The result was speedy delete as G1. The JPS talk to me 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely uninformative. Green caterpillar 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp× g 07:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) reply
Why did this get deleted? the information is somewhat useful and is definately verifiable. It does not violate a copyright because the clan is approved by Kyle himself. I was going to add more information, but the article got deleted.
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is basically the result of the deletion of the List of successful automobiles - see nomination/Afd page here. The reasoning/rationale is the same (see the above AfD), as those are corresponding articles, and I believe since the last decision was unusually unanimous and widely-supported, I think this should go smoothly too, so that everything remains logical and just. Bravada, talk - 08:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The article was previously nominated for deletion as List of automotive flops - the result of the previous discussion was "keep". I invite all interested users to acquaint themselves with it here. Please note that the mentioned reasons for keeping do not contradict the valid reasons for deletion raised here, and the reasons for deletion listed the last time have not been addressed by the edits made since that time (chiefly because they can't). The procedure is quite similar as with the corresponding List of successful automobiles, which was also deleted following the second nomination, when the discussion became more focused on specific deletion reasons. Bravada, talk - 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This suspiciously was followed by a very similar assasination attempt on this article, and the companion successful automobile article which also suffered an undeserved death when a similar editor nominated his own edits for execution just to get at mine. He withdrew his nomination, but was renominated by another one of the auto project gang, and it's dead too. They also want to remove every toy, every car review, every mention of any TV show or movie appearance of car and anything else they can figure out how to delete within the WP rules, not to mentionally massively uncivil behavior to enforce these rules. But I'm the bad guy. -- matador300 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page has been proded twice by two independent editors; the webpage described doesn't come close to reaching WP:WEB and is completely non-notable. Prosfilaes 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Sango 123 18:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as a hoax. This is a disputed prod; removed by an anon user. There are no relevant Google hits [5] so even if this is not fake, there are no reliable sources provided. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - Agree with the addition of the 6 people listed below.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
-- Ageo020 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily kept, bad-faith nomination. -- Golbez 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Another user started but did not complete the AfD nomination process for this article. A second editor later proposed it for speedy deletion as the creation of a banned user, but it appears to be thecreation of several editors over a period of time. The article seems harmless to me, so I take no poistion on it. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was All are being speedily kept, and all pro voters are being for being meatpuppets and disrupting WP to make a point. -- Golbez 03:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Another user started but did not complete the AfD nomination process for this article. A second editor later proposed it for speedy deletion as the creation of a banned user, but it appears to be thecreation of several editors over a period of time. The article seems harmless to me, so I take no poistion on it. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remainng article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remainng article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Keep arguments, in the main, focus on the fact that this fetish exists, so we should have a page on it even though the page can't contain an article verified by reliable sources. Please remember the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis as written). The fact that it exists to some extent isn't the question; its verifiability or lack of it is the key to whether we can write an article on it. Some also point out that we have other unsourcable articles on fetishes, to which WP:POKEMON has a very good response - as did your mother when she told you that "two wrongs don't make a right". -- Sam Blanning (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: have made some significant changes to try and justify the article further. They are basic but hopefully satisfy enough to let the article continue existing, while being improved.-- Brokethebank 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is original research, and doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability as there are no reliable sources on this. Xyzzyplugh 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable grocery store, with only one location and doesn't need a page. -- Caldorwards4 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep - CrazyRussian talk/ email 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article manages to simultaneously violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V in nearly every sentence. As was written on the talk page, it has not a single saving grace sans that the topic is, in principle, notable. Nysin 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus on whether these clearly public figures are sufficiently notable for their own articles. Some may choose to pursue a merge, which doesn't require AfD. Copyvio should be removed on sight without waiting for AfDs to close, incidentally. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Also:
Wanita "D. Woods" Woodgette,
Shannon Bex,
Wanita Woodgett,
Dawn Angelique Richard,
Aubrey O'Day,
Aundrea Fimbres... did I miss any?
Not much to suggest these are anything other than nn vanity articles. Googling "Dawn Richards"+ "Danity Kane" returns 42 hits. As for Woodgette, half the article is copyvio, the rest says that the band's first album won't be released for two months. There is a claim of notoriety notability, however, with the P.Diddy connection.
Grutness...
wha?
00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete all, hoaxes, WP:SNOW. RasputinAXP c 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Part of a rather elaborate hoax perpetrated by User:Bret John, among other user accounts. The article claims that 4 Comics is a popular Pakistani comic publisher that uses characters from Marvel Comics and Art of Fighting, among other places. This AfD covers all articles associated with 4 Comics.
Also covered in this AfD:
Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was we have consensus to keep this article, I reckon. Further, there is not nor ever was a valid claim for speedying this article — from the re-creation, we can just consider that PROD contested ... fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a re-creation of a previously deleted article re-created by the original author and subject of the article. Mallanox 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)*Comment — Just to note: 778 google hits, and 785 Yahoo hits. Article is well written. I leave it to others to detirmine the state of this in Wikipedia policy. —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep - CrazyRussian talk/ email 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOT, namely its policy against Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics and indiscriminate collection of information. Most of the transactions are non-notable and share no characteristics besides taking place during the same NHL season. Also violates WP:FUP with the inclusion of team logos for each player.
Madchester 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Year-old unsourced neologism with one relevant Google hit: [9] to, as usual, the supposed inventor's blog. Opabinia regalis 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Sango 123 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I am nominating all these article for deletion for the following given reasons.
The result was DELETE. nn hoax/nonsense. -- Madchester 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Joke article, only source is one Slashdot post. — Keenan Pepper 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable heavy metal band. NawlinWiki 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no pages that link to this disambiguation page except for the page that links to disambiguation pages. It's also not a term I think comes up very often or needs to be disambiguated. "Sex Changer" also sounds like a derogatory term for transgendered people. kian 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
original research. i never heard of "Euclidian natural units". article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions about it on the Talk:Natural units page. r b-j 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
"original research" at best, but more accurately labelled pseudoscience. article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions on Talk:Natural units. r b-j 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
"original research" at best, but more accurately labelled pseudoscience. article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions at Talk:Natural units. r b-j 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Page is a software ad, and software is of no special interest RainbowCrane 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Hardly a potential article. Currently presents just a single quotation. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇ ↯ 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. fails WP:WEB -- Madchester 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online magazine. Zero Google hits. Vanity article (created by magazine's creator). It's not clear what an "underground" website is. eaolson 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as a non-notable song and recreated, which equates to a contested prod. Song is still non-notable: no chart appearance, not even released as a single, and no other assertion of notability in the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. JIP | Talk 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic. This article has a long and sad history of trying to be cleaned up, and I think the reason they have all failed is that it just isn't a good candidate for an encyclopedia entry. It reads more like a review or critical analysis essay. There is only one reference, and that reference really has little to do with the subject of the article itself. Nearly every sentence is marked with {{fact}}, but I don't see how there could even be a source that validates any of these statements. Let us end the madness and delete this article, merging any meager scraps of verfiable fact (if there are any to be found) into E. W. Dijkstra. -- Rangek 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Both sides make good points ... and ties go to the runner. If anyone feels particularly strongly about this fellow not getting an article, they can feel free to merge him at their leisure. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO - no evidence of notable achievement presented - Delete. BlueValour 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Looks like the Emmy nomination argument was pretty well refuted; you're free to disagree, though: DRV is that way ----->. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Non-notable television writer. Not every television staff writer is notable This is it, make no mistake anymore 03:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Not creator, director or main actor, just a staff writer. There's usually dozens of these guys and they get hired and fired every week. This guy just happened to be on the staf when the large writing team at one show he worked for was nominated for an Emmy. Unless it can be shown that he is a significant and important figure in the show he's non-notable. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable excerpt from one restaurant chain's training materials. NawlinWiki 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Party game that was partly developed by "Pantsless Mike" and is only claimed to exist at one school.
The result was keep. Argument about verifiability has been refuted; argument about health hazard has been binned; argument about being silly has been taken under advisement and should undoubtedly be kept in mind next time someone invents a drinking game. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This needs to be referenced and verified and, if it is legit, probably merged with Quarters as the lede suggests. If not, delete as nn. Has been AFD'ed previously in bulk, nomination was withdrawn due to difficulty gaining consensus. Daniel Case 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Another unverified drinking game, thanks to the supporters of Rod Allen Drinking Game pointing to other similarcruft (?) articles as a reason to keep. 763 Google hits, only a few seem relevant and they're all either us or our mirrors. HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME. Daniel Case 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The current drinking game purge continues. I can find one independent reference to this game at gameosis.com. I cannot find these rules anywhere. NN in my book. Daniel Case 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article as it stands right now does not make a valid argument for Nikki to be considered notable as per WP:BIO guidelines and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
All significant Google hits are here, mirrors and a blog that links here. Daniel Case 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Not for AfD, redirected.. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
It is a double of the article Parking Garage. There isn't even enough there to merge anything into Parking Garage.
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
List better served as a cat. All blue links have been added to List of manga (except one that doesn't appear to be a manga. SeizureDog 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, although I suggest Jeff pull his finger out on these articles. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I didn't know we had so many mirrors. But no independent source. Daniel Case 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
delete per WP:BIO. Subject not notable. TV contestant who was 2nd to be evicted. no other claim to fame.
The result was Redirect. Xoloz 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
delete per WP:BIO non notable subject. evicted game show contestant with no other claim to fame Ohconfucius 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:29, 15 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 this article on a living person which is unverifiable by reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Searching through my library, I find no such reliable third party sources for any information in this article. As such, the article can't help but run counter to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well, where our official verifiability policies must be strictly enforced. Dragonfiend 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect/Merge. While there is clearly a consensus against this person having a standalone article, deletion arguments fail to address whether the content is merge-worthy. Since the show is clearly notable, mention of its winner appears appropriate, in the absense of arguments otherwise. Xoloz 03:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because you are a fan of the Big Brother series or someone asked you to, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
delete per WP:BIO Subject not notable. TV game show contestant with no other claim to fame Ohconfucius 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was: the question of whether this should be merged with one season or the other is made moot by the fact that the consensus is that being on a game/reality show twice isn't sufficient for a Wikipedia article. A redirect is not sorely needed as the search engine will pick the name up in the main articles anyway, and no merging has been done. Delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Never in a million years speediable. I've discounted the vote-only comments, which leaves Bustter's "notable because of x ghits" versus Dlyons's "not notable because of y ghits". I did some Googling myself, and no matter how I narrowed it down, there were always several hundred thousand hits there (the 32m figure is optimistic; while the early results tend to be relevant, not all are). That gets rid of the "only 60 distinct ghits" ... which leaves ... fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
advertising, link to commercial site, Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages, copyright issue for logo KenWalker | Talk 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising, no links to this page, single link to commercial site, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, logo copyright KenWalker | Talk 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO game show contestant with no other claim to notability other than her early eviction on the show Ohconfucius 04:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreleased fan-clone of GTA III. Should be deleted as wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Koffieyahoo 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (no consensus). Could perhaps be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Never heard of it. Glans at the Google results; the internet is earily silent on the matter. ...and I can't think of a lame pun for "neologism". Opabinia regalis 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO non-notable porn star who took part in reality contest Ohconfucius 04:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO early-eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge into the list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother seasons....
The result was Delete. Xoloz 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable forum site fails WP:WEB (alexa of 662,333, if you're interested). Article was de'proded. alphaChimp laudare 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Petros471 12:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO 8th ranked eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page does not contain information on the names of Pokemon; contains a romanization "created by the author;" has a title which indicates it will contain the information shown at List of Pokémon by name. While my first instinct was to merge the page with the list, this article is not useful for pronouncing the Japanese names listed on List of Pokémon by name correctly. The factual information is covered at Japanese language and Japanese writing system. Dekimasu 04:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO not notable - eliminated game show contestant Ohconfucius 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect, with the option for someone to merge (info left in history) left open. Petros471 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO early self-eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect, with the option for someone to merge (info left in history) left open. Petros471 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO subject not notable - game show contestant with STD and being the first person in Big Brother IV Ohconfucius 04:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This book is not notable in any way, is published by a vanity press, and is only ranked #1,379,403 on Amazon. Doinkies 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
propose speedy delete, for article was deleted in May and has staged a comeback. fails WP:BIO. unsourced articles full of speculation about someone who appears to be a legend in his own mind Ohconfucius 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted and redirected to Music of Jamaica. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
no sources. 1 sentence long. doesnt link. sad excuse for an article Kennykane 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Petros471 12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
delete per WP:BIO -subject not notable. real estate agent who competed in the Apprentice Ohconfucius 07:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 05:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. Petros471 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO, the subject appeared as contestant on reality game show, but is not notable Ohconfucius 06:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
this subject can be covered in a short little blurb on the pages of the reality series Apprentice or Real Housewives of NY, it does not require its own page. Also, it appears to be more of a marketing tool rather than an encyclopedic entry as it is written.-- 67.161.73.96 ( talk) 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Petros471 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
delete per WP:BIO budding entrepreneur not yet notable, 78,000Ghits, the majority of which are for Miami Dolphin footballer Ohconfucius 06:21, 8 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. Petros471 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
per WP:BIO. not notable: Mortgage lender from Boise Idaho who was contestant on the Apprentice Ohconfucius 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by William M. Connolley. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 09:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There's no information on the article, and it treats Wikipedia as an up-to-the-minute news board forum thing of some sort. Plus it violates that WP:NOT a crystal ball thing. JD don't talk| email] 07:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web comic; prod tag removed without comment OhNoitsJamie Talk 07:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Its a new webcomic... Die IRL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.101.40 ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Sango 123 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Utterly unencyclopedic. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 07:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is about an elementary school (one among millions in the world) that is undistinguished. Also, the article is based largely on unpublished information. Daphne A 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:WEB; this appears to refer to a single user's nonnotable blog. -- Graham 08:16, 8 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. Petros471 13:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy as nn-group, but as there is uncertainty if it qualifies, I am listing it here instead. Discussion on the talk page indicates some (but possibly insufficient) independent coverage. Delete unless better explanation of notability makes it into the article. Kusma (討論) 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently self-promotion for a new non-notable computer language. Prod first, which was removed, but I think it does not qualify for speedy. Delete anyway unless reliable independent sources are found. Kusma (討論) 08:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious neologism; short stub. Benwing 08:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. ~ c. tales *talk* 04:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, not notable. Benwing 08:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism; seems to have no currency outside the gaming community and not much inside. Benwing 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism; page is mostly original research. Benwing 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into Lipstick lesbian. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable; a neologism from the Ellen Degeneres Show. Benwing 08:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Stub; obvious neologism. Benwing 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTE: This was originally in the Aug 7 list, and was the reason why all the other similar words later got put on the AfD list (see posting below). I moved it to the Aug 8 list along with the other similar words, so that they all get reviewed together. Benwing
Not notable; a recently-coined term on the series "The L Word" with questionable currency. Benwing 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not at all against detailed coverage of gay/lesbian-related issues in Wikipedia but I'm concerned about Wikipedia being used as a sort of soapbox to try and make ephemeral terms gain wider currency. Benwing 09:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
None notable e-fed (people pretending to be wrestlers, fails WP:WEB amongst other things. Strong delete Englishrose 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, apparently coined this year on somebody's blog. The only references that can be found are the blog itself, and urbandictionary (which has standards that make Wikipedia look like a serious encyclopedia). If there's no evidence that this is in wide usage, it should be deleted. — sjorford ++ 09:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sligh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U/G Madness. Individual Magic decks not notable, as Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. (This one never even won a major tournament.) Features one of my favorite bullet points on Wikipedia: "The deck was widely considered fun to play." Andrew Levine 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:Tyrenius per CSD A7. [20] — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. No albums, non-notable members. First I tried a prod tag, but that was repeatedly reverted. The creator does no effort to assert notabilty. Medico80 10:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Incorrectly listed. AfD is not to be used for redirects or moves. Please list it at WP:RM or WP:RFD. Viridae Talk 11:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
List of Numb3rs episodes (a redirect) is to be deleted please, so List of NUMB3RS episodes can be renamed properly : please see Talk:Numb3rs#title in capital letters - kernitou talk 10:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Ian¹³ /t 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Simply a non-notable subject Eusebeus 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Closed early as no consensus, because:
Delete - Stinks of POV, useless, non encyclopedic, propagadna... -- Haham hanuka 08:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.110.11 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 August 2006
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ~ c. tales \\tk// 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
User:75.108.54.176 put the deletion template on the article Brown's gas.
hypocracyonwiki 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hypocracyonwiki ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. LinaMishima 00:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nominated for deletion on grounds of notability. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubc0724 ( talk • contribs) .
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
delete per WP:BIO - non-notable subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 8 August 2006
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was redirected to List of pseudoscientific theories But, of course, non mainstream theories are not pseudoscientific at all. It is just an attempt by some supporters of certain pseudoscientific theories to argue that pseudoscience is just non-mainstream science. I therefore vote to delete this article. Count Iblis 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Rippercruft. The article proclaims its subject's own non-notability in the opening paragraph: her only importance in history is being "sometimes mentioned in connection with Jack the Ripper", and then concludes by admitting there's no evidence for any claim of such a connection. wikipediatrix 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
User:75.108.54.176 put the deletion template on the article Oxyhydrogen flame.
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This does not appear notable or worthy of an entry. Let me know if I am wrong here. Thanks Dubc0724 15:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Please note I considered the quality and substance to the arguments presented. This is not a vote counting exercise. Petros471 13:29, 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}} . |
Both the readers and The Author would like to know why it was suggested for deletion?
It doesn't fall into any category under the wikipedia Deletion Policy, so Why Has it been nominated? Churba 05:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
According to the edit summary that added the deletion text, "nominated for deletion due to non-notability". I'm not sure I could agree with that since every other comic on KeenSpot has a page too, no matter how small. Maybe the content of the article needs refocused more towards a particular goal, but that's not qualification of a deletion in my eyes. -- Zimzat 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: I really don't see a reason for this entry to be deleted. The webcomic in question is viewed by albiet a small fanbase, but a fanbasenonetheless. Other Keenspot artists have their comics listed, such as Clan of the Cats. And there is no controversy over that. If the question of if entry is purely vanity is really that much of a difference, multiple fans of the comic have already come to edit it and prove that it means something to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tin-chan ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC). reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This Article is a Hoax. There is no such league and if it is real it is riddled with lies. No UBL team plays in the Delta Center, and no UBL games are on any TV station. FancyPants 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person Dancarney 11:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Lbmixpro. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 05:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like nonsense, non-notable group as far as I can tell. The articles writer has removed the CSD tag so I've brought it here RMHED 12:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Alot of POV unsourced information about an unkown google video - in fact there are NO google hists for the title of this film! --Errant Tmorton166( Talk)( Review me) 12:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
29 unique Googles, creator has no history other than this article and linking it and its website to other articles. No evidence of meeeting WP:CORP, advertorial tone. The oly sources are the company's website and an entry which "has either been provided by the company, or has been compiled by the Bureau from other sources." Just zis Guy you know? 12:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like a non-serious personal article for a small group of people on interconnecting Wikipedia pages. Was link to user page Cedric Lessing which I removed. Mattisse (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
You know what!? Remove the tag or I'm telling Greg! —The Pope — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariusz Zielinski ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Irrelevant article linked to Bob Teller page nominated above and written in similar joking tone. Mattisse (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
You out of it! I'M TELLING CHRIS RIGHT NOW! — Mariusz Zielinski 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a notable figure. He has zero noteworthy accomplishments of any kind. Wikipedia does not need an article for every back-up college quarterback or similarly insignificant athletes. -- TexasDawg 12:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, then redirect to Travel insurance. - Bobet 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising spam, copyvio [27] but since author claims permission given I'd rather have it delete through AfD. - Mailer Dia b lo 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No relevant or noteworthy information has been provided in the article (including the cruft I've reverted out multiple times); no apparent claim to notability. -- Emufarmers( T/ C) 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (apparent bad faith nom) Syrthiss 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I request this article to be deleted because it was made without my permission or consultance. -- Lightbulb-Bulblight 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Incomplete nomination - completing. Subject requests deletion. See this. Viridae Talk 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No, I didnt -- Lightbulb-Bulblight 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
That doesnt prove anything -- Lightbulb-Bulblight 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 13:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
appears to be nothing more than a cut 'n' paste from PR literature Markb 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete based upon WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY arguments below. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Author(who's username is the same as article) removed prod. Does not meet WP:BIO(does not assert any particular notability). i kan reed 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability per WP:WEB --Clappingsimon talk 14:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep – Gurch 12:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This is probably big enough to be notable, but some people might think otherwise. - TruthbringerToronto 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Classic Vacations is a subsidiary of Expedia Inc and deserves a page just as the like of other Expedia sub-companies such as Hotels.com and TripAdvisor.
-
sthakkar
23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was roundhouse keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Only notability of this product is its association with Chuck Norris. As it reads currently, article is a non-notable unencyclopedic vanity advertisement. Katr67 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge.
Petros471
13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
high school rugby team that is apparently very successful. I removed a line from the article about a feature film on them coming out in 2007; until then, though, I think this is not an appropriate encyclopedia article topic. Plus, entirely unsourced, et cetera. If this is deleted, the logo Image:HR Logo.jpg should be deleted as well. Mango juice talk 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company; only a single Google hit. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. -- Haakon 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. Few related Google hits. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. -- Haakon 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
neologism. WP:NOT wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Crossmr 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Already deleted once. Record of discussion here. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. -- DarkAudit 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a bus/trolley schedule. -- DarkAudit 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. -- DarkAudit 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was near unanimous keep. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 01:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
wikipedia is not a bus schedule -- DarkAudit 15:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is sufficiently encyclopedic. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
*delete
WP:NEO neologism. we could reinstate it of any reputable university has a course on it. Any useful content here can be merged into
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Ohconfucius
03:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
Are there still any major issues that people have with the article that might be addressed? -- Paxomen 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, crystal ball, vanity piece. Prod removed by author -- Merope 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Yours Truely,
Nathan Couch
Your Truely,
Nathan Couch
Found on WP:VAIN
"It is believed that the majority of vanity article creators forget about their vanity articles and do not revisit at all; this is evident in that they rarely defend the article during the deletion debate."
I think we all know by now we are not just "passer-byers" that will post a small snippet of our work and move on hoping that we get discovered by an indie film producer.
"Lack of fame is not the same as vanity."
"Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship."
Isn't this the problem?
"If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them" but then it also says "Lack of fame is not the same as vanity"... So my misunderstanding here is: How could any independent movie company write about themselves if they are not that well known... because it says "lack of fame isn't the same as vanity" and isn't that why were are getting deleted... because of a not known film?
Vanity edits: examples I've taken a look at that category and we are not breaking any of those rules simply because we are promoting nothing.
"The most significant problem with vanity articles is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors"
I can name multiple editors, locally, that come upon wiki everyday that know of this film that could and would edit the page. A great deal more than twenty.
From WP:NFT
I am insulted that you would take the article as a "school day policy"... not by the name but by what I have read. This article was NOT yo create for "new lingo" we could show our fellow classmates at school. We have webhosting, and we weren't planning on using this as webhosting. As a creator of a site I do take band-width into consideration, but this article was not going to be used just "for our own purposes". It just seemed the whole school day policy didn't apply to this situation at all... excuse me if I am wrong.
From WP:SPAM
I am sorry, but I have read every inch of that page and can not find one thing we could get accused for. We are not spam bots, we're not votestacking, I think it's clear by now we are not campaigning, and we are not canvasing.
You are correct. I do believe that is what the world needs these days is verification. We do not have Behind Tinted Glasses in an original search, and we do not have Behind Tinted Glasses verified as a movie at all besides the author's words which we are giving you. (if that means anything at all) But doesn't this all go back to "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia" found WP:VAIN
From Wikipedia:Snowball_clause
"The policy also states that "[a]ny substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early."
"Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion allows for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that arguments are fully examined, and maintains the appearance of fairness."
I really do appreciate all of you moderators who have left this discussion open, and those who have had open ears. I, Nathan, am not here to argue by any means, but just try to understand the rules thouroughly because at this point, the only thing that, I can see, is against us is a not known film. But the rules state the article does not need to have a famous-based article. So having that said, if you could clear up the rules we are specifically breaking, and just allow us this 30k space, it would be so much appreciated since the article has been worked on hard.
So with all the reasons and rules out why we don't want a wiki page (like egos and such), some might be thinking, "Why do they want one?" Without heroic theme music or cheesy catch lines, we belive that people should hear the story of three film makers going through anything and everything to get their film made and I believe that's what people really want to hear these days, a good story. A good, true, story.
-Nathan Couch
Thanks for the suggestion, but why wouldn't any article on wiki have a website? We are in the process of getting a website at the moment but we feel it is more convenient to host an article on wiki for several reasons as followed:
Thanks for everyone's listening.
-Nathan Couch
The result was merciful delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fanfiction. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The article is, by its own terms, about a name unpopular in its native land; that, taken together with lack of explanation/cultural context (to say nothing of verifiable sources) makes this a borderline CSD A1 speedy. Delete, in any case, is the consensus here. Xoloz 04:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page only describes (incorrectly, at that) the English transliteration of the Japanese transliteration of the name Ryan. (The correct transliteration of the transliteration is Raian.) A Google Japan search suggests to me that I have misspelled Ryan and has no hits outside of the Middle East. There are a number of hits for Raian, but if this is the standard, we'll soon have a page on the Japanese version of every English name. And the article even focuses on how uncommon the name is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekimasu ( talk • contribs)
The result was speedy delete as a page that consisted only of a link to another page; no content, no context, not a real redirect. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Somehow I think SPD fits this better, but I'll let the article speak for itself. CPAScott 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable webpage/organization(it's hard to tell) author removed a 2 different prods without reason and a prod2 moved to afd i kan reed 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
you never had warned me.... so that is a lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruutbuut ( talk • contribs)
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
OR, as author admits in comments. Nuttah68 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 13:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not even the main character, Ramza, has his own page. In adition, it's horridly written, with no sources, and some obvious POV. Probably falls into cruft. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to violate WP:NOR; may not be very notable either as a separate classification of television series Crisu 16:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
False, uncited information. Only a couple of Google hits, none of which back up the claims made. -- Chris (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a memorial, Should be deleted. We dont need a page for every death in the world. Also Not Notable. Feedyourfeet 12:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As esWiki has an article this is technically a speedy. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is in spanish and has not been edited since july 20.
-- Ernalve 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article discusses a non-notable position that only exists in some organizations. It cites no sources or references, hasn't been substantively edited (or probably even seen) in a couple years, and until yesterday had no links. This position probably merits at most a sentence or two in the main fraternities and sororities article. -- SuperNova | T| C| 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. - Bobet 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Can't possibly be notable enough to warrent an article-- Frip1000 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
REQUEST Please do not delete I will finish the article soon.It was first made by someone else who was trying to put the game into a bad light.I started working on it already it will be completed in a day or two.Thanks.kirk1987
ANOTHER REQUEST As you can see I have developed the article even more but I need some help I don't know how to put a picture in it...i have uploaded the file but I don't know how to put it on the article...could somebody help me with that?Meanwhile I will continue to add further even more detailed information.Please do not delete it and teach me how to insert a picture in it.Thanks(kirk1987)
The article is finished.I've added many informations, links to this article are in the MMORPG list article, and at the Free MMORPG article(with a short introduction there and a link to the official site and wikipedia main article).I think that now the article is complete and therefore could that announcement that it is considered for deletion dissapear? Many thanks kirk1987.
Keep. good faith, not entirely non-notable. Cdcon 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete because this was all hashed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter: Book Seven (film) and the situation has not demonstrably changed in the interim. Uncle G 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... Computerjoe 's talk 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy DELETED. - Doc 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like a completely uninformative page. Green caterpillar 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a curious mix of fact and fiction, a testament to the fact that there is nothing so inherently absurd that some crackpot somewhere will not believe it. The only thing is, given that we lead the table of around 100 unique google hits, we appear to be leading the race to tell the world about this ludicrous idea. Exclude Wikipedia and the leading lights include YTMND and the Aryan Nations forums. There being no reliable sources out there, on account of the idea itself being barking mad, scientifically impossible (then and now) and 100% evidence free, this article is inherently original research. Not bad research, in that it documents pretty well the entire absurd conceit, but the linked sources are absolutely not what we would consider reliable.
From the deletion log at its previous home Nazi moon base, now a redirect:
First AfD was a speedy delete, second was no consensus. I recommend a transwiki to Uncyclopaeida. Just zis Guy you know? 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. After reviewing Talk:Kingdom of Talossa, Talk:Republic of Talossa (where an old VFD discussion can be found), and the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Talossa (and refreshing my memory of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talossan language, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Ben Madison) it is clear that this AFD nomination is disruption resulting from editors losing a content dispute on this list article with other editors who are attempting to keep original research out of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Uncle G 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page should be deleted because it will never provide a list of all micronations because of mean admins. -- Kitia
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The ITV website talks about some countdown to the third series having started, and this article speaks of the fourth series. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. --
JD
don't talk
email me
18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB; is also quite spammy. Prod and prod2 removed by author. -- Merope 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable wiki, seems to fail WP:WEB. Looks like advertising/spam. Peephole 18:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Prod removed by author. The article even asserts its non-notability: "Used seldomly for nearly a decade now, eml32118 has gained little popularity in the tech community." Sheesh. -- Merope 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
nn company, doesn't meet WP:CORP. Delete Owen× ☎ 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus on whether this character should be merged to a list that doesn't exist with articles that aren't specified. Defaulting to keep. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor character from one film, no way notable. Redirect and merge at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentsoo ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable website (see WP:WEB) with lots of linkspam (some of which I removed). Author misrepresented Alexa rating in the article (I fixed it). The alexa rating is 455,863. Author removed prod tag. Delete ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Question: the CarGurus site displays content about many cars which have had Haynes manuals written about them. Note 7 of [[WP::CORP]] specifically mentions this as an example of a notable product. So it would seem to apply? -- YoavShapira 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, thanks again for explaining these, I understand now. -- YoavShapira 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Xoloz 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, I'm not sure of the best reason, but this oft-vandalized article seems to be about a nn-chat site for something related to Transformers. It reads somewhat like advertising and has some attack of somebody sprinkled into it in most versions. I know I'm not summarizing this well, maybe someone else can do a better job.... -- Brian G ( Talk) 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
the "Attack" on Jack is not an attack, but the honest truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.194.127 ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. - Bobet 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a tough one. For the first time I'm nominating a page that I'm not certain should be deleted. The majority of the content in the article deserves to be removed as unverified and possibly original research, and the article as a whole fails WP:NPOV for reasons discussed at length in the talk page for the article. Over a week ago I tagged the article with {{ not verified}} and {{ unreferenced}}, but nobody has edited the article since. I could simply remove the POV material, but that would leave an article too brief even for a stub ("Al-Hama is a town in Syria", pretty much) and even that has proved difficult to verify. I would welcome discussion from the community on the appropriate fate for this page. For now, my inclination is delete. VoiceOfReason 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actress, 47 ghits for 'cristy joy slavis' +actress, and 111 for just 'cristy joy slavis'; fails WP:BIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith ( talk • contribs)
The result was speedy delete. the wub "?!" 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability of subject is not established, article is doubtful, probable hoax. TheM62Manchester 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable news website. Google turns up 11 hits for "Connor Star" +Dorchester. Danny Lilithborne 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable.. Was in a rather non-notable band and he should not be confused with the actor Scott MacDonald who has an IMDb entry. "Scott MacDonald" spoons on Google gets 397 hits, mostly being Wikipedia mirrors. Mrtea (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:V and non-notable. Marked for speedy delete shortly after article creation in December 2005. Prod in April 2006 removed without comment. Marked {{unreferenced}}
from April to July, but that template was removed with an edit summary that I don't understand even though it is still unreferenced.
Quale
20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
{{unreferenced}}
template from the article?
Quale
18:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Organization founded by Darian Kovacs; article was created by, you guessed it, User:Dariankovacs. It may be interesting that "through another divine appointment, Darian met with businessman Ed Becker for pie during the summer of 2000." Must have been some pie, but still fails WP:ORG (as it does not have sufficient media coverage) and, additionally, should be deleted per WP:SPAM and WP:AUTO. JChap T/ E 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is second nomination for this online game. First result was delete but it is still here. Some hits on Google. Mattisse (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, then redirect. Xoloz 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page already exists at Tenders. There isn't such a difference in the tendering process between public and private that it needs a separate page. At AfD because the creator objected to a simple redirect. Oz Lawyer 21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Xoloz 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, non-encyclopedic essay. Page is not being improved and appears to have been abandoned by its original editors. Quale 21:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Xoloz 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Nuttah68 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not-notable, Possible cruft Bschott 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Promotion for forth-coming movie. Written by film-maker. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AlistairMcMillan 21:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 13:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An advertisement masquerading as an article about a posture correcting brace. An article with this name has deleted twice as an uncontested prod ( log). The current article is a very close copy of the text in this pdf. WP:NOT for advertising. Mr Stephen 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Print-on-demand paperback = delete. Reads like an advert, contains likely copyvio back-cover-type synopsis. A very persistent editor resists all attempts to despam and decopyvio this thing so it should simply be nuked. Quale 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As with many game guide articles, Man in Black's argument says it all: this is original research or nothing. The only argument the keep side has for this not falling into the "game guide" material explicitly prohibited by What Wikipedia is not is the material about the "evolution" of the units; without sourcing other than expecting readers looking for verifiability to play one game and then play another, this is classic original research. Unreferenced tags are for articles which lack sources but the subject has them available; despite this AfD remaining open for a week after normal time no available sources have been nominated and it is clear that such a tag would not improve anything. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This subject is wholly unnecessary and unsuitable for a general encyclopedia. Its counterpart for Advance Wars was deleted awhile ago, so I'm surprised this is still hanging around. This adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the game and is only useful to players of the game. Delete. Wickethewok 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Yanksox with summary "CSD G1". BryanG (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I am not sure why we need an article on the name of a tropical Storm that may/may not occur 6 years from now. I am sure the Hurricane/Cyclone centers have a list of names ready for 2012, this seems a bit odd to add. Let's wait til after the storm, and then add it. Also, the storms name is spelled incorrectly. rhmoore 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd say db-bio, but figured best to leave to debate. My contention is it fails the notability test. CPAScott 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:V, no sources, and a non-notable "video game performance art" group in any case. The first AFD was closed as a no-consensus keep which was an arguably incorrect decision with only one signed keep vote and the WP:V problem unaddressed. Quale 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Commercial video that could be described on the articles for Scorpion (Mortal Kombat), Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, or Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, but is not notable enough for its own page. Jeff Silvers 22:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ~ c. tales *talk* 04:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article fails to establish notability. Was speedied, then undeleted out of process. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: This has been listed on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Tyrenius 00:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems pointless. There is no new information here; it can all be found at relevant album pages Chillymail 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Google hits refer mostly to a book - not sure of its notability. JD don't talk email me 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy under A6 The JPS talk to me 22:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been deleted several times before; little new reason to keep Subwayguy 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Remember this is not a vote. Petros471 13:52, 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}} . |
Seems to me like this message board is not notable. Author removed prod. You guys decide. Mattisse (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A short unsourced article about a non-notable building, only one link to it. ColinFine 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-encyclopedic article of non-notable event. Completely lacking in any information to provide verification, importance, notability, or even what city or country this takes place. Pub-crawls are a dime-a-dozen. {{ prod}} removed without any explanation or improvement in the serious deficiencies in the article. Agent 86 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete on the grounds of being silly vandalism (CSD criterion G3) and an attack page (CSD criterion A6). It's reasonably obvious that someone thought that it would be a grand wheeze to attack someone named Nic Frost by writing a Wikipedia article about a fictitious university position and filling it full of both subtle and blatant references to Mr. Frost's sexual activities. I had a look to see whether I could find anything real to write a stub article about. I couldn't. Uncle G 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a hoax, there is no mention of it anywhere apart from WP, including the websites of the University of Adelaide and Pfizer. — Dunc| ☺ 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Sirs,
Howard T. Sturgeon believes that Newcastle Online is simply not notable. Howard T. Sturgeon believes that it is certainly less notable than the currently-listed-for-deletion Sunderland Message Board. Howard T. Sturgeon supports the Quinn régime 100%.
As ever,
Howard
Howard T. Sturgeon 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
advertisement CPAScott 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This is already mentioned at the Garfield article, and what isn't, is original research. - Bobet 12:06, 15 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}} . |
I recommend that this page be deleted and the material, minus the silly, unsubstantiated "starvation" rumors, merged back into Garfield. These strips do not merit a standalone page, and the rumors and "theories" which, for all we know, originated on Wikipedia, need to be purged. Thunderbunny 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Additionally, the "home" entry is very complete and well-written; I think merging would detract from its comprehensiveness and clarity. Gorjus 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was: currently redirected to Liberal theory of economics - with no-one supporting the existence of this page as a separate article, this AfD appears to endorse a redirect somewhere, though where it should redirect is not AfD's remit. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research and neologism. It's not clear if the author means that this term "is rarely heard in the United States but is used in other countries" or if he's admitting this is a neologism. eaolson 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable advertising. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-published, advertising - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable advertising. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Please explain the difference between that article and the others in the Commerce websites category. -- Vercasso 03:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
I think the article Printakid respects those criteria:
If needed, I could scan and provide proof of many other notable articles.
If needed, I could transfer and provide some Mpegs or mp3s of the actual shows.
In the smaller Quebec market, any book that sells over 3000 copies (in its lifetime) is considered a best-seller (all categories of books included). Half the books of the company have surpassed that number, and the others will in the next six months. I don't imagine that notability, in that area, has to be comparable to Ebay or Amazon.
I am willing to change parts of the article that would seem too much "advertisement" to some wikipedians, because I understand their concerns. However, on the notability criteria, as defined by the actual rules, I see less ground for exclusion. -- Vercasso 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ephermal neologism. See also WP:WPINAD. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable library with 14,000 books. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, mostly a rambling biography. Also, don't go to their site. It performs "illegal functions" according to Firefox. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Upcoming game, apparently. Non-notable. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as G1. The JPS talk to me 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely uninformative. Green caterpillar 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp× g 07:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) reply
Why did this get deleted? the information is somewhat useful and is definately verifiable. It does not violate a copyright because the clan is approved by Kyle himself. I was going to add more information, but the article got deleted.
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is basically the result of the deletion of the List of successful automobiles - see nomination/Afd page here. The reasoning/rationale is the same (see the above AfD), as those are corresponding articles, and I believe since the last decision was unusually unanimous and widely-supported, I think this should go smoothly too, so that everything remains logical and just. Bravada, talk - 08:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The article was previously nominated for deletion as List of automotive flops - the result of the previous discussion was "keep". I invite all interested users to acquaint themselves with it here. Please note that the mentioned reasons for keeping do not contradict the valid reasons for deletion raised here, and the reasons for deletion listed the last time have not been addressed by the edits made since that time (chiefly because they can't). The procedure is quite similar as with the corresponding List of successful automobiles, which was also deleted following the second nomination, when the discussion became more focused on specific deletion reasons. Bravada, talk - 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This suspiciously was followed by a very similar assasination attempt on this article, and the companion successful automobile article which also suffered an undeserved death when a similar editor nominated his own edits for execution just to get at mine. He withdrew his nomination, but was renominated by another one of the auto project gang, and it's dead too. They also want to remove every toy, every car review, every mention of any TV show or movie appearance of car and anything else they can figure out how to delete within the WP rules, not to mentionally massively uncivil behavior to enforce these rules. But I'm the bad guy. -- matador300 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page has been proded twice by two independent editors; the webpage described doesn't come close to reaching WP:WEB and is completely non-notable. Prosfilaes 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Sango 123 18:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as a hoax. This is a disputed prod; removed by an anon user. There are no relevant Google hits [5] so even if this is not fake, there are no reliable sources provided. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - Agree with the addition of the 6 people listed below.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
-- Ageo020 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily kept, bad-faith nomination. -- Golbez 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Another user started but did not complete the AfD nomination process for this article. A second editor later proposed it for speedy deletion as the creation of a banned user, but it appears to be thecreation of several editors over a period of time. The article seems harmless to me, so I take no poistion on it. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was All are being speedily kept, and all pro voters are being for being meatpuppets and disrupting WP to make a point. -- Golbez 03:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Another user started but did not complete the AfD nomination process for this article. A second editor later proposed it for speedy deletion as the creation of a banned user, but it appears to be thecreation of several editors over a period of time. The article seems harmless to me, so I take no poistion on it. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remainng article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remainng article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Keep arguments, in the main, focus on the fact that this fetish exists, so we should have a page on it even though the page can't contain an article verified by reliable sources. Please remember the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis as written). The fact that it exists to some extent isn't the question; its verifiability or lack of it is the key to whether we can write an article on it. Some also point out that we have other unsourcable articles on fetishes, to which WP:POKEMON has a very good response - as did your mother when she told you that "two wrongs don't make a right". -- Sam Blanning (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: have made some significant changes to try and justify the article further. They are basic but hopefully satisfy enough to let the article continue existing, while being improved.-- Brokethebank 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is original research, and doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability as there are no reliable sources on this. Xyzzyplugh 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable grocery store, with only one location and doesn't need a page. -- Caldorwards4 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep - CrazyRussian talk/ email 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article manages to simultaneously violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V in nearly every sentence. As was written on the talk page, it has not a single saving grace sans that the topic is, in principle, notable. Nysin 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus on whether these clearly public figures are sufficiently notable for their own articles. Some may choose to pursue a merge, which doesn't require AfD. Copyvio should be removed on sight without waiting for AfDs to close, incidentally. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Also:
Wanita "D. Woods" Woodgette,
Shannon Bex,
Wanita Woodgett,
Dawn Angelique Richard,
Aubrey O'Day,
Aundrea Fimbres... did I miss any?
Not much to suggest these are anything other than nn vanity articles. Googling "Dawn Richards"+ "Danity Kane" returns 42 hits. As for Woodgette, half the article is copyvio, the rest says that the band's first album won't be released for two months. There is a claim of notoriety notability, however, with the P.Diddy connection.
Grutness...
wha?
00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete all, hoaxes, WP:SNOW. RasputinAXP c 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Part of a rather elaborate hoax perpetrated by User:Bret John, among other user accounts. The article claims that 4 Comics is a popular Pakistani comic publisher that uses characters from Marvel Comics and Art of Fighting, among other places. This AfD covers all articles associated with 4 Comics.
Also covered in this AfD:
Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was we have consensus to keep this article, I reckon. Further, there is not nor ever was a valid claim for speedying this article — from the re-creation, we can just consider that PROD contested ... fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a re-creation of a previously deleted article re-created by the original author and subject of the article. Mallanox 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)*Comment — Just to note: 778 google hits, and 785 Yahoo hits. Article is well written. I leave it to others to detirmine the state of this in Wikipedia policy. —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep - CrazyRussian talk/ email 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOT, namely its policy against Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics and indiscriminate collection of information. Most of the transactions are non-notable and share no characteristics besides taking place during the same NHL season. Also violates WP:FUP with the inclusion of team logos for each player.
Madchester 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Year-old unsourced neologism with one relevant Google hit: [9] to, as usual, the supposed inventor's blog. Opabinia regalis 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Sango 123 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I am nominating all these article for deletion for the following given reasons.
The result was DELETE. nn hoax/nonsense. -- Madchester 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Joke article, only source is one Slashdot post. — Keenan Pepper 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable heavy metal band. NawlinWiki 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no pages that link to this disambiguation page except for the page that links to disambiguation pages. It's also not a term I think comes up very often or needs to be disambiguated. "Sex Changer" also sounds like a derogatory term for transgendered people. kian 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
original research. i never heard of "Euclidian natural units". article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions about it on the Talk:Natural units page. r b-j 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
"original research" at best, but more accurately labelled pseudoscience. article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions on Talk:Natural units. r b-j 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
"original research" at best, but more accurately labelled pseudoscience. article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions at Talk:Natural units. r b-j 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Page is a software ad, and software is of no special interest RainbowCrane 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Hardly a potential article. Currently presents just a single quotation. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇ ↯ 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. fails WP:WEB -- Madchester 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online magazine. Zero Google hits. Vanity article (created by magazine's creator). It's not clear what an "underground" website is. eaolson 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as a non-notable song and recreated, which equates to a contested prod. Song is still non-notable: no chart appearance, not even released as a single, and no other assertion of notability in the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. JIP | Talk 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic. This article has a long and sad history of trying to be cleaned up, and I think the reason they have all failed is that it just isn't a good candidate for an encyclopedia entry. It reads more like a review or critical analysis essay. There is only one reference, and that reference really has little to do with the subject of the article itself. Nearly every sentence is marked with {{fact}}, but I don't see how there could even be a source that validates any of these statements. Let us end the madness and delete this article, merging any meager scraps of verfiable fact (if there are any to be found) into E. W. Dijkstra. -- Rangek 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Both sides make good points ... and ties go to the runner. If anyone feels particularly strongly about this fellow not getting an article, they can feel free to merge him at their leisure. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO - no evidence of notable achievement presented - Delete. BlueValour 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Looks like the Emmy nomination argument was pretty well refuted; you're free to disagree, though: DRV is that way ----->. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Non-notable television writer. Not every television staff writer is notable This is it, make no mistake anymore 03:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Not creator, director or main actor, just a staff writer. There's usually dozens of these guys and they get hired and fired every week. This guy just happened to be on the staf when the large writing team at one show he worked for was nominated for an Emmy. Unless it can be shown that he is a significant and important figure in the show he's non-notable. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable excerpt from one restaurant chain's training materials. NawlinWiki 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Party game that was partly developed by "Pantsless Mike" and is only claimed to exist at one school.
The result was keep. Argument about verifiability has been refuted; argument about health hazard has been binned; argument about being silly has been taken under advisement and should undoubtedly be kept in mind next time someone invents a drinking game. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This needs to be referenced and verified and, if it is legit, probably merged with Quarters as the lede suggests. If not, delete as nn. Has been AFD'ed previously in bulk, nomination was withdrawn due to difficulty gaining consensus. Daniel Case 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Another unverified drinking game, thanks to the supporters of Rod Allen Drinking Game pointing to other similarcruft (?) articles as a reason to keep. 763 Google hits, only a few seem relevant and they're all either us or our mirrors. HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME. Daniel Case 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The current drinking game purge continues. I can find one independent reference to this game at gameosis.com. I cannot find these rules anywhere. NN in my book. Daniel Case 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article as it stands right now does not make a valid argument for Nikki to be considered notable as per WP:BIO guidelines and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
All significant Google hits are here, mirrors and a blog that links here. Daniel Case 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Not for AfD, redirected.. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
It is a double of the article Parking Garage. There isn't even enough there to merge anything into Parking Garage.
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
List better served as a cat. All blue links have been added to List of manga (except one that doesn't appear to be a manga. SeizureDog 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, although I suggest Jeff pull his finger out on these articles. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I didn't know we had so many mirrors. But no independent source. Daniel Case 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
delete per WP:BIO. Subject not notable. TV contestant who was 2nd to be evicted. no other claim to fame.
The result was Redirect. Xoloz 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
delete per WP:BIO non notable subject. evicted game show contestant with no other claim to fame Ohconfucius 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:29, 15 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 this article on a living person which is unverifiable by reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Searching through my library, I find no such reliable third party sources for any information in this article. As such, the article can't help but run counter to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well, where our official verifiability policies must be strictly enforced. Dragonfiend 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect/Merge. While there is clearly a consensus against this person having a standalone article, deletion arguments fail to address whether the content is merge-worthy. Since the show is clearly notable, mention of its winner appears appropriate, in the absense of arguments otherwise. Xoloz 03:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because you are a fan of the Big Brother series or someone asked you to, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
delete per WP:BIO Subject not notable. TV game show contestant with no other claim to fame Ohconfucius 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was: the question of whether this should be merged with one season or the other is made moot by the fact that the consensus is that being on a game/reality show twice isn't sufficient for a Wikipedia article. A redirect is not sorely needed as the search engine will pick the name up in the main articles anyway, and no merging has been done. Delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Never in a million years speediable. I've discounted the vote-only comments, which leaves Bustter's "notable because of x ghits" versus Dlyons's "not notable because of y ghits". I did some Googling myself, and no matter how I narrowed it down, there were always several hundred thousand hits there (the 32m figure is optimistic; while the early results tend to be relevant, not all are). That gets rid of the "only 60 distinct ghits" ... which leaves ... fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
advertising, link to commercial site, Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages, copyright issue for logo KenWalker | Talk 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising, no links to this page, single link to commercial site, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, logo copyright KenWalker | Talk 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO game show contestant with no other claim to notability other than her early eviction on the show Ohconfucius 04:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreleased fan-clone of GTA III. Should be deleted as wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Koffieyahoo 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (no consensus). Could perhaps be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Never heard of it. Glans at the Google results; the internet is earily silent on the matter. ...and I can't think of a lame pun for "neologism". Opabinia regalis 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO non-notable porn star who took part in reality contest Ohconfucius 04:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO early-eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge into the list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother seasons....
The result was Delete. Xoloz 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable forum site fails WP:WEB (alexa of 662,333, if you're interested). Article was de'proded. alphaChimp laudare 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Petros471 12:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO 8th ranked eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page does not contain information on the names of Pokemon; contains a romanization "created by the author;" has a title which indicates it will contain the information shown at List of Pokémon by name. While my first instinct was to merge the page with the list, this article is not useful for pronouncing the Japanese names listed on List of Pokémon by name correctly. The factual information is covered at Japanese language and Japanese writing system. Dekimasu 04:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO not notable - eliminated game show contestant Ohconfucius 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect, with the option for someone to merge (info left in history) left open. Petros471 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO early self-eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect, with the option for someone to merge (info left in history) left open. Petros471 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO subject not notable - game show contestant with STD and being the first person in Big Brother IV Ohconfucius 04:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This book is not notable in any way, is published by a vanity press, and is only ranked #1,379,403 on Amazon. Doinkies 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
propose speedy delete, for article was deleted in May and has staged a comeback. fails WP:BIO. unsourced articles full of speculation about someone who appears to be a legend in his own mind Ohconfucius 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted and redirected to Music of Jamaica. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
no sources. 1 sentence long. doesnt link. sad excuse for an article Kennykane 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Petros471 12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
delete per WP:BIO -subject not notable. real estate agent who competed in the Apprentice Ohconfucius 07:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 05:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. Petros471 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO, the subject appeared as contestant on reality game show, but is not notable Ohconfucius 06:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
this subject can be covered in a short little blurb on the pages of the reality series Apprentice or Real Housewives of NY, it does not require its own page. Also, it appears to be more of a marketing tool rather than an encyclopedic entry as it is written.-- 67.161.73.96 ( talk) 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Petros471 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
delete per WP:BIO budding entrepreneur not yet notable, 78,000Ghits, the majority of which are for Miami Dolphin footballer Ohconfucius 06:21, 8 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. Petros471 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
per WP:BIO. not notable: Mortgage lender from Boise Idaho who was contestant on the Apprentice Ohconfucius 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by William M. Connolley. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 09:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There's no information on the article, and it treats Wikipedia as an up-to-the-minute news board forum thing of some sort. Plus it violates that WP:NOT a crystal ball thing. JD don't talk| email] 07:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web comic; prod tag removed without comment OhNoitsJamie Talk 07:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Its a new webcomic... Die IRL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.101.40 ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Sango 123 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Utterly unencyclopedic. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 07:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is about an elementary school (one among millions in the world) that is undistinguished. Also, the article is based largely on unpublished information. Daphne A 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:WEB; this appears to refer to a single user's nonnotable blog. -- Graham 08:16, 8 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. Petros471 13:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy as nn-group, but as there is uncertainty if it qualifies, I am listing it here instead. Discussion on the talk page indicates some (but possibly insufficient) independent coverage. Delete unless better explanation of notability makes it into the article. Kusma (討論) 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently self-promotion for a new non-notable computer language. Prod first, which was removed, but I think it does not qualify for speedy. Delete anyway unless reliable independent sources are found. Kusma (討論) 08:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious neologism; short stub. Benwing 08:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. ~ c. tales *talk* 04:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, not notable. Benwing 08:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism; seems to have no currency outside the gaming community and not much inside. Benwing 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism; page is mostly original research. Benwing 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into Lipstick lesbian. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable; a neologism from the Ellen Degeneres Show. Benwing 08:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Stub; obvious neologism. Benwing 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTE: This was originally in the Aug 7 list, and was the reason why all the other similar words later got put on the AfD list (see posting below). I moved it to the Aug 8 list along with the other similar words, so that they all get reviewed together. Benwing
Not notable; a recently-coined term on the series "The L Word" with questionable currency. Benwing 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not at all against detailed coverage of gay/lesbian-related issues in Wikipedia but I'm concerned about Wikipedia being used as a sort of soapbox to try and make ephemeral terms gain wider currency. Benwing 09:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
None notable e-fed (people pretending to be wrestlers, fails WP:WEB amongst other things. Strong delete Englishrose 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, apparently coined this year on somebody's blog. The only references that can be found are the blog itself, and urbandictionary (which has standards that make Wikipedia look like a serious encyclopedia). If there's no evidence that this is in wide usage, it should be deleted. — sjorford ++ 09:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sligh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U/G Madness. Individual Magic decks not notable, as Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. (This one never even won a major tournament.) Features one of my favorite bullet points on Wikipedia: "The deck was widely considered fun to play." Andrew Levine 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:Tyrenius per CSD A7. [20] — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. No albums, non-notable members. First I tried a prod tag, but that was repeatedly reverted. The creator does no effort to assert notabilty. Medico80 10:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Incorrectly listed. AfD is not to be used for redirects or moves. Please list it at WP:RM or WP:RFD. Viridae Talk 11:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
List of Numb3rs episodes (a redirect) is to be deleted please, so List of NUMB3RS episodes can be renamed properly : please see Talk:Numb3rs#title in capital letters - kernitou talk 10:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Ian¹³ /t 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Simply a non-notable subject Eusebeus 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Closed early as no consensus, because:
Delete - Stinks of POV, useless, non encyclopedic, propagadna... -- Haham hanuka 08:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.110.11 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 August 2006
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
db WP:BIO eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ~ c. tales \\tk// 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
User:75.108.54.176 put the deletion template on the article Brown's gas.
hypocracyonwiki 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hypocracyonwiki ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. LinaMishima 00:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nominated for deletion on grounds of notability. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubc0724 ( talk • contribs) .
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
delete per WP:BIO - non-notable subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 8 August 2006
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was redirected to List of pseudoscientific theories But, of course, non mainstream theories are not pseudoscientific at all. It is just an attempt by some supporters of certain pseudoscientific theories to argue that pseudoscience is just non-mainstream science. I therefore vote to delete this article. Count Iblis 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Rippercruft. The article proclaims its subject's own non-notability in the opening paragraph: her only importance in history is being "sometimes mentioned in connection with Jack the Ripper", and then concludes by admitting there's no evidence for any claim of such a connection. wikipediatrix 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
User:75.108.54.176 put the deletion template on the article Oxyhydrogen flame.
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This does not appear notable or worthy of an entry. Let me know if I am wrong here. Thanks Dubc0724 15:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Please note I considered the quality and substance to the arguments presented. This is not a vote counting exercise. Petros471 13:29, 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}} . |
Both the readers and The Author would like to know why it was suggested for deletion?
It doesn't fall into any category under the wikipedia Deletion Policy, so Why Has it been nominated? Churba 05:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
According to the edit summary that added the deletion text, "nominated for deletion due to non-notability". I'm not sure I could agree with that since every other comic on KeenSpot has a page too, no matter how small. Maybe the content of the article needs refocused more towards a particular goal, but that's not qualification of a deletion in my eyes. -- Zimzat 10:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: I really don't see a reason for this entry to be deleted. The webcomic in question is viewed by albiet a small fanbase, but a fanbasenonetheless. Other Keenspot artists have their comics listed, such as Clan of the Cats. And there is no controversy over that. If the question of if entry is purely vanity is really that much of a difference, multiple fans of the comic have already come to edit it and prove that it means something to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tin-chan ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC). reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This Article is a Hoax. There is no such league and if it is real it is riddled with lies. No UBL team plays in the Delta Center, and no UBL games are on any TV station. FancyPants 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person Dancarney 11:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Lbmixpro. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 05:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like nonsense, non-notable group as far as I can tell. The articles writer has removed the CSD tag so I've brought it here RMHED 12:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Alot of POV unsourced information about an unkown google video - in fact there are NO google hists for the title of this film! --Errant Tmorton166( Talk)( Review me) 12:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
29 unique Googles, creator has no history other than this article and linking it and its website to other articles. No evidence of meeeting WP:CORP, advertorial tone. The oly sources are the company's website and an entry which "has either been provided by the company, or has been compiled by the Bureau from other sources." Just zis Guy you know? 12:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like a non-serious personal article for a small group of people on interconnecting Wikipedia pages. Was link to user page Cedric Lessing which I removed. Mattisse (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
You know what!? Remove the tag or I'm telling Greg! —The Pope — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariusz Zielinski ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Irrelevant article linked to Bob Teller page nominated above and written in similar joking tone. Mattisse (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
You out of it! I'M TELLING CHRIS RIGHT NOW! — Mariusz Zielinski 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a notable figure. He has zero noteworthy accomplishments of any kind. Wikipedia does not need an article for every back-up college quarterback or similarly insignificant athletes. -- TexasDawg 12:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, then redirect to Travel insurance. - Bobet 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising spam, copyvio [27] but since author claims permission given I'd rather have it delete through AfD. - Mailer Dia b lo 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No relevant or noteworthy information has been provided in the article (including the cruft I've reverted out multiple times); no apparent claim to notability. -- Emufarmers( T/ C) 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (apparent bad faith nom) Syrthiss 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I request this article to be deleted because it was made without my permission or consultance. -- Lightbulb-Bulblight 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Incomplete nomination - completing. Subject requests deletion. See this. Viridae Talk 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No, I didnt -- Lightbulb-Bulblight 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
That doesnt prove anything -- Lightbulb-Bulblight 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 13:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
appears to be nothing more than a cut 'n' paste from PR literature Markb 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete based upon WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY arguments below. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Author(who's username is the same as article) removed prod. Does not meet WP:BIO(does not assert any particular notability). i kan reed 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability per WP:WEB --Clappingsimon talk 14:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep – Gurch 12:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This is probably big enough to be notable, but some people might think otherwise. - TruthbringerToronto 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Classic Vacations is a subsidiary of Expedia Inc and deserves a page just as the like of other Expedia sub-companies such as Hotels.com and TripAdvisor.
-
sthakkar
23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was roundhouse keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Only notability of this product is its association with Chuck Norris. As it reads currently, article is a non-notable unencyclopedic vanity advertisement. Katr67 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge.
Petros471
13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
high school rugby team that is apparently very successful. I removed a line from the article about a feature film on them coming out in 2007; until then, though, I think this is not an appropriate encyclopedia article topic. Plus, entirely unsourced, et cetera. If this is deleted, the logo Image:HR Logo.jpg should be deleted as well. Mango juice talk 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company; only a single Google hit. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. -- Haakon 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. Few related Google hits. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. -- Haakon 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
neologism. WP:NOT wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Crossmr 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Already deleted once. Record of discussion here. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. -- DarkAudit 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a bus/trolley schedule. -- DarkAudit 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Dia b lo 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. -- DarkAudit 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was near unanimous keep. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 01:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
wikipedia is not a bus schedule -- DarkAudit 15:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is sufficiently encyclopedic. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
*delete
WP:NEO neologism. we could reinstate it of any reputable university has a course on it. Any useful content here can be merged into
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Ohconfucius
03:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
Are there still any major issues that people have with the article that might be addressed? -- Paxomen 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, crystal ball, vanity piece. Prod removed by author -- Merope 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Yours Truely,
Nathan Couch
Your Truely,
Nathan Couch
Found on WP:VAIN
"It is believed that the majority of vanity article creators forget about their vanity articles and do not revisit at all; this is evident in that they rarely defend the article during the deletion debate."
I think we all know by now we are not just "passer-byers" that will post a small snippet of our work and move on hoping that we get discovered by an indie film producer.
"Lack of fame is not the same as vanity."
"Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship."
Isn't this the problem?
"If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them" but then it also says "Lack of fame is not the same as vanity"... So my misunderstanding here is: How could any independent movie company write about themselves if they are not that well known... because it says "lack of fame isn't the same as vanity" and isn't that why were are getting deleted... because of a not known film?
Vanity edits: examples I've taken a look at that category and we are not breaking any of those rules simply because we are promoting nothing.
"The most significant problem with vanity articles is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors"
I can name multiple editors, locally, that come upon wiki everyday that know of this film that could and would edit the page. A great deal more than twenty.
From WP:NFT
I am insulted that you would take the article as a "school day policy"... not by the name but by what I have read. This article was NOT yo create for "new lingo" we could show our fellow classmates at school. We have webhosting, and we weren't planning on using this as webhosting. As a creator of a site I do take band-width into consideration, but this article was not going to be used just "for our own purposes". It just seemed the whole school day policy didn't apply to this situation at all... excuse me if I am wrong.
From WP:SPAM
I am sorry, but I have read every inch of that page and can not find one thing we could get accused for. We are not spam bots, we're not votestacking, I think it's clear by now we are not campaigning, and we are not canvasing.
You are correct. I do believe that is what the world needs these days is verification. We do not have Behind Tinted Glasses in an original search, and we do not have Behind Tinted Glasses verified as a movie at all besides the author's words which we are giving you. (if that means anything at all) But doesn't this all go back to "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia" found WP:VAIN
From Wikipedia:Snowball_clause
"The policy also states that "[a]ny substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early."
"Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion allows for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that arguments are fully examined, and maintains the appearance of fairness."
I really do appreciate all of you moderators who have left this discussion open, and those who have had open ears. I, Nathan, am not here to argue by any means, but just try to understand the rules thouroughly because at this point, the only thing that, I can see, is against us is a not known film. But the rules state the article does not need to have a famous-based article. So having that said, if you could clear up the rules we are specifically breaking, and just allow us this 30k space, it would be so much appreciated since the article has been worked on hard.
So with all the reasons and rules out why we don't want a wiki page (like egos and such), some might be thinking, "Why do they want one?" Without heroic theme music or cheesy catch lines, we belive that people should hear the story of three film makers going through anything and everything to get their film made and I believe that's what people really want to hear these days, a good story. A good, true, story.
-Nathan Couch
Thanks for the suggestion, but why wouldn't any article on wiki have a website? We are in the process of getting a website at the moment but we feel it is more convenient to host an article on wiki for several reasons as followed:
Thanks for everyone's listening.
-Nathan Couch
The result was merciful delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fanfiction. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The article is, by its own terms, about a name unpopular in its native land; that, taken together with lack of explanation/cultural context (to say nothing of verifiable sources) makes this a borderline CSD A1 speedy. Delete, in any case, is the consensus here. Xoloz 04:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page only describes (incorrectly, at that) the English transliteration of the Japanese transliteration of the name Ryan. (The correct transliteration of the transliteration is Raian.) A Google Japan search suggests to me that I have misspelled Ryan and has no hits outside of the Middle East. There are a number of hits for Raian, but if this is the standard, we'll soon have a page on the Japanese version of every English name. And the article even focuses on how uncommon the name is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekimasu ( talk • contribs)
The result was speedy delete as a page that consisted only of a link to another page; no content, no context, not a real redirect. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Somehow I think SPD fits this better, but I'll let the article speak for itself. CPAScott 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable webpage/organization(it's hard to tell) author removed a 2 different prods without reason and a prod2 moved to afd i kan reed 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
you never had warned me.... so that is a lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruutbuut ( talk • contribs)
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
OR, as author admits in comments. Nuttah68 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 13:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not even the main character, Ramza, has his own page. In adition, it's horridly written, with no sources, and some obvious POV. Probably falls into cruft. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to violate WP:NOR; may not be very notable either as a separate classification of television series Crisu 16:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
False, uncited information. Only a couple of Google hits, none of which back up the claims made. -- Chris (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a memorial, Should be deleted. We dont need a page for every death in the world. Also Not Notable. Feedyourfeet 12:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As esWiki has an article this is technically a speedy. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is in spanish and has not been edited since july 20.
-- Ernalve 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article discusses a non-notable position that only exists in some organizations. It cites no sources or references, hasn't been substantively edited (or probably even seen) in a couple years, and until yesterday had no links. This position probably merits at most a sentence or two in the main fraternities and sororities article. -- SuperNova | T| C| 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. - Bobet 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Can't possibly be notable enough to warrent an article-- Frip1000 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
REQUEST Please do not delete I will finish the article soon.It was first made by someone else who was trying to put the game into a bad light.I started working on it already it will be completed in a day or two.Thanks.kirk1987
ANOTHER REQUEST As you can see I have developed the article even more but I need some help I don't know how to put a picture in it...i have uploaded the file but I don't know how to put it on the article...could somebody help me with that?Meanwhile I will continue to add further even more detailed information.Please do not delete it and teach me how to insert a picture in it.Thanks(kirk1987)
The article is finished.I've added many informations, links to this article are in the MMORPG list article, and at the Free MMORPG article(with a short introduction there and a link to the official site and wikipedia main article).I think that now the article is complete and therefore could that announcement that it is considered for deletion dissapear? Many thanks kirk1987.
Keep. good faith, not entirely non-notable. Cdcon 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete because this was all hashed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter: Book Seven (film) and the situation has not demonstrably changed in the interim. Uncle G 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... Computerjoe 's talk 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy DELETED. - Doc 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like a completely uninformative page. Green caterpillar 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a curious mix of fact and fiction, a testament to the fact that there is nothing so inherently absurd that some crackpot somewhere will not believe it. The only thing is, given that we lead the table of around 100 unique google hits, we appear to be leading the race to tell the world about this ludicrous idea. Exclude Wikipedia and the leading lights include YTMND and the Aryan Nations forums. There being no reliable sources out there, on account of the idea itself being barking mad, scientifically impossible (then and now) and 100% evidence free, this article is inherently original research. Not bad research, in that it documents pretty well the entire absurd conceit, but the linked sources are absolutely not what we would consider reliable.
From the deletion log at its previous home Nazi moon base, now a redirect:
First AfD was a speedy delete, second was no consensus. I recommend a transwiki to Uncyclopaeida. Just zis Guy you know? 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. After reviewing Talk:Kingdom of Talossa, Talk:Republic of Talossa (where an old VFD discussion can be found), and the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Talossa (and refreshing my memory of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talossan language, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Ben Madison) it is clear that this AFD nomination is disruption resulting from editors losing a content dispute on this list article with other editors who are attempting to keep original research out of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Uncle G 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page should be deleted because it will never provide a list of all micronations because of mean admins. -- Kitia
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The ITV website talks about some countdown to the third series having started, and this article speaks of the fourth series. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. --
JD
don't talk
email me
18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB; is also quite spammy. Prod and prod2 removed by author. -- Merope 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable wiki, seems to fail WP:WEB. Looks like advertising/spam. Peephole 18:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Prod removed by author. The article even asserts its non-notability: "Used seldomly for nearly a decade now, eml32118 has gained little popularity in the tech community." Sheesh. -- Merope 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
nn company, doesn't meet WP:CORP. Delete Owen× ☎ 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus on whether this character should be merged to a list that doesn't exist with articles that aren't specified. Defaulting to keep. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor character from one film, no way notable. Redirect and merge at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentsoo ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable website (see WP:WEB) with lots of linkspam (some of which I removed). Author misrepresented Alexa rating in the article (I fixed it). The alexa rating is 455,863. Author removed prod tag. Delete ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Question: the CarGurus site displays content about many cars which have had Haynes manuals written about them. Note 7 of [[WP::CORP]] specifically mentions this as an example of a notable product. So it would seem to apply? -- YoavShapira 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, thanks again for explaining these, I understand now. -- YoavShapira 13:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Xoloz 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, I'm not sure of the best reason, but this oft-vandalized article seems to be about a nn-chat site for something related to Transformers. It reads somewhat like advertising and has some attack of somebody sprinkled into it in most versions. I know I'm not summarizing this well, maybe someone else can do a better job.... -- Brian G ( Talk) 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
the "Attack" on Jack is not an attack, but the honest truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.194.127 ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. - Bobet 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a tough one. For the first time I'm nominating a page that I'm not certain should be deleted. The majority of the content in the article deserves to be removed as unverified and possibly original research, and the article as a whole fails WP:NPOV for reasons discussed at length in the talk page for the article. Over a week ago I tagged the article with {{ not verified}} and {{ unreferenced}}, but nobody has edited the article since. I could simply remove the POV material, but that would leave an article too brief even for a stub ("Al-Hama is a town in Syria", pretty much) and even that has proved difficult to verify. I would welcome discussion from the community on the appropriate fate for this page. For now, my inclination is delete. VoiceOfReason 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actress, 47 ghits for 'cristy joy slavis' +actress, and 111 for just 'cristy joy slavis'; fails WP:BIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith ( talk • contribs)
The result was speedy delete. the wub "?!" 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability of subject is not established, article is doubtful, probable hoax. TheM62Manchester 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable news website. Google turns up 11 hits for "Connor Star" +Dorchester. Danny Lilithborne 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable.. Was in a rather non-notable band and he should not be confused with the actor Scott MacDonald who has an IMDb entry. "Scott MacDonald" spoons on Google gets 397 hits, mostly being Wikipedia mirrors. Mrtea (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:V and non-notable. Marked for speedy delete shortly after article creation in December 2005. Prod in April 2006 removed without comment. Marked {{unreferenced}}
from April to July, but that template was removed with an edit summary that I don't understand even though it is still unreferenced.
Quale
20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
{{unreferenced}}
template from the article?
Quale
18:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Organization founded by Darian Kovacs; article was created by, you guessed it, User:Dariankovacs. It may be interesting that "through another divine appointment, Darian met with businessman Ed Becker for pie during the summer of 2000." Must have been some pie, but still fails WP:ORG (as it does not have sufficient media coverage) and, additionally, should be deleted per WP:SPAM and WP:AUTO. JChap T/ E 20:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is second nomination for this online game. First result was delete but it is still here. Some hits on Google. Mattisse (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, then redirect. Xoloz 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page already exists at Tenders. There isn't such a difference in the tendering process between public and private that it needs a separate page. At AfD because the creator objected to a simple redirect. Oz Lawyer 21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Xoloz 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, non-encyclopedic essay. Page is not being improved and appears to have been abandoned by its original editors. Quale 21:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Xoloz 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Nuttah68 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not-notable, Possible cruft Bschott 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Promotion for forth-coming movie. Written by film-maker. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AlistairMcMillan 21:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 13:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An advertisement masquerading as an article about a posture correcting brace. An article with this name has deleted twice as an uncontested prod ( log). The current article is a very close copy of the text in this pdf. WP:NOT for advertising. Mr Stephen 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Print-on-demand paperback = delete. Reads like an advert, contains likely copyvio back-cover-type synopsis. A very persistent editor resists all attempts to despam and decopyvio this thing so it should simply be nuked. Quale 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As with many game guide articles, Man in Black's argument says it all: this is original research or nothing. The only argument the keep side has for this not falling into the "game guide" material explicitly prohibited by What Wikipedia is not is the material about the "evolution" of the units; without sourcing other than expecting readers looking for verifiability to play one game and then play another, this is classic original research. Unreferenced tags are for articles which lack sources but the subject has them available; despite this AfD remaining open for a week after normal time no available sources have been nominated and it is clear that such a tag would not improve anything. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This subject is wholly unnecessary and unsuitable for a general encyclopedia. Its counterpart for Advance Wars was deleted awhile ago, so I'm surprised this is still hanging around. This adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the game and is only useful to players of the game. Delete. Wickethewok 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Yanksox with summary "CSD G1". BryanG (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I am not sure why we need an article on the name of a tropical Storm that may/may not occur 6 years from now. I am sure the Hurricane/Cyclone centers have a list of names ready for 2012, this seems a bit odd to add. Let's wait til after the storm, and then add it. Also, the storms name is spelled incorrectly. rhmoore 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd say db-bio, but figured best to leave to debate. My contention is it fails the notability test. CPAScott 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:V, no sources, and a non-notable "video game performance art" group in any case. The first AFD was closed as a no-consensus keep which was an arguably incorrect decision with only one signed keep vote and the WP:V problem unaddressed. Quale 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Commercial video that could be described on the articles for Scorpion (Mortal Kombat), Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, or Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, but is not notable enough for its own page. Jeff Silvers 22:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ~ c. tales *talk* 04:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article fails to establish notability. Was speedied, then undeleted out of process. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: This has been listed on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Tyrenius 00:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems pointless. There is no new information here; it can all be found at relevant album pages Chillymail 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Google hits refer mostly to a book - not sure of its notability. JD don't talk email me 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy under A6 The JPS talk to me 22:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been deleted several times before; little new reason to keep Subwayguy 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Remember this is not a vote. Petros471 13:52, 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}} . |
Seems to me like this message board is not notable. Author removed prod. You guys decide. Mattisse (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A short unsourced article about a non-notable building, only one link to it. ColinFine 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
non-encyclopedic article of non-notable event. Completely lacking in any information to provide verification, importance, notability, or even what city or country this takes place. Pub-crawls are a dime-a-dozen. {{ prod}} removed without any explanation or improvement in the serious deficiencies in the article. Agent 86 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete on the grounds of being silly vandalism (CSD criterion G3) and an attack page (CSD criterion A6). It's reasonably obvious that someone thought that it would be a grand wheeze to attack someone named Nic Frost by writing a Wikipedia article about a fictitious university position and filling it full of both subtle and blatant references to Mr. Frost's sexual activities. I had a look to see whether I could find anything real to write a stub article about. I couldn't. Uncle G 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a hoax, there is no mention of it anywhere apart from WP, including the websites of the University of Adelaide and Pfizer. — Dunc| ☺ 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Sirs,
Howard T. Sturgeon believes that Newcastle Online is simply not notable. Howard T. Sturgeon believes that it is certainly less notable than the currently-listed-for-deletion Sunderland Message Board. Howard T. Sturgeon supports the Quinn régime 100%.
As ever,
Howard
Howard T. Sturgeon 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
advertisement CPAScott 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This is already mentioned at the Garfield article, and what isn't, is original research. - Bobet 12:06, 15 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}} . |
I recommend that this page be deleted and the material, minus the silly, unsubstantiated "starvation" rumors, merged back into Garfield. These strips do not merit a standalone page, and the rumors and "theories" which, for all we know, originated on Wikipedia, need to be purged. Thunderbunny 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Additionally, the "home" entry is very complete and well-written; I think merging would detract from its comprehensiveness and clarity. Gorjus 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was: currently redirected to Liberal theory of economics - with no-one supporting the existence of this page as a separate article, this AfD appears to endorse a redirect somewhere, though where it should redirect is not AfD's remit. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research and neologism. It's not clear if the author means that this term "is rarely heard in the United States but is used in other countries" or if he's admitting this is a neologism. eaolson 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable advertising. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-published, advertising - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable advertising. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Please explain the difference between that article and the others in the Commerce websites category. -- Vercasso 03:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
I think the article Printakid respects those criteria:
If needed, I could scan and provide proof of many other notable articles.
If needed, I could transfer and provide some Mpegs or mp3s of the actual shows.
In the smaller Quebec market, any book that sells over 3000 copies (in its lifetime) is considered a best-seller (all categories of books included). Half the books of the company have surpassed that number, and the others will in the next six months. I don't imagine that notability, in that area, has to be comparable to Ebay or Amazon.
I am willing to change parts of the article that would seem too much "advertisement" to some wikipedians, because I understand their concerns. However, on the notability criteria, as defined by the actual rules, I see less ground for exclusion. -- Vercasso 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 11:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Ephermal neologism. See also WP:WPINAD. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable library with 14,000 books. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, mostly a rambling biography. Also, don't go to their site. It performs "illegal functions" according to Firefox. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Upcoming game, apparently. Non-notable. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply