP mirror sites. Possibly the page should not be deleted but instead converted to a user page. Nesbit 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a person with a very flimsy notability claim (she "continued to sleep with" Adam Worth after marrying someone else). No reference for this claim nor other context. Google gives up little. I am staying out of the discussion since I don't know enough to decide to delete or not. Andrew Levine 15:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Claims to be a fictional plant in the Star Wars universe. Gives no source (movie, book, etc.) Google search seems to turn up only sites mirroring Wikipedia content. Even if it really turns out to be "from the Star Wars universe" it seems pretty minor. Andrew Levine 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research or hoax. 0 GHits. Unencyclopedic in tone. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. - Bobet 09:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
While this might one day be nice, it now doesn't at all appear to meet WP:WEB, alexa ranking of 3,870,352 and I find no reliable sources on this so doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Most google hits on this are to other uses of the word Philica Xyzzyplugh 15:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor TV reporter. Zero Google hits on her name when coupled with ITV, Border or Lookaround Nuttah68 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Dead end article since its creation in 2005. Most of the text is about a place Unaizah which is 2nd city of a province. I haven't found any verification through Google of claimed "governor" of this city, see [82] and [83]. So, unverified and probably not notable anyway, unless anyone knows better. Mereda 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 21:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable criminal event TruthCrusader 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax/insult: "youngest person ever to receive his phd in homosexual relations". Speedy delete, if possible. Medtopic 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was transwiki. W.marsh 02:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsure as to whether this article should be moved to the Wiktionary, removed, merged or kept. Supersheep 15:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm told that this (German for artillery that does not elevate) use is genuine.
It also has another (slang) use for Erectile Dysfunction (not widely used).
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert for modelling adgency - nothing else. Entire content of page is "Stand Out Model Management is a modelling agency." plus link to Offical Site. Mattisse (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not Notable and completely false. There never was a Lachlan Taylor in Slipknot nor was there a Lachlan Taylor in Papa Roach, without these Lachlan here has no claim to fame. The article was made at the same time and by the same user as David Willet, which was deleted for the same reason I'm listing this one. Wildnox 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not 100% sure about this one. The article appears to be about an Indian political party, not a person. Although there are quite a few Google hits, after excluding Wiki mirrors I can only find two news articles (dated December 5, 2004) that refer to the organization. Although I'm conscious of
WP:CSB, it does not yet appear to be verifiably important.
Medtopic 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nomination and weak keep on the basis of good additions by
Soman.
Medtopic
17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
and that solves both the verifiability and notability issue Doctor Bruno 10:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was deleted after a prod, but later restored when contested on DRV. There is nothing in this article that couldn't be accomplished with a category. It's really needless listcreep. BigDT 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Sango 123 02:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There is already a page in place that is both linked from the main EVE Online article and is being maintained. This page is just extra. --Xander the Potato Vanquisher 14:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The result was delete. DS 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete has already been deleted twice after an uncontested Prod. Clearly a made up TV series. No sources so unverifiable. Article was recreated, so bringing here for community debate; Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up Gwernol 16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unable to verify anything about this fictional cartoon character. Medtopic 16:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I read the discussion of the first AfD and I understand very little of the administrator's decision. There wasn't a single keep and yet the article was kept. There seemed to be some sort of consensus that giving this Simpsons quote its own article is a bit over the top. The page's content hasn't changed much one year later, so I hereby nominate it again. Medico80 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. theProject 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable rapper; 31 unique Ghits for album title; speediable in my opinion but author keeps removing speedy tag. NawlinWiki 16:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Petros471 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A minor fictional character in, uh, something ( Naruto?) Not clear exactly what this about. Google search in both English turns up little, not sure what the Japanese name would be. I will stay out of this discussion for now. Andrew Levine 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page corresponds to the author listed above ( James Daniel Ross) for deletion, google gathers 105 hits for this book title. This isn't notable. Porqin 12:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per nominator withdrawal. Having grown up with these books I was a little surprised it's not Berenstein. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an extremly unlikely misspelling of bernstein bears. i kan reed 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable corporation Akradecki 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Bad article name
NCurse
work
17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is a spam-like profile of a non-notable software company. Despite my attempts to find information on Google to improve the article, there does not seem to be any mention of this company outside press releases and the one BBC video. — ptk★ fgs 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. theProject 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article does not establish the notability of the subject. Has a history of tags being removed by the author, with the notability issue never really addressed.
The result was delete. – Rob ert 14:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A 15-story office building that is so unnoteworthy it has to be identified by its address. There are thousands upon thousands of office buildings in the world, and not all of them require a place on wikipedia. This is one of a large number of articles on buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
One of a series of articles on buildings in Windsor, Ontario (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers for one that has already been deleted). It is not of any great height or any great architectural importance and seems indistinguishable from thousands of other office buildlings in the world. Indrian 18:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A ten-story building in Windsor, Ontario that does not give any indication of being important. There are tens of thousands of ten-story buildings in the world, and not all of them deserve their own page. This article is part of a series of articles about buildings in Windsor, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An apartment building, little different from thousands of others in the world. The article claims its T-shape makes it notable, but it is hardly the only building with such a shape, which is certainly not rare. One of a series of articles on buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An apartment building, with nothing to distinguish it from the thousands of others that exist in the world. This is part of a series of articles on buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A seventeen-story apartment building that is not even finished yet. It will be virtually indistinguishable from thousands of other apartment buildings when it is finished, and it is certainly unimportant now. This article is part of a series on buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Petros471 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An apartment building no different from thousands upon thousands of others in the world. This is part of a series of articles on buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. Anything else (expand, move, merge etc.) can be decided on the article's talk page. Petros471 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not establish notability. Scientology has enough of these "auditing procedures" to fill a wall of volumes. Are they all notable enough to receive their own articles? Crabapplecove 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, without prejudice to a new article being created that asserts notability using verifiable sources. Petros471 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Although he is a very real person, he did not discover Pinchite as stated in this article. The Pinchite article appears to be a copyvio. His co-found, Michael W. Pinch was deleted as I was afding this. Mattisse (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 02:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is 42nd in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is 43rd in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 18:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is over 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is over 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is over 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is over 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, there is no content in the article, except a restating of the title and an external link. I don't see the point in a redirect, since anyone who can type that title in the search bar knows everything about the school that the suggested target article would tell them. - Bobet 21:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable elementary school. I can see keeping high schools, but not elementary ones. Akradecki 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There is a wikipedia category section devoted to elementary schools, many have state by state categories. Should all of them be deleted?
"The school article is part of a series of similarly-maintained articles related to a specific school board or school district." from NN-school
The result was delete, there is no content in the article, except a restating of the title and an external link (and a motto?). I don't see the point in a redirect, since anyone who can type that title in the search bar knows everything about the school that the suggested target article would tell them. - Bobet 21:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Elementary schools are not inherently notable, unless specifically stated. Akradecki 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is half advertisement and half about a non-notable gag on Clone High. Knork is a registered trademark of Knork Flatware [94]. TomTheHand 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Provides no sources, found no reliable sources via Google. Violates WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NEO. — ` CRAZY` (IN)` SANE` 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to British Isles. User:Angr 13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page falls foul of WP:NEO - it is a neologism with an article. Its content is almost entirely duplicated in British Isles, which covers this term, with sources, in just one sentence. There is little potential for expansion (unlike, say Islands of the North Atlantic, which discusses the political context of the name). I see no justification for having this article -- Robdurbar 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Thoughts on my longwinded response? Please note that I have no emotional attachment to either side. My own ancestors number among them both Celts and Britons. Though if my mother had anything to say about it, she would remind me that her own contribution outweighs all that Irish and British DNA anyway! Isoxyl 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as neologism or, failing that, redirect to British Isles. Bastun 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Robdurbar, you still argue that you don’t understand why this article exists at all…well, if someone comes across the term ‘Anglo-Celtic Isles’, wants to find out what it means and types it into Wikipedia, they should expect to be taken to a page that explains it. Having a redirect will not do – the viewer would just be taken to the ‘British Isles’ page and will probably scratch their heads in bemusement. Reference to ACI in the BI article is deeply buried and they surely wouldn’t find it easily. If you want a redirect, you should have ACI clearly stated in the Introduction…as it once was. You wanted it removed from the Introduction and I relucantly accepted this modification (in the interests of consensus achievement and conciseness). With a redirct I believe would come the requirement to have ACI referenced explicitly in the BI article introduction. Is that really what you want?
Also, just a correction for Mal who still, incredibly, believes that people who reject the term ‘British Isles’ and use ‘Anglo-Celtic isles’ instead are a ‘minority of paranoid people of a certain political persuasion’! Fact is that the clear majority of Irish people (inhabitants of the island of Ireland) reject usage of the term; I am not paranoid nor of a ‘certain political persuasion’ if that implies any sort of extremism. Argue against the scale of rejection of the BI term until you’re blue in the face and you won’t alter it. Being Northern Irish, you should welcome anything that removes the political divisions standing between you and your neighbours – ‘Anglo-Celtic Isles’ is wonderfully disconnected from political implication…and you can still have a UK passport if you want too! Reading your views is as depressing as listening to an Ian Paisley speech in the hope of hearing something reasonable, balanced, sensitively worded and free of hatred. Pconlon 18:20, 14 August 2006
Further reasons to Keep Article. I'm all for focussing on the matter in hand. I have finally inserted into the article a nice (verified) reference I've had for a while. This is not a duplication of anything in the BI article. There are more (non-duplicate) additions to come. Isoxyl, I'm glad you agree with my point that, if a redirect route were followed, it should come with a clear reference to ACI in the BI article Introduction...something like: 'Alternative terms exist in limited use, such as 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' and 'British & Irish Isles'. The trouble is that several users (most probably contributing to this page too!) strongly opposed this. They argued either that the term didn't really exist (clearly not so!) or that usage was so limited that they didn't think it deserved the prominance of an Introduction reference. As long as this ACI article exists, and as long as someone wanting to read about it can type the term into Wikipedia and be taken to THIS article, then I'm able to reluctantly accept keeping the BI article intro as it is. The additional, non-duplicate information in this ACI article shows that this is not just a dictionary-type entry. By the way Bastun, your view about the BI term being purely geographical and 'very much in common usage in Ireland' is far from correct - this is ground we've covered/fought over long ago!! Kind regards, Pconlon 11:45, 15 August 2006
On the issue of this article's existance, can we now finally agree that there is no consensus and lay this romp to rest? Let's leave the article be. All users are of course welcome to keep an eye on it to ensure that no inappropriate verifications are used - I would ask that contentious opinions regarding additions/removals be placed in discussion for a few days before actual article changes are made. I also thank Robdurbar for his fairness and open mindedness. Kind regards, Pconlon 15:10, 18 August 2006
Redirect to British Isles. Have a subheading in the Alternative terms section of that page for each alternative name. I thing this is a clear example of a neologism, with tiny usage. It means the same as British Isles: I think it is very clear that there should be one article for the archipelago, not twenty covering each term: the debate should be on what that article is called and what is in it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-- Stonemad GB 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
People, this is not an exercise in 'getting the vote out'!! It will be petty indeed if each side went about calling in 'numbers' to support its position...which is where this is going. No one is saying that this term is in widespread use, however it is verified and is used by some, myself included. This debate is about a term that is not just concidentally used in place of another - rather it is used intentionally as an alternative term on an extremely sensitive subject. A redirect would be an insult to those of us who so use it. A suitably worded reference to it specifically should I believe be placed in the British Isles article introduction...it would be essential in the case of a redirect in my view. Pconlon 23:52, 20 August 2006
(This is rather long and bitty, so I've used separators. I beg your indulgence.)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help))The result was delete, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising a site, nor is it a place to host a 'guide for all of those new members that join the site'. Simply existing isn't a good enough reason to have an article about the website. - Bobet 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
NN web forum. Prod removed by author. -- Merope 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. RainbowCrane 07:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
As the creator acknowledges this is a limitless list that is based on a subjective assessment against arbitary criteria. Simply unencyclopaedic. Delete. BlueValour 19:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a totally nn film. No hits in IMDB, a Google search for the movie turns up one hit, which is the website listed in the article. Prod removed by author as well. Wildthing61476 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
In accordance with What Wikipedia Is Not 1.3, this article should be deleted. It is simply a fanfilm that does not have a project team or anything. Proof at Filefront's Jedi Knight Files here. Further proof is the author's comments on his/her own film: "I was bored and I decided to make a movie" Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- FireV 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Page was originally an nonsense article marked for deletion. While reading the page, I researched the movies listed, and none of the movies list an "Amit Walia" on IMDB (the movies however were listed). The one common feature of the movies was the director Alejandro Agresti. Looking into this further, it appears the author simply copy and pasted the article for Alejandro Agresti and changed the name. Delete and warn author. Wildthing61476 20:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Most definitely a hoax - someone keeps substituting this name for the real director of The Lake House (film) plange 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep but cleanup. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Very badly written artcle, using stuff taken from the school website but changed enoguh to avoid copyright problems. The result is a very NPOV and bad article about a school that is fairly non-notable. I tried to work out a rewrite but just can't find any decent reliable sources for most of the stuff --Errant Tmorton166( Talk)( Review me) 20:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Petros471 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems a notably pointless list. Delete. BlueValour 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An endless, subjective and impossible to maintain list Nuttah68 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a fork of an existing article.. Ral315 ( talk) 16:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Duplication of Episodes of Lost (season 3), but includes uncited speculation regarding future episodes. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 21:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Redirects to non-existent articles can be speedy deleted under criteron R1. theProject 22:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a redirect page to IPhone, an article which was recently deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IPhone Speedy Delete - Paulus89 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, technical nomination with not a single editor arguing for deletion. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Referred from the speedy deletion queue. Technical nomination. theProject 21:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, only considering this particular article. If anyone believes any of the other articles listed should also be deleted they are welcome to nominate them. Petros471 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Propaganda piece. kingboyk 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
See:
Why are none of these listed for deletion?
--
Burgas00
16:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
as it seems to me to be a needlessly POV redirect to an only partially related article (in that the article covers violence in the conflict in general not just against Israel). If it is deleted I will list the 2001 and Palestinian terrorism redirects as well, as they suffer the same problems. Yomangani talk 18:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Song from Homestar Runner. While HR itself is notable, in my opinion its songs are not. Kariià Deranged Ramblings 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT. No opinion from me. - Royalguard11 Talk 22:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, after DJ Clayworth's and Addhoc's excellent salvaging efforts. It's a well-referenced article; however, much of it does sound like an essay (one can tell just from reading the first sentence). Please try to remedy that. – Rob ert 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Technical nomination, as a prod was applied to an article with a prior VFD discussion. No opinion from me at this time. Prod concern was "This article is an indiscriminate collection of information." GRBerry 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was This appears to be deleted already. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Another incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT. Also included in this nomination (to save space):
The result was keep, since there are no arguments for deletion. - Bobet 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT, and nom by User:66.184.162.186. No opinion. - Royalguard11 Talk 23:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 20:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Page appears to be advertising masquerading as an article. Already speedy deleted once, and tagged speedy the second time, except removed by creator. theProject 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Incomplete AFD, found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:67.181.121.95. No opinion. - Royalguard11 Talk 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Webforum with an alexa ranking of 550,000+, doesn't meet WP:WEB, no reliable sources so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep — Mets501 ( talk) 13:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Last incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:Cassmus. No opinion. - Royalguard11 Talk 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn; speedily kept. DarthVad e r 08:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I find that this article violates three conditions of what Wikipedia is. A soapbox, a publisher of original thought, and a crystal ball. SweetNeo85 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for July 2006 created podcast that returns 3 unique google hits [106]. Fails WP:WEB, WP:NN, WP:SPAM, etc. Prod removed.-- Fuhghettaboutit 00:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Very bad faith nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Institute of Management. `' mikka (t) 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Boldly closed and listed on IfD feel free to revert if you feel I'm out of order.-- Isotope23 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I think this user was just playing around. -- evrik 15:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a cocktail recipe, which violates Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information point 4. I already transwikied it to wikibooks, where it was later deleted as apparently it was unwanted there, perhaps because there is already a Lemon Drop recipe as part of wikibooks:Bartending/Cocktails/Glossary. There's no point in transwikiing it again, so Delete Xyzzyplugh 19:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born to Be Wild (Ozzy Osbourne Cover). Another improperly capitalised, pointless stub. kingboyk 22:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Userfying in this case isn't that great of in idea, since it was the creator's only edit. This was already deleted twice before, and both times it was created by a user with no other edits (not the same user that started this one). User pages are only useful for people who actually contribute here, they're not a web host for people. - Bobet 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as a non-notable website; fails WP:WEB. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 08:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor league (AAA) baseball player killed in action in WWII. Not sure that either of those makes him sufficiently notable. NawlinWiki 14:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as a non-notable consumer product. This is a failed prod based on the unsourced "cult classic" claim. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an advertising service. No evidence presented in the article that this company meets WP:CORP. — C.Fred ( talk) 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertorial for a news service, scores around 130 unique Googles ( headline news%22&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=130&sa=N) offers no evidence of meetin WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Article has lots and lots of links into the site, suggests possible SEO (but might just be plain old-fashioned spam). Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - Keep in mind that it is itself a news source and a syndicator of content... you may want to rethink your methods.. Using your exact UK Google index Google.co.uk I get 476,000 entries. Looking for websites alone that link just to the home page there are over 900 entries ( http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=link:1vCZqn5vnOUJ:www.allheadlinenews.com/) Using the "GOOGLE" tests you'll see that news.google.com lists them as a source..... Besides the company is fairly well known in the news industry. If using WP:CORP as the measuring stick then ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22All+headline+news%22+-allheadlinenews.com) and ( http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&q=%22All%20headline%20news%22%20-allheadlinenews.com&sa=N&tab=wn) show that other news sources regularly attribe news to AHN. The site is referenced bu sourcewatch ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=All_Headline_News) and others.... if using WP:WEB then http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/event/1615 may apply or certainly google itself ( http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22all+headline+news%22) Talk To Eventus
I DO NOT agree with user JZG and I think he got it wrong.. this article should remain. -Martin
The result was no consensus, default to keep. - Bobet 08:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unique Google hits for "Medaille Trust" = 9. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) guidelines. Lack of available 3rd party references poses Wikipedia:Verifiability problems as well. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 08:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing a nomination. Rationale was "She is NOT notable..." ( Liberatore, 2006). 12:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Zero Google or Amazon hits for this "aborted" album. NawlinWiki 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 09:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable club. Google finds little signs of this existing outside Wikipedia and their own web site [2] [3]. Weregerbil 09:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
-- Arkayne Magii 02:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
-- Arkayne Magii 04:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and move to Jason Shevchuk. - Bobet 09:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was} Merge with Adelaide 36ers ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a future Australian basketball franchise. While this would normally be enough for inclusion, the team is only proposed, and there are no references at all to prove that this is anything more than just a proposal. fuzzy510 07:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus whether this should be deleted or merged to Legends of the Dark Knight. Given the unanimous consensus for this not being a standalone article I'm just going to redirect it, as the merge target does not currently cover individual storylines and given that this article covers two issues, it would be immensely long if it did to this extent. If anyone decides how they want to merge it they can follow the redirect back and look in the history. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A "storyline" consisting of two issues of a long-running comic. This story isn't particularly notable, and there isn't any article that would benefit from the merge. While it was deprodded with the comment "episode guide," WP:COMIC practice is to focus on encyclopedic overview of series, artists, and characters, instead of writing plot summaries of every single issue of every single comic. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
suspected hoax -- omtay38 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was: weak opinions all round roughly split either way, no consensus. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
does not seem to be important 151.201.60.121 03:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The entire article has been ripped out of the Farley Mowat's copyrighted description from the Sea Shepard site here [6]. I see no way the text can be salvaged, given it is entirely stolen. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 09:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
One line unsourced and uncited assertion. "What links here" suggests ambiguation, and Google sheds no light on the subject. Possible vandalism? Wastekiller 02:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, it was a copyvio and listed at copyright problems for long enough. - Bobet 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Per WP:WWIN: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. AED 23:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Stevens ( talk • contribs)
The result was Delete, though I won't object to recreation if more can be brought out to show meeting of WP:MUSIC. Yank sox 19:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This completely non-notable person previously had a short article on them containing details of their abilities in the whistle register, however these abilities were all discovered by original research and a quick search of Google provides nothing of use on this person, the stub left after i removed the OR is not worth keeping.-- I'll bring the food 11:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus. Yank sox 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 2,112,087. Peephole 13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable student organization at one school in India. NawlinWiki 16:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Rob ert 14:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising The bellman 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
STRONG KEEP.Not an ad at all... Important and complete information about this well known revue. Terveetkadet 12:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Website that appears to fail WP:WEB. 93 unique google hits for this online entity, most of which appear to be false positives [10]. An Alexa rank of 1,291,602 [11]. There is no clear assertion of notability in the article, which also states that the website appears to be winding down. Prod removed.-- Fuhghettaboutit 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The MRH discussion boards are not very active nowadays. On average, only 3.27 users are online at the time.
this quote is from the article itself. The creator of the article himself admits that the website has become non notable. Then why keep it? -- Ageo020 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable website per Wikipedia:Notability (web) -- JHunterJ 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Yank sox 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I created this page without knowing the WP:WEB policy. I do not feel it meets that policies criteria and thus put it up for deletion. NMajdan• talk 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Then you should use a {{
db-author}} tag. --
Avi
19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Maybe Slam Nation is notable, but at this point I don't think it's enough to support individual member bios. This article has been speedied once already. Rklawton 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not Notable (few ghits other than Wikipedia entry and website; nothing in IMDB); given the complete lack of English language content on QF, this article will only get improved if a Norwegian speaker works on it, and I doubt that is going to happen. I proposed this for deletion, I just forgot to sign in first. -- Brianyoumans 18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads to me like a corporate brochure. Based on WP:CORP, I'm not seeing why it should be considered notable. Dori 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was as follows: I took into account the arguments to delete, and at first glance, this looked like a clear "delete". However, having also (obviously) taken into account the arguments to keep, and given the circumstance that the article has been edited so that it is not plainly advertisement, I see no consensus either way. -- Ezeu 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
blantant advert Kungfu Adam ( talk) 13:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The Pink Pound Conference in June 2006 UK featured Out Now Consulting MD as the Keynote Speaker.
Time magazine today covers the organisation. This year has seen Out Now Consulting covered in other media and in fact over 15 years Out Now Consulting has been frequently covered in news media in relation to the company's leading role in what is a new development in marketing - developing strategies to target gay consumers.
Some of these publications include: The Independent (UK) The Times (UK) The Guardian (UK) The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) The Australian (Australia) Business Review Weekly (Australia) Het Financieele Dagblad (Netherlands) De Morgen (Belgium)
TV appearances by Out Now Consulting staff have been many and include: BBC TV (UK) Jim TV (Belgium) TCN 9 (Australia) Nederland 1 (Netherlands).
There has been much other media coverage of Out Now Consulting's role in this development during this period.
In each case, Out Now Consulting is reported upon as a "significant player" in the "major news event" of - the emergence of a visible gay and lesbian consumer market. Perhaps to you that isn't a major news event but today's issue of Time magazine obviously does as the story about the emergence of gay advertising in Europe quoting Out Now Consulting's work is the one item from the current issue that Time magazine has chosen to highlight at the top of their homepage http://www.time.com/time/europe/ and see also the article at http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060807-1220477,00.html
Other media events include the coverage in much UK media of the revelation that 49% of lesbian and gay people feel unable to come out at work. http://www.sundayherald.com/53693 (Scotland) and http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article341714.ece - again media coverage of gay community research that Out Now Consulting was the significant player in.
I again request undeletion of the Out Now Consulting page.
Thanks for your attention,
Ian - 31 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outnow ( talk • contribs)
I left this comment days ago when the article was much fuller, there is so little info on gay marketing available, that students like myself previously found this article of great use. It is not SPAM when it helps me do an assignment.
Original comment follows....
Hi There,
I am a mrketing student in the Netherlands, and have found the article on Out Now Consulting to be most helpful and of exceptional interest on the gay marketing phenomenon.
It was quite hard for me as well as other students to find the information that we needed, though there was plenty to say on the subject.
Keep up the good work and it may be worthwhile keeping the article here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.87.154.90 ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Out Now is the only gay marketing agency with offices in more than one country is a fact unique to the entity and increases the organisation's notability.
The deletions by Chris Griswold did far more than remove entries related to one survey. S/he removed many third party media reports of Out Now Consulting covering a range of issues, some related to Out Now's many different reports, some where the journalist sought Out Now Consulting as a notable source of expertise in its specific area. Given the extent to which s/he removed items and the little time it took for this user to do so I am somewhat concerned that s/he did not have time read through all these removed references sufficiently to see that they were clearly not just "a loosely related collection of references to brief mentions of [a single] survey". 37 minutes were spent deleting over 35 separate news articles, third party references and other citations from a range of sources. The article as left by this user this morning leaves only a single reference - to UK research from 2005 and removed everything else. There was also other research included previously. there was much more than reporting on research. For example, there were third party publications such as the Belgium Marketing Foundation, the Pink Pound Conference (UK), the Dutch marketing textbook "Principes van Marketing" (Principles of Marketing) also removed by this user - none of which was related to the British Gay Times and Diva research as s/he seemed to contend when removing it. On that point, where an esteemed newspaper such as the Sunday Independent - a leading national UK newspaper, devotes a double page spread feature article based primarily on, and extensively quoting research by, Out Now Consulting discussing a major workplace discrimination issue, which is also supported by remarks from other industry groups in the UK unrelated to Out Now Consulting, all commenting on the work of Out Now Consulting - does that not as C.Fred says: show Out Now Consulting to be a "company with major-media news coverage and that stands out in its industry/segment"? That seems to fall squarely within the Wikipedia guidelines as to notability for article's on companies being included.
For that matter, why would Time magazine this week in Europe choose to quote Out Now Consulting's opinion about the state of gay advertising in Europe if the company is not notable for readers of Time? That seems to fall within Wikipedia guidelines. That comment had absolutely nothing to do with the British research mentioned above. We were relied upon by the journalist of Time as a notable authority in the area of gay marketing. The magazine includes a photo of Out Now Consulting's campaign for the German National Tourist Office in their print edition as an example of gay advertising.
I note also that the comment made by the student 86.87.154.90 talk is a relevant one. Each week we usually receive several inquiries from students wanting our help. I agree our article is not SPAM to these students. Just today we received the following email -
"My name is Katharina and I study in Germany and have to write en essay for my university on gay marketing.It would be really helpful for me if you could send me some information, because it is such a new and present topic and I could not find any books so far. I would be really pleased if you could help me. Thank you very much, Katharina"
That sort of thing is fairly common here - if any of the Wikipedia editors wishes to contact me direct I would welcome them doing so to obtain more information about the similar student emails we regularly receive requesting assistance from Out Now Consulting with research about the gay market and other gay social issues. There really is a uniqueness to what we do - which is why media, students and others contact us. It is also why we are noted in such a leading textbook as Kotler's Principles of Marketing textbook in section 4 about niche marketing. That has nothing to do with our research - it features a full page discussion of advertising we created for Lufthansa and South African Tourism in the Dutch market. It also seems to fall squarely within Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion.
Any of the above factors taken alone should make you think our firm is notable but when taken in concert, - and in respect of so many third party citations about the company (removed today by Chris Griswold) I believe firmly that such a combination of factors renders this article well worth keeping and Out Now Consulting notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. To delete everything in the previous entries down to just what was left there this morning seems not in keeping with the Wikipedia principles. Finally, just in case you did not pick up on it above I am the author of the article and am the MD of the firm, so you might be tempted to discount all I say trying to believe that our article is SPAM however it is not just me saying it.
The search engines, the students such as 86.87.154.90, users such as C.Fred and Ageo020 and many media publications around the world seem to concur that our business has a unique industry position in a major new development in marketing. I would much prefer that there be restored some of what was deleted this morning from the article with a NPOV, and where third party items where the work of Out Now Consulting is the major aspect of the citation. Ian Johnson -- User:outnow
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Australia has multiple heat waves during summer, this particular article describes a pretty typical Austraia heat wave - not an unusual, notable or encyclopedic weather event. Delete.-- Peta 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - his userpage already exists. Sango 123 02:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - vanity entry, creator and subject are the same person, does not assert notability either-- Nobunaga24 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local chapter of an otherwise notable organization. This would be like an article on each Elks lodge or Boy Scout troop. No verifiability or independent sources offered. Metros232 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. RedRollerskate 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
merged into Airsoft, everything here is now redundant (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted. ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not Notable. Can't find any reference to anyone named David Willet in Slipknot, and that would be his only claim to fame as it seems, if such a person really exists. Wildnox 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Grand master ka 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Inward singing is a form of singing that involves singing an unroken series of words and notes, even while inhaling. Believed hoax. This is a completely different, more sensible article from the one that got deleted by the previous AfD discussion so I am giving it another chance. But what I still want to know is: circular breathing is a well established technique applicable to wind instruments and inflating balloons, so why can it not used by singers? -- RHaworth 01:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
"Sorry,... I didn't know how... thanks (~~~~)
Oops: Thanks, I got it now.. this is helpful (~~~~) Sugarboogy phalanx 02:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, no valid reasoning for deletion provided.-- SB | T 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable blogger, article appears to be self promotion (content by User:PStamatiou) Stormie 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable band, does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC - one independent release and a MySpace page. Stormie 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
-- After reviewing more documentation on Wikipedia, I believe I may have been in error when I posted the article. While the band has a fan base in the Greater Toronto Area and on the Internet, they may not not have had enough commercial success to warrant a Wikipedia article as of yet. The question is however: how many independent releases does a band need before they are immortalized with a Wikipedia page. In the history of music, there have been many bands which were obscure at the time that they were regularly performing.
Perhaps articles on independant bands who have had some commericial success but are largely unknown would be better suited to the proposed WikiMusic [17] site.
I don't agree with the argument that a band with a MySpace profile is irrelevant. Many bands have profiles on the site because MySpace is inherently useful for promoting entertainers.
I don't have any control over whether my article stays or goes but I think it deserves posting in some sort of wiki-form somewhere. I posted the article because I know they had a large fan base and because I have heard instrumental tracks from their second album.
Thanks Stormie for opening my eyes a bit. I'm gonna read some more documentation before I do much else.
Codus 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There are a ton of irrelevant articles on people with little or no notability. Search "independent musician" for comprehensive list. Asserting the notability of independent musicians seems like an exercise in futility. Most independent musicians with limited success are known only in their community. I don't have anything to lose from the article's deletion (other than time wasted), nor do I have anything to gain from it's acceptance. I wrote the article because I know the band has a following both in the GTA and on the Internet and therefore the likelihood that someone might search for information on the band on Wikipedia was good. It really is too bad that Wikipedia does not aim to collect information on all subjects, regardless of their overall relevance to the global community. Despite committment to notability, many wikipedia articles exist which list information about very obscure people.
Open Wide Music, like many artists in Canada, have yet to find commericial success on the scale comparible with American market, but they are not obscure in the culture of their city. In fact most Canadians bands are not well known until they break into the American market. Their lack of popularity outside their primary geographic location doesn't make them any less relevant to their fans. The only reason I am arguing for my article to stay is because I believe the band will generate a lot more fans upon the release of their second album which is likely going to be released in 2006. Once the band has a second independent release will they qualify for notability? Thanks for the taking time to participate in the discussion. Codus 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Everyone except Danielrocks has barely commented other to say "Delete it". This isn't discussion. It's a witchhunt for pages that don't interest you. I'm starting to feel very unwelcome in the Wikipedian community since no one is taking the time to discuss the issues I've raised above. I came here to discuss the issue because this is a discussion page yet there is very little actual discussion going on. 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codus ( talk • contribs)
The result was No Consensus. Yank sox 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable fictional game, that is mentioned in a mildly popular UK comedy show I would also like to include the following two
Green Wing related pages
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements and appears to be a vanity page (on Image:Linkgaetz1.jpg's deletion discussion, Terveetkadet (the creator of this article) says he is, in fact, Ian Bussières) LactoseTI 02:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
It survived a prod in March when it was branded advertising. It's a stub, barely more than a dicdef, now and hasn't changed much since then. It was proposed for deletion but, since that was its second prod, it has to go to AfD instead. Dictionary definition bordering on neologism, no cited sources, nothing that couldn't be adequately covered by the article on mortgages. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Yank sox 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the second AfD. I am not satisfied with the arguments made in favour of a keep. This is simply a part of a public park that has no notability other than having an internet ranking, which is hardly adequate. I believe it should go as we obviously should not have articles on every public playground in Ipswich, let alone Brisbane, Queensland, Australia or the world itself. There is nothing noteworthy about this place and thus nothing worthy of being kept. It has also required clean up for over a year without attracting any significant attention. SM247 My Talk 02:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - redirected to Scientific opinion on climate change by User:Sln3412. Sango 123 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fork of Scientific opinion on climate change, product of several bad page moves and content copies-- 172.147.153.86 02:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm speedying this... I'm sure Ed "shoot from the hip" Poor would approve... William M. Connolley 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no jurisdiction, possibly incorrect nomination. Take to MfD if required. JYolkowski // talk 02:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Essay in name space-- 172.147.153.86 02:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep after the rewrites, the consensus seems to have changed. - Bobet 09:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't make it at all clear what the subject of this personal essay is, or why it should be in article space at all-- 172.147.153.86 02:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. This isn't going anywhere, as far too many articles were bundled together into a single AFD.
If someone wants to open a much smaller (not more than four articles at a time, please) AFD on one or some of these articles so that the individual merits of specific articles can be discussed, feel free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I am retracting this nomination as it seems to be spiralling towards a brawl. I doubt any good faith consensus can result from this discussion. I'll approach this from another angle later. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Old discussion
This is a group nomination of a series of Warcraft character pages. My deletion rationale is as follows, in bulleted form but not necessarily in order of importance.
The information in these articles is freely (in the GFDL sense) available in a much more comprehensive form in
WoWWiki, which I have linked using the legend "ww" for comparison purposes. Many of WP's articles are word-for-word duplicates of their WoWWiki entries (eg.
Captain Placeholder), cite their counterpart on WoWWiki (eg.
Hakkar the Soulflayer), or are completely unsourced (eg.
Grom Hellscream). There is even a template, {{
wowwiki}}, designed to help citations of WoWWiki easier. I should hardly have to point out that
wikis do not qualify as reliable primary or secondary sources.
|
|
|
For precedents, see the following concluded AfD and the precedents therefrom.
Note: this AfD, if it achieves consensus either way, will become a strong precedent. Please carefully consider whether Wikipedia should contain unsourced (or improperly sourced) articles on individual NPCs, mobs, and "lore" entities of dubious notability in a MMORPG, or whether a summary article such as
List of Warcraft characters suffices for our encyclopedic purposes.
—
Kaustuv Chaudhuri
02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The Main Discussion
*Relist separately Someof these (like Grom Hellscream) are major characters. Some should be merged into something like
List of minor Warcraft characters. This AfD has about zero chance of determining which is which.
Ace of Sevens
08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
— Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I, a very long time ago, worked on several Starcraft-related pages which were later deleted. I wasn't too happy about that, but I completely understand that 'Starcraft battlecruiser' (for example) is probably comfortably in that obscurity/cruft zone. I cannot say the same for the character pages nominated here. AustinZ 03:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep many of these characters are important to the warcraft universe. When i say warcraft universe i dont only mean WoW. People like Sargeras,Jaina Proudmore,Arthas,Thrall,Medivh are main characters in the story of warcraft III not to mention they also appear in world of warcraft or at least mentioned. If your gonna delete those entries then you might as well delete the entries for the characters of Harry Potter or Lord of the rings. If you consider 6 million people as "a drop in the bucket" then i should go ahead and delete many articles about anime characters who have far less viewership — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.212.98 ( talk • contribs)
The result was speedy keep. Wickethewok 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Also associated albums: Vallejo (album), Beautiful Life (Vallejo album), Into the New, Stereo (album); and band member redirects: Bruce Castleberry, Omar Vallejo, Alejandro Vallejo, A.J. Vallejo.
Local band, non-notable. Fireplace 02:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Technical nomination. Found this on a speedy deletion run, and I think President of UCLA and UoF is a pretty big claim to notability, so I'm referring it here for fact-checking and a third opinion. By the way, if the article survives AfD, it will probably need to be moved to eliminate the "Dr.", per Wikipedia naming convention and disambiguated with the current article on Charles Young. theProject 02:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 09:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This group is made up of 200 people who are not a formal group, they are not mainstream with the LDS Church, and don't even have a website. It reads like a journal with the quote 'priesthood quorum support that they wish they had' This is a waste of bandwidth. Rossinicholas 02:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was CSD G7 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 23:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not assert meeting WP:WEB, nevertheless PROD tag was removed. I find no coverage of this site as prescribed by WP:WEB, also it's apparently only been mentioned on a total of 8 different websites [28] suggesting that it has an active community but is not of much interest to anyone outside that community. To meet WP:WEB, evidence needs to be presented that this site has been written about by reliable, independent sources. -- W.marsh 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article, not noteworthy and sourced only from a single website. No other articles link here that are not redirects, and article has been repeatedly removed from List of philosophies. Rosicrucian 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete at this time. The comments from anons/new users shouldn't be ignored because they actually make meaningful arguments. And several established contributers also want to keep... so there's clearly no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Delete textbook cruft. Unverified through anything other than listening to the show, of limited interest to a circumscribed minority. At the first AfD they glossed over this point. This could be smerged back in to the article on El Rushbo - a half dozen terms at most. But this article as currently constituted is ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.180.23 ( talk • contribs) .
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not assert meeting WP:WEB, which does apply to this article ("Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content"). Would need to present evidence of non-trivial coverage by independent, reliable sources. -- W.marsh 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted by Doc Glasglow. W.marsh 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity, does not really assert anything that meets WP:BIO. Per a google search [30], really nothing seems to have been written about this guy that isn't self promotional in nature, and very little of that even. Also most all of the claims in the article appear to be unverifiable. -- W.marsh 03:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge pschemp | talk 05:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads more like a "how to" than an encyclopedia article. My first thought was to merge the content with Blunt (cigar) but I'd rather the article go through AfD instead, and get a consensus on deletion, merge, or keep.-- KOS | talk 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
not major author, reads like vanity Tfine80 03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NEO. To quote the article, "It was discovered and promulgated by a man named Richard, who now lives in Byron Bay, Australia and communicates primarily via the internet." -- Peta 03:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A meterologist can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is actually an event known as a cold wave. Delete per WP:NEO. -- Peta 03:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by User:Ral315, author request. Morgan Wick 05:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Movie is complete crystal balling, as IMDB has 0 entries on this movie. Prod removed by author as well Wildthing61476 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
IMBD does not always have everything up that fast. This was all said in a press conference and Deborah Gregory said this in a interview. Jtervin 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't have the exact address but if you look on Google for The Cheetah Girls 3 i found a video for the press conference live and there is no promo pic. What promo pic? Jtervin 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I did not remove that image by the way. I thought you did Neo. Jtervin 04:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok i just found a link and i will post it in one sec!!! Jtervin 04:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Here is the link:
http://www.xanga.com/CheetahGirlsMovie3
and I did remove it the second time ( Personal attack removed)
Again, where is the proof? I'm REALLY gving you the benefit of a doubt, but was this mentioned in ANY major newspaper/publication/media source? Obviously a successful franchise, such as this, would be noteworthy enough if a sequel was being made. Wildthing61476 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Yank sox 19:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Given possible problems with the term coldwave, and the fact these articles seem to describe fairly normal weather, they are a product of recentism and don't appear to have ongoing encyclopedic value. Delete -- Peta 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. There is substantial support among established commenters that this word has now reached encyclopedic notability. The name "Santorum" will be redirected to the Senator, as I think consensus and common sense demand. There is widespread support for Santorum (neologism) as a renaming, but neologisms don't belong in Wikipedia: the result of this debate thus compels a different title. Santorum (sexual slang) is adopted as the most popular option consistent with WP:NOT. The question of how, exactly, to disambig. (a delicate matter, considering the Senator is deserving of personal respect, per BLP), I will leave to talk page discussion. Xoloz 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The neologism referred to, created by Savage Love, does not have any evidence of real currency as a neologism. It should be treated as a political act by Savage Love, and described under that article. Giving it a separate article implies that it is a generally accepted neologism. Mike Christie 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
→ straw poll (moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum#Straw poll as AfD is not the place for it. The straw poll asks about the preferred name for the article about the sexual slang term, and about where the link Santorum should go, and what the contents of the disambig page should be.)
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I know this has an organized template and everything, but isn't 2011 looking a little far ahead, especially since there's only one film listed and it's a red link? Opabinia regalis 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Destined to be unweidly: Motown has released literally thousands of albums, as this external link shows. Better if categorized (in the already available category Category:Motown albums. -- FuriousFreddy 03:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (since content is covered better in category), then redirect per W. Marsh as a reasonable search term. Xoloz 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No references (not that it isn't most likely true, of course, but still). An improperly formatted list. Also, POV in title: what denotes a slaveowner as being "prominent": his popularity by today's standards or by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries' standards? -- FuriousFreddy 03:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - non-notable person that fails WP:BIO, probably an autobiography (main contributor is User:JayFray84, whose only contribs have been related to this article). IMDB.com page lists two credits, one for a production assistant and one for a stand-in; the content of the page reveals he is just a minor regional actor yet to achieve much notability. not many Ghits when searching for the quoted name plus "actor." Fabricationary 04:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. Apparently their most notable product just barely entered beta. I am recommending deletion based on this article not meeting WP:CORP. -- Hetar 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
We don't need an article on a background component of a single Chappelle joke. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Career has apparently been primarily as an understudy or alternate thus far, with a brief stint as a lead that's not enough to be notable. Contested prod. Opabinia regalis 04:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. theProject 05:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable wiki. Peephole 04:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, possible vanity article SDC 04:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Sango 123 03:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Articles that are a part of this nom:
Several articles detailing what I assume are game mechanics for an apparently unpopular collectable minitures game. They lack sufficent context to merge them into one article, and per WP:NOT this game guide material is pretty unencyclopedic anyway. Delete-- Peta 04:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is about a behavioral model created by Paul J. Kurucz. It is nothing more than an advertisement. Nothing to indicate notability. No reliable sources or sign of any significant independant coverage. -- Hetar 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Petros471 16:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Evidence for the notability of this company/product has been provided since the last afd. It is not the same thing as a Z card. Delete. -- Peta 05:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 03:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC and reads a bit like WP:VAIN. -- Koffieyahoo 05:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
-- Brian G ( Talk) 21:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply"Playing nightly at local venues for two years as a solo artist, hosting open mic nights as well as performing three sets in just one evening to both packed and empty venues, Logan honed his skills as a solo musician. Over the years it has given his music room to breath. His music follows its own path with deep direction and soulful lyrics. Never losing touch with what commercial radio feels to be "listener-friendly."
The result was Delete. Discounting socks and newbies, the consensus seems fairly solid. As Jayjg points out, lists of this sort implicate fundamental questions of NPOV; at the very least, selectively permitted some "terrorist by nationality" lists and not others is problematic. As suggested also, imprecise definitions of "terrorist" and "Pakistani" call into question whether the list is meaningful and maintainable. Xoloz 15:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Article duplicates Category:Pakistani terrorists and is presently used by User:Robcotton for original research and crystal-ball gazing. Attention closer, please see the discussion about sockpuppets on the talk page. — Viriditas | Talk 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Since the Illuminati is supposed to be such a secret conspiracy and society (if it exists at all), I wasn't surprised at all that there are no Wikipedia:Reliable sources supporting this. One occultist's website does not count. No papers on Google Scholar referencing the term (so that discounts it as a cultural phenomenon that has been independently studied before). 54 unique Google hits for "Illuminati calendar" [73] Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability -- Netsnipe (Talk) 05:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, would be a speedy keep since no one is arguing for the deletion and the speedy nominator was trying to make a point, however I'm about a week late for that. - Bobet 09:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not a porn bio expert, so I'm referring it here. Was a speedy candidate. theProject 05:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, it's not an encyclopedia article, and there's no biographical information about the subject here so that it could be turned into one based on the text. - Bobet 09:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sure how to handle this one. This person appears to be notable, but as is the obvious cut-and-paste job suggests that this violates WP:WWIN (Wikipedia is not a mirror). AED 06:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep the band, no consensus on the EPs, since only two people mentioned them and others' arguments might or might not include the albums. - Bobet 09:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article for a non-notable band. Google hits for ("sounds like chicken" band -wikipedia -myspace) = 528. No listing on Allmusic or references in 3rd party sources (or press). Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (music). Also nominated: Slowly Going the Way of the Chicken (EP) and Slowly Going the Way of the Stump (EP)-- Netsnipe (Talk) 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
database, both in gig guides. The Herald-Sun mentioned that they have a single "Take a Bullet to the Grave". I cannot see the notable and verifiable sources. If they had verifiable evidence of a claim under WP:MUSIC I would support keeping it but I can't see one. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted (by me). — Xezbeth 17:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speaks for itself. Speedy tag removed by author (who also likes to push the snazzy angle on Doc Hammer). Danny Lilithborne 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is, as danntm says, original research, propounding as it does the novel concept of "snazzy birth defects". Delete. Uncle G 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. - Bobet 09:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unimportance and lack of interest of whoever created the page to make it informative. Not every website is a notable internet meme. - Rogsheng 06:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy kept - WP:POINT. ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
SWGEmu was deleted for being unreleased, this should be no different. - Eiridan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiridan ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article with no claim to notability Bduke 08:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
We would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Duke for his comments and for making himself known to us. We took great pleasure in reading his article detailing his own notable and varied achievements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.17.189.2 ( talk • contribs) .
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been speedied twice as patent nonsense (which it's technically not, patent nonsense being gobblygook-type stuff) and deleted by prod once. It'd go by prod again, but if we get a solid AfD on it, it can be quickly speedied as db-repost. Google hits reveal nothing, and none of this is verified as required. Besides that, it's a dictionary definition, which is, without additional info, prohibited by policy.-- Kchase T 08:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Flutchue: Any globular object, usually of metal. Flutchues can take the form of spheres, cyclinders, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.103.178 ( talk) 09:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a gardening store. Makes no claim to notability. — Xezbeth 09:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, no one besides the nominator agrees with outright deletion, merging can always be done as an editorial decision by any interested party. - Bobet 09:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a commercial product, which although popular, surely does not deserve its own page Lurker haver 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Canadian university Ecology professor, 695 mainly relevant GHits, proving him to be an active ecologist in Canada. Is he an ecologist who has learned how to "soundbyte" or is he really credible? He has not apparently published books. Style of article heavily NPOV, and certainly needs tidying up. I put this to the vote Ohconfucius 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
a troublesome housing estate with a problem of racist thugs. Seems fairly typical if inner city council estates, but noteworthy enough for inclusion? Ohconfucius 10:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NFT. Nothing more to say. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as unsourced stub. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Already covered in Human sacrifice & Human sacrifice in Aztec culture. Nothing much to merge. Title sounds like an anti-Hispanic dig. -- Uncle Ed 01:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
appears to be an actress with fairly minor roles on 3 episodes of Dark Angel, 1 of sg1, and a starring role in 'Lucky Louis' and 'Along Came a Spider'. 1.78million Ghits, a lot of them to the obligatory movie-celeb sites but turn out to be not much more than dead ends. Not that notable, I think. Ohconfucius 10:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable. Almost definitely vanity. The one claim to notability is a gaming tournament consisting of 16 people with no ciation or verifiability. Note: I had listed this article for speedy delete but changed it since it makes a claim to notability, however remote it is. Konman72 11:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (all). - Bobet 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
As far as I can see, there is a clear majority. Should we now close this AfD? The tag on the articles look annoying :)-- Anupamsr| talk | contribs 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Most of the article's content suggests non-notability as a company. Vossanova o< 12:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No context or importance given. Few reviews on pouet.net. Entry on Scenery shows only a few non-notable releases. -- Vossanova o< 12:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was: redirected as variant spelling; AfD closed early as moot. Smerdis of Tlön 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a character from either a Dungeons & Dragons campaign or novel, it's not clear. No apparent claims for notability, not clear how to verify. Has been tagged for cleanup for a while. I am staying out of the discussion as I don't know the subject matter and am not sure if it needs to be deleted or not. Andrew Levine 13:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary usage or jargon guide: 'We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep' PeterGrecian 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pub crawl. No outside sources or references given. Google gives 375 hits but only 11 are unique. Metros232 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all articles. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable fantasy soccer league; will also add entries for the teams. NawlinWiki 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is unencyclopedic. The information is redundant with the information found on the Gracie's and Sakuraba's articles. If this articles stands in wikipedia we would have to write articles for any fighters that happened to have a rematch (Silva versus Sakuraba, Rogrigo Minotauro vs. Fedor, etc). Loudenvier 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, after discounting new user's comment that did not address the software's lack of notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Software article that makes no effort whatsoever to meed WP:SOFTWARE or otherwise assert notability. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems that this article is someone's original research and thus would violate WP:NOR. Frankchn 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think that this website is so important to be included in wiki. The author itself states in the article that it is a blog with just one entry! I think this is just acting as an advertisement collector which needs wiki for being pumped high in pagerank. Cantalamessa 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 21:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable podcast; vanity article. Prod removed by author. -- Merope 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Come on- deleting a legitimate comment about your policies? A little Hitleresque, don't you think?
Anyway, my point is that this entry is just as legitimate as many of the other entries on wikipedia. I figured you, as a self appointed protector of the Internet, would agree. I guess not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.246.179 ( talk • contribs) .
Fantagraphics advert for Johnny Ryan interview
Pete Bagge interview as reported on Wikipedia
Jason Crane (radio personality)link to CBH
2 CBH fans on some damn forum or other- come on, this shit counts.
Somebody put CBH up on some other pod thingy or other. Lots of these. Many by people, not bots
The result was delete, unverifiable. - Bobet 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Almost certainly a hoax. No googles. - Doc 14:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Tagged (for sources) in June and no edits since. -- Mereda 13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. This business location (garage?) seems to be part of a residence. The article on the company Farpoint Media ought to be a candidate for deletion too if editors don't assert notability soon. Mereda 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason the page should be deleted
Vanity article in breach of Wikipedia guidelines.
Subject of the article is a minor (local) politician in Northern Ireland. He is not a member of either the elected Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Parliament but is rather merely a local councillor and a former failed student politician. Pondersomething 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No consensus on merging, but if someone wants to do it, it's again an editorial decision. - Bobet 09:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Pointless Article, do we need individual articles that name heroin with each individual cutting agent? Aspensti 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It'd be happy to userfy this on request. Petros471 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete The subject of this biography may not be sufficiently notable for WP. The listed awards appear to be only scholarships and student awards. I could find no WP notability criteria for artists, but presumably they would include major shows reviewed by prominent art critics. Although "Odhiambo Siangla" produces a moderate number of google hits, most of these seem to be self-created or WP mirror sites. Possibly the page should not be deleted but instead converted to a user page. Nesbit 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a person with a very flimsy notability claim (she "continued to sleep with" Adam Worth after marrying someone else). No reference for this claim nor other context. Google gives up little. I am staying out of the discussion since I don't know enough to decide to delete or not. Andrew Levine 15:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Claims to be a fictional plant in the Star Wars universe. Gives no source (movie, book, etc.) Google search seems to turn up only sites mirroring Wikipedia content. Even if it really turns out to be "from the Star Wars universe" it seems pretty minor. Andrew Levine 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research or hoax. 0 GHits. Unencyclopedic in tone. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. - Bobet 09:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
While this might one day be nice, it now doesn't at all appear to meet WP:WEB, alexa ranking of 3,870,352 and I find no reliable sources on this so doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Most google hits on this are to other uses of the word Philica Xyzzyplugh 15:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor TV reporter. Zero Google hits on her name when coupled with ITV, Border or Lookaround Nuttah68 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Dead end article since its creation in 2005. Most of the text is about a place Unaizah which is 2nd city of a province. I haven't found any verification through Google of claimed "governor" of this city, see [82] and [83]. So, unverified and probably not notable anyway, unless anyone knows better. Mereda 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 21:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable criminal event TruthCrusader 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax/insult: "youngest person ever to receive his phd in homosexual relations". Speedy delete, if possible. Medtopic 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was transwiki. W.marsh 02:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsure as to whether this article should be moved to the Wiktionary, removed, merged or kept. Supersheep 15:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm told that this (German for artillery that does not elevate) use is genuine.
It also has another (slang) use for Erectile Dysfunction (not widely used).
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert for modelling adgency - nothing else. Entire content of page is "Stand Out Model Management is a modelling agency." plus link to Offical Site. Mattisse (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not Notable and completely false. There never was a Lachlan Taylor in Slipknot nor was there a Lachlan Taylor in Papa Roach, without these Lachlan here has no claim to fame. The article was made at the same time and by the same user as David Willet, which was deleted for the same reason I'm listing this one. Wildnox 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not 100% sure about this one. The article appears to be about an Indian political party, not a person. Although there are quite a few Google hits, after excluding Wiki mirrors I can only find two news articles (dated December 5, 2004) that refer to the organization. Although I'm conscious of
WP:CSB, it does not yet appear to be verifiably important.
Medtopic 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nomination and weak keep on the basis of good additions by
Soman.
Medtopic
17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
and that solves both the verifiability and notability issue Doctor Bruno 10:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was deleted after a prod, but later restored when contested on DRV. There is nothing in this article that couldn't be accomplished with a category. It's really needless listcreep. BigDT 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Sango 123 02:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There is already a page in place that is both linked from the main EVE Online article and is being maintained. This page is just extra. --Xander the Potato Vanquisher 14:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The result was delete. DS 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete has already been deleted twice after an uncontested Prod. Clearly a made up TV series. No sources so unverifiable. Article was recreated, so bringing here for community debate; Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up Gwernol 16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unable to verify anything about this fictional cartoon character. Medtopic 16:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I read the discussion of the first AfD and I understand very little of the administrator's decision. There wasn't a single keep and yet the article was kept. There seemed to be some sort of consensus that giving this Simpsons quote its own article is a bit over the top. The page's content hasn't changed much one year later, so I hereby nominate it again. Medico80 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. theProject 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable rapper; 31 unique Ghits for album title; speediable in my opinion but author keeps removing speedy tag. NawlinWiki 16:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Petros471 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A minor fictional character in, uh, something ( Naruto?) Not clear exactly what this about. Google search in both English turns up little, not sure what the Japanese name would be. I will stay out of this discussion for now. Andrew Levine 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page corresponds to the author listed above ( James Daniel Ross) for deletion, google gathers 105 hits for this book title. This isn't notable. Porqin 12:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per nominator withdrawal. Having grown up with these books I was a little surprised it's not Berenstein. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an extremly unlikely misspelling of bernstein bears. i kan reed 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable corporation Akradecki 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Bad article name
NCurse
work
17:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is a spam-like profile of a non-notable software company. Despite my attempts to find information on Google to improve the article, there does not seem to be any mention of this company outside press releases and the one BBC video. — ptk★ fgs 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. theProject 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article does not establish the notability of the subject. Has a history of tags being removed by the author, with the notability issue never really addressed.
The result was delete. – Rob ert 14:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A 15-story office building that is so unnoteworthy it has to be identified by its address. There are thousands upon thousands of office buildings in the world, and not all of them require a place on wikipedia. This is one of a large number of articles on buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
One of a series of articles on buildings in Windsor, Ontario (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers for one that has already been deleted). It is not of any great height or any great architectural importance and seems indistinguishable from thousands of other office buildlings in the world. Indrian 18:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A ten-story building in Windsor, Ontario that does not give any indication of being important. There are tens of thousands of ten-story buildings in the world, and not all of them deserve their own page. This article is part of a series of articles about buildings in Windsor, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An apartment building, little different from thousands of others in the world. The article claims its T-shape makes it notable, but it is hardly the only building with such a shape, which is certainly not rare. One of a series of articles on buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An apartment building, with nothing to distinguish it from the thousands of others that exist in the world. This is part of a series of articles on buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A seventeen-story apartment building that is not even finished yet. It will be virtually indistinguishable from thousands of other apartment buildings when it is finished, and it is certainly unimportant now. This article is part of a series on buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Petros471 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An apartment building no different from thousands upon thousands of others in the world. This is part of a series of articles on buildings in Windsor, Ontario, one of which has already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidarity Towers). Indrian 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. Anything else (expand, move, merge etc.) can be decided on the article's talk page. Petros471 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not establish notability. Scientology has enough of these "auditing procedures" to fill a wall of volumes. Are they all notable enough to receive their own articles? Crabapplecove 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, without prejudice to a new article being created that asserts notability using verifiable sources. Petros471 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Although he is a very real person, he did not discover Pinchite as stated in this article. The Pinchite article appears to be a copyvio. His co-found, Michael W. Pinch was deleted as I was afding this. Mattisse (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 02:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is 42nd in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 18:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is 43rd in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 18:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is over 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is over 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is over 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is over 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, there is no content in the article, except a restating of the title and an external link. I don't see the point in a redirect, since anyone who can type that title in the search bar knows everything about the school that the suggested target article would tell them. - Bobet 21:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable elementary school. I can see keeping high schools, but not elementary ones. Akradecki 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There is a wikipedia category section devoted to elementary schools, many have state by state categories. Should all of them be deleted?
"The school article is part of a series of similarly-maintained articles related to a specific school board or school district." from NN-school
The result was delete, there is no content in the article, except a restating of the title and an external link (and a motto?). I don't see the point in a redirect, since anyone who can type that title in the search bar knows everything about the school that the suggested target article would tell them. - Bobet 21:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Elementary schools are not inherently notable, unless specifically stated. Akradecki 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is half advertisement and half about a non-notable gag on Clone High. Knork is a registered trademark of Knork Flatware [94]. TomTheHand 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Provides no sources, found no reliable sources via Google. Violates WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NEO. — ` CRAZY` (IN)` SANE` 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to British Isles. User:Angr 13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page falls foul of WP:NEO - it is a neologism with an article. Its content is almost entirely duplicated in British Isles, which covers this term, with sources, in just one sentence. There is little potential for expansion (unlike, say Islands of the North Atlantic, which discusses the political context of the name). I see no justification for having this article -- Robdurbar 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Thoughts on my longwinded response? Please note that I have no emotional attachment to either side. My own ancestors number among them both Celts and Britons. Though if my mother had anything to say about it, she would remind me that her own contribution outweighs all that Irish and British DNA anyway! Isoxyl 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as neologism or, failing that, redirect to British Isles. Bastun 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Robdurbar, you still argue that you don’t understand why this article exists at all…well, if someone comes across the term ‘Anglo-Celtic Isles’, wants to find out what it means and types it into Wikipedia, they should expect to be taken to a page that explains it. Having a redirect will not do – the viewer would just be taken to the ‘British Isles’ page and will probably scratch their heads in bemusement. Reference to ACI in the BI article is deeply buried and they surely wouldn’t find it easily. If you want a redirect, you should have ACI clearly stated in the Introduction…as it once was. You wanted it removed from the Introduction and I relucantly accepted this modification (in the interests of consensus achievement and conciseness). With a redirct I believe would come the requirement to have ACI referenced explicitly in the BI article introduction. Is that really what you want?
Also, just a correction for Mal who still, incredibly, believes that people who reject the term ‘British Isles’ and use ‘Anglo-Celtic isles’ instead are a ‘minority of paranoid people of a certain political persuasion’! Fact is that the clear majority of Irish people (inhabitants of the island of Ireland) reject usage of the term; I am not paranoid nor of a ‘certain political persuasion’ if that implies any sort of extremism. Argue against the scale of rejection of the BI term until you’re blue in the face and you won’t alter it. Being Northern Irish, you should welcome anything that removes the political divisions standing between you and your neighbours – ‘Anglo-Celtic Isles’ is wonderfully disconnected from political implication…and you can still have a UK passport if you want too! Reading your views is as depressing as listening to an Ian Paisley speech in the hope of hearing something reasonable, balanced, sensitively worded and free of hatred. Pconlon 18:20, 14 August 2006
Further reasons to Keep Article. I'm all for focussing on the matter in hand. I have finally inserted into the article a nice (verified) reference I've had for a while. This is not a duplication of anything in the BI article. There are more (non-duplicate) additions to come. Isoxyl, I'm glad you agree with my point that, if a redirect route were followed, it should come with a clear reference to ACI in the BI article Introduction...something like: 'Alternative terms exist in limited use, such as 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' and 'British & Irish Isles'. The trouble is that several users (most probably contributing to this page too!) strongly opposed this. They argued either that the term didn't really exist (clearly not so!) or that usage was so limited that they didn't think it deserved the prominance of an Introduction reference. As long as this ACI article exists, and as long as someone wanting to read about it can type the term into Wikipedia and be taken to THIS article, then I'm able to reluctantly accept keeping the BI article intro as it is. The additional, non-duplicate information in this ACI article shows that this is not just a dictionary-type entry. By the way Bastun, your view about the BI term being purely geographical and 'very much in common usage in Ireland' is far from correct - this is ground we've covered/fought over long ago!! Kind regards, Pconlon 11:45, 15 August 2006
On the issue of this article's existance, can we now finally agree that there is no consensus and lay this romp to rest? Let's leave the article be. All users are of course welcome to keep an eye on it to ensure that no inappropriate verifications are used - I would ask that contentious opinions regarding additions/removals be placed in discussion for a few days before actual article changes are made. I also thank Robdurbar for his fairness and open mindedness. Kind regards, Pconlon 15:10, 18 August 2006
Redirect to British Isles. Have a subheading in the Alternative terms section of that page for each alternative name. I thing this is a clear example of a neologism, with tiny usage. It means the same as British Isles: I think it is very clear that there should be one article for the archipelago, not twenty covering each term: the debate should be on what that article is called and what is in it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-- Stonemad GB 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
People, this is not an exercise in 'getting the vote out'!! It will be petty indeed if each side went about calling in 'numbers' to support its position...which is where this is going. No one is saying that this term is in widespread use, however it is verified and is used by some, myself included. This debate is about a term that is not just concidentally used in place of another - rather it is used intentionally as an alternative term on an extremely sensitive subject. A redirect would be an insult to those of us who so use it. A suitably worded reference to it specifically should I believe be placed in the British Isles article introduction...it would be essential in the case of a redirect in my view. Pconlon 23:52, 20 August 2006
(This is rather long and bitty, so I've used separators. I beg your indulgence.)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help))The result was delete, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising a site, nor is it a place to host a 'guide for all of those new members that join the site'. Simply existing isn't a good enough reason to have an article about the website. - Bobet 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
NN web forum. Prod removed by author. -- Merope 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. RainbowCrane 07:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
As the creator acknowledges this is a limitless list that is based on a subjective assessment against arbitary criteria. Simply unencyclopaedic. Delete. BlueValour 19:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a totally nn film. No hits in IMDB, a Google search for the movie turns up one hit, which is the website listed in the article. Prod removed by author as well. Wildthing61476 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
In accordance with What Wikipedia Is Not 1.3, this article should be deleted. It is simply a fanfilm that does not have a project team or anything. Proof at Filefront's Jedi Knight Files here. Further proof is the author's comments on his/her own film: "I was bored and I decided to make a movie" Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- FireV 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Page was originally an nonsense article marked for deletion. While reading the page, I researched the movies listed, and none of the movies list an "Amit Walia" on IMDB (the movies however were listed). The one common feature of the movies was the director Alejandro Agresti. Looking into this further, it appears the author simply copy and pasted the article for Alejandro Agresti and changed the name. Delete and warn author. Wildthing61476 20:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Most definitely a hoax - someone keeps substituting this name for the real director of The Lake House (film) plange 20:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep but cleanup. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Very badly written artcle, using stuff taken from the school website but changed enoguh to avoid copyright problems. The result is a very NPOV and bad article about a school that is fairly non-notable. I tried to work out a rewrite but just can't find any decent reliable sources for most of the stuff --Errant Tmorton166( Talk)( Review me) 20:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Petros471 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems a notably pointless list. Delete. BlueValour 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An endless, subjective and impossible to maintain list Nuttah68 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a fork of an existing article.. Ral315 ( talk) 16:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Duplication of Episodes of Lost (season 3), but includes uncited speculation regarding future episodes. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 21:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Redirects to non-existent articles can be speedy deleted under criteron R1. theProject 22:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a redirect page to IPhone, an article which was recently deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IPhone Speedy Delete - Paulus89 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, technical nomination with not a single editor arguing for deletion. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Referred from the speedy deletion queue. Technical nomination. theProject 21:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, only considering this particular article. If anyone believes any of the other articles listed should also be deleted they are welcome to nominate them. Petros471 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Propaganda piece. kingboyk 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
See:
Why are none of these listed for deletion?
--
Burgas00
16:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
as it seems to me to be a needlessly POV redirect to an only partially related article (in that the article covers violence in the conflict in general not just against Israel). If it is deleted I will list the 2001 and Palestinian terrorism redirects as well, as they suffer the same problems. Yomangani talk 18:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Song from Homestar Runner. While HR itself is notable, in my opinion its songs are not. Kariià Deranged Ramblings 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ruthfulbarbarity 06:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT. No opinion from me. - Royalguard11 Talk 22:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, after DJ Clayworth's and Addhoc's excellent salvaging efforts. It's a well-referenced article; however, much of it does sound like an essay (one can tell just from reading the first sentence). Please try to remedy that. – Rob ert 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Technical nomination, as a prod was applied to an article with a prior VFD discussion. No opinion from me at this time. Prod concern was "This article is an indiscriminate collection of information." GRBerry 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was This appears to be deleted already. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Another incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT. Also included in this nomination (to save space):
The result was keep, since there are no arguments for deletion. - Bobet 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT, and nom by User:66.184.162.186. No opinion. - Royalguard11 Talk 23:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 20:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Page appears to be advertising masquerading as an article. Already speedy deleted once, and tagged speedy the second time, except removed by creator. theProject 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Incomplete AFD, found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:67.181.121.95. No opinion. - Royalguard11 Talk 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Webforum with an alexa ranking of 550,000+, doesn't meet WP:WEB, no reliable sources so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep — Mets501 ( talk) 13:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Last incomplete AFD found by User:DumbBOT, nom by User:Cassmus. No opinion. - Royalguard11 Talk 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn; speedily kept. DarthVad e r 08:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I find that this article violates three conditions of what Wikipedia is. A soapbox, a publisher of original thought, and a crystal ball. SweetNeo85 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for July 2006 created podcast that returns 3 unique google hits [106]. Fails WP:WEB, WP:NN, WP:SPAM, etc. Prod removed.-- Fuhghettaboutit 00:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply