The result was speedy keep, as keep is unopposed, and nomination withdrawn. Patstuart talk| edits 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a list of things; claims to have been "under construction" by creator who's not returned. Patstuart talk| edits 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete. — ERcheck ( talk) 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:CORP BJ Talk 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Lots of people write poetry. Seems NN compared to many other poets in existence. Contested prod figured I would send it for afd. My nom is Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and move to Lan Yu (general). ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable stub on an obscure person, fails WP:BIO. when typed into google, the results are for Lan Yu, a controversial 2001 Hong Kong film and Orchid Island of Taiwan. Abstrakt 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, on the balance of arguments presented plus a quick sanity check which finds that (a) the article is unreferenced; (b) there are only 26 unique Google hits for "Copperfield Death Saw"; (c) Copperfield's own site does not figure in that list, so that doesn't appear to be what he calls it. Wrong content, wrong title. Guy ( Help!) 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
It's hard to fix although the trick is curectly discribed, doomed to remain a stub, would be better if made into a section of a bigger article.
The result was Keep and merge with Four Ppillars of destiny. Guy ( Help!) 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article and the similar Four pillars of destiny should have any verifiable and useful text merged to Chinese astrology. At this time, though, there is no verified text to merge, so anyone with sources should begin a section at Chinese astrology rather than here. Delete because it's unverified, unsourced, because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and because I suspect that both pages are advertisements for astro . fungshui . com masquerading as articles TheronJ 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A very undefined list that really is to vague to serve any use Gnevin 00:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No deal, delete ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article, which is unreferenced at present and reads like an ad, was originally speedied under A7/G11. The magazine was launched "this fall", so I question it's notability. The creator, who by his own admission [3] is associated with the magazine and/or company and whose only edits are to this and one other related article [1], maintains that it's notable, so I'm bringing it here for review. I'm indifferent to it myself. -- Steel 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as converted to disambig page. Agent 86 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no links to the page, and have not been since August at least, and the article of the book from where this character originates is a stub. Character not deserving of an article, should be included on a "List of Characters" page at most. -- MPD01605 ( T / C) 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
PAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO DAB AFTER ALL ABOVE VOTES New voting on dab replaced at 15:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) begins below.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a made-up term for an essay written on a subject of choice. When I prodded it, it was half how-to and half-completely made up- the links added by its author bear no relevance to the article. Anyway, I think this is an unverifiable neologism. I should also mention the Wiktionary article does not exist, and the Essay article has no mention of such a topic. Wafulz 00:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Nihonjoe. MER-C 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like a resume, and if not, a bio of a company that is not notable. JudahBlaze 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JudahBlaze 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
delete fails notability, only nominated, did not receive academy award Buridan 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article sounds like an advertisement. It does not state what makes it notable. There are thousands of forums on the Internet. We cannot write an article about each one of them. Meno25 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
As for WP:WEB: That has been in use for a long time now. "It's only a guideline." cuts no mustard at all. You are making a bad argument that has been made many times before, and that has been rebutted many times over long since. For one thing, not having an entire article on something is not the same as not including information about it. See Wikipedia:Notability#Dealing_with_non-notable_topics. As I said, the aforementioned one sentence of verifiable information (now one-and-a-half, with the addition of Asia Times) can be easily included in Al-Quaeda, a very natural home for it. For another thing, until you can cite as many independent sources for this web site as Bulbasaur#Notes_and_references cites, your Pokémon argument (for that is what it is) will hold no water at all. Uncle G 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
delete list cruft, it would contain everyon by definition in wikipedia in the 20th century.. Buridan 01:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails wp:prof, only a few edited volumes and nothing else Buridan 01:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Basically nothing can be written about it (self-admitted in the article). Basically all speculation. — Mets501 ( talk) 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Nom - non-notable "star" of non-notable video (a video previously AfD'd). Other than the non-notable video, this person has no other claim to notability. If the video fails notability, and its "star" has only this to his/her credits, then it follows that the star is also not notable. Rklawton 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I reckon this should be deleted as failing WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Otherwise, this will certainly grow into a collection of lists of each and every person who has appeared on each and every magazine in the world. Note that, this article is already much larger than the article on Dime Magazine itself. I would suggest merging the contents to Dime Magazine (already done), and deleting the article page as redundant. Ohconfucius 02:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirecting to Away team under WP:SNOW. Morwen - Talk 13:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Total, unapologetic original research. I thought about a merger into Redshirt or Away team, but there does not seem to be anything worth saving in this article, which violates Wikipedia is not for things forwarded in e-mails. JChap2007 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article should be deleted on the grounds of WP:OR and that it is offensive. - Gilliam 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom - Gilliam 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename Interesting topic, needs to be expanded with more references. "Offensive" is irrelevant, this is factual and relevant, and people's emotional reactions to articles are not our business. Haiduc 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by User:Alkivar with the rationale of "WP:NOT a Crystal Ball". Sandstein 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced rumours about a non-released game. Reposted twice, The previous AFDs are here and here, results were no consensus and delete respectively. Contested prod. MER-C 02:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn with no alternative opinions to "keep" given. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable Pakistani corporation; about $350 million in sales, they make fertilizer and sell or resell various agriculture-related products. I don't see any real claim of notability. Brianyoumans 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete. -- 210 physicq ( c) 04:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
NN; author has repeatedly removed speedy tags Perel 03:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Businessman and former mayor of Springville, Utah (pop 20,424). Fails WP:BIO. 17 unique Ghits, nothing which indicates he is anything but a very local figure. Ohconfucius 03:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The author sealed the fate of this one: "Clay3D is aiming to be blah, blah, blah" and "currently in the planning stages of its development. As of January 2006, no binary or source releases of the software have been made yet". It also is a vaporware product and does not meet our notability criteria for software. TTV| talk| contribs| email 04:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Punkmorten 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
At first it looked OK. On second glance nothing of particular note or importance, likely just a puff piece. Akihabara 07:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This was listed on DRV, where the lister was self-admittely confused about the process regarding renomination of kept articles. The debate, which was withdrawn by the applicant, can be viewed here: [19] The original AfD can be viewed here (closed as no concensus), that took place about five months ago.
The reason for listing was:The concensus from DRV was to relist at AfD, so here it is. Eat your heart out - this is a procedural nomination, so no opinion from me just yet. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC) replyDelete or Merge with article on Election -- WP:BIO. Proponents for keeping the article during the July discussion centered on her viability as a candidate in the November 2006 election. As the election is over and she has lost, her notability seems to have declined. AndrewSaint 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by Nihonjoe. MER-C 07:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Mojo Energy Drink seems to be an advertising page. No references are given and Google searches return almost no unique articles. – Someguy0830 ( T | C) 05:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. KOS | talk 08:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently the author looked in the bathroom mirror, said " Biggie Smalls" three times, then signed the resurrected rapper into an English football club under the pseudonym "Joe Cook" ...Admin refused to speedy this, so here it is... I already copied to WP:BJAODN Tubezone 05:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 07:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy. Sure looks like egregious spam to me. Proprietary name for particular manufacturing process. I'm happy for them, but we don't need an article consisting mainly of unsourced crowing about how their technique shaves great wads of cost from making FPGAs. Only ref is company site. Herostratus 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 07:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A poorly-formatted list of inconsistently named extremely minor opponents in a game series. This list of minor, interchangeable viruses is comparable to a list of every single piece of furniture in the Final Fantasy series, or every single kind of block in the Super Mario games. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete (G4, A7). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 07:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable young record company. Article was deleted in september after an uncontested prod, but is now recreated. The record label gets only 11 distinct Google hits excluding Myspace [26], and 24 if you include myspace [27]. None of these hits indicate any notability, outside reviews, famous bands, ... Could perhaps be speedied for spam, but I prefer to give it an AfD and get it done with. Fram 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnotability, never heard of it Splintercellguy 06:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete as nonsense (without comment on previous admin's decision). AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A kiddie prank article, no monarchs in Bohemia until 910, and they didn't have Scottish names like "McCarthy"... Again, an admin declined to speedy this obvious nonsense. Tubezone 06:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (normal speed) - Yomangani talk 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy deleted, reposted, prodded and speedy-tagged again, but this time around sort of asserts notability. What do you think? Procedural nomination, no opinion. Sandstein 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The reasoning why hoax is not speedy is, or at least ought to be, that this is not the sort of judgment a single person should make, as its basically saying "I have never heard of it." DGG 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT for how-to content. Tagged for speedy deletion, but meets no criteria of WP:CSD. Sandstein 06:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John Lake 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
How can this wreck of a page ever be NPOV? There isn't even a single source for this list, and why do we need to promote a single state's opinions about other states? -- Nyp 06:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:SOFTWARE and has no reliable sources BJ Talk 06:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Oxford University Labour Club. Nothing is sourced, so nothing for me to merge directly, but the edit history is preserved if someone wants to include sourced content in the OULC article. ~ trialsanderrors 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Is Rupert Murdoch big enough to save this weekly student rag published by Oxford University Labour Club? This is one great big list to massage the egos of those Labour Club secretaries. Delete or mergeandredirectto Oxford University Labour Club: the choice is yours. Ohconfucius 07:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was created by the same person who created Agnosticalia, an apparent hoax/nonsense. This has a few more Ghits, but it's all columnists using the phrase as an aside, forum posts and the like. It was used as a phrase a few times, but otherwise doesn't register. Kchase T 07:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 07:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced autobiography of a non-notable person. Contested prod. MER-C 07:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be very notable. I couldn't find much info on him. External links are his website, a magazine that has printed 6 issues, and a foreign website with an interview about his artwork.--Joe Jklin ( T C) 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is problematic on two counts. First: it is assumed that there is a definition for the word "dictator", which in today's usage signifies an autocratic, tyrannical ruler - an inherently subjective definition. (Yes, one could re-name the ever-popular List of Dictators to List of people called Dictators or something, but time would be better spent at calling those rulers by their nominal title and instead discussing the political system in depth.)
Second: the fact that an autocrat might choose to pass on the anoint a family membe his successor is extremely trivial. Running a hgovernment racket is profitable and of course one chooses to keep the profits in the family.
Trivial, subjective stuff. Dr Zak 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Gallery of fair use images with little context. Contested prod. MER-C 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
List of trivia copied from old version of List of Metalocalypse episodes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor does such fancruft deserve its own page. – Someguy0830 ( T | C) 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because some person posted a message on your talk page, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was delete. Wickethewok 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Game in development ( WP:NOT a crystal ball), has only a main website as a source, no multiple reliable indepedent third-party media coverage ( WP:V and WP:N) The Kinslayer 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Deprodded. Notability not established, no indication that it has been or will be released. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Kchase T 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, apparent hoax. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax article. There is no species as Salmo cervus, or a fish with a common name as "elk trout". The "the Elk trout have minor horns protruding just above their eyes" sentence is a dead giveaway. Article creation is the editor's only contributions to Wikipedia. Neil916 ( Talk) 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Lectonar. MER-C 10:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A webcomic with no assertion of notability. Renata 08:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Canderson7 ( talk) 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The "Bunting-Friedmann Threat Index" was contrived in a one-shot joke in a Penny Arcade blog post. In that post, two levels on this "index" were supplied. The rest of the levels listed in the article were made up by:
— MementoVivere ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Several apparent problems with this. WP:COI, article was created by the subject of the article; no assertion of notability, no sources other than the subject's own websites; and the article is about a failed third party candidate from an already-concluded election. This was a contested prod back in August but never brought to AFD. I'm doing it now. Dragomiloff 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
It is a vanity page. "-- Railcgun 13:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)" reply
As above - this page was deleted yesterday as vanity and has been recreated by the same user. The text is almost all false, and the user certainly doesn't meet notability. gummAY 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The subect does not seem all that notable and may be only of very narrow sectarian interest. Apart from his day job, he writes book reviews in the Guardian. The vast majority of hits for reviews of his book are from booksellers' sites (including several for www.ekklesia.co.uk, which he heads), I only found one independent review for the Subversive Manifesto, and one for Faith and Politics After Christendom, but am unsure about the quality of the sources. Neither book is ranked by Amazon.com. Ohconfucius 09:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to list of towers. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
We have been deleting all masts without significance below 350m in height. I propose to knock this 25m wooden observation tower on the head too, unless someone can indicate why this mast may be notable.... Ohconfucius 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as an attack article that is a thinly veiled negative characterization of an identifiable person. I was going to let the discussion run its course, with a strong recommendation to delete it if no sources were forthcoming by the end of the AFD discussion period, until I read the Slashdot thread. It's clear from reading that that this is a mis-use of Wikipedia to promote a protologism, and that there is zero chance of sources being provided, since no sources exist for something that was made up on Slashdot one day in the hopes that "people would start actually using the term". Uncle G 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A somewhat unknown neologism. Might be merge material, but based on a random it doesn't appear to be exactly widespread (Most google hits appear to be in German; I get 38 distinct google hits in English). wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 09:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. -- Core desat 13:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable unsigned kids band without any commercial releases. Also doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Most likely a vanity page. kollision 10:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Might have qualified as a speedy. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:COI. Created by User:Onodream (domain name of his site). 38 unique Ghits for him and 5 unique hits for "Spirit, Concrete, Earth" Ohconfucius 10:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Prodded by nominator, who doesn't think this is worth having a 5-day discussion over.. riana_dzasta 13:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Probably qualifies for speedying under A7, but I just want to err on the side of caution. Hardly notable enough for its own article. riana_dzasta 11:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Listcruft, and quite offensive to those people who have (through no fault of their own) parents who were not married to each other. It might be argued to move to List of people born outside of marriage or some such title but that would be a useless list of mere coincidences. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 11:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong keep but rename to "List of persons born out of wedlock" or some such. Illegitimacy was an important legal status in many countries (including Russia); the illegitimate couldn't marry, own property, or even work in some professions. Having such a list, especially for people born before ca. 1918, would make it easier for a student looking at the changing status of the illegitimate. I think that at least with respect to historical individuals it's quite encyclopedic. -- Charlene 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Guy ( Help!) 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject is an academic professional, but non-notable. Text of article taken from here. Media anthro 12:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non Notable Radio and TV personality, contested Prod. WP:COI voldemortuet 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:48, 19 December 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}} . |
Wikipedia is not a place to host resumes of non-notable actors. Gladlyplaid 13:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete (A7). Blatant WP:COI, obnoxious talk page. Will salt if recreated.-- Hús ö nd 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a place to host resumes of non-notable actors. Also, this may or may not be relevant, but a user with the name User:AndrewJesseBrown edited the Jason Modica article (another non-notable resume) and accused him of rape and drug charges, which is a pretty serious claim to make without any citations. See the edit here. Gladlyplaid 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)— Gladlyplaid ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant with list of monotremes and marsupials. Delete UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
From speedy, decided to bring to AfD. The original speedy reason was a lack of notability, but A7 doesn't apply to schools. This is procedural - no opinion. Core desat 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
the general style of religious converts lists has always been "List of converts to X", because their conversion to X is what has been notable. a "List of people who left Islam" or "List of ex-A" is unnecessary and irrelevant because a) it falsely assumes ex-Y became so because of Y, and not because of their conviction in something else (i.e. religion X); b) it consists of unnecessary duplication, by "leaving Y" they have automatically become a "convert to X"'; c) there is no precedence for this as we do not have a "
List of people who left Christianity", "
List of people who left Hinduism", "
List of people who left Athiesm", nor do we need it. d) the focus is inappropriately on negation, the title and entire purpose of such a list is implicitly loaded with a negative connotation against religion Y, and under the false premise discussed in point a) serves as a vehicle for propaganda/advocacy.
i have also included the following in this nom:
Delete all as unnecessary and irrelevant (previous AfD was no consensus, but it included all convert lists and not those exclusively associated with negatative identification like ex-A) -- ITAQALLAH 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep or Delete the lists mentioned by
T. Anthony with it
Alf photoman
15:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Redirect to Chris Pontius. Agent 86 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a notable enough character to warrant its own page. The information is already on the Chris Pontius and Jackass pages. Ocatecir 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. Fails WP:BIO. Has appeared in a few episodes of a TV series and a few movies in minor roles. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. Appeared in a single film in 1985. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. Appeared in a minor role in a single film. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Rename to Wikipedia:Encyclopodia. Redirect was deleted, since it's cross-namespace. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
In the absence of any mentioned notability I propose moving this article to Wikipedia:Encyclopodia but would be happy if instead some thrid party references could be added. -- BozMo talk 16:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Owen Hart. Let's put this one to bed. Deizio talk 15:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus. Davnel03 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
[59], not to mention that most other "special" editions of RAW have also been deleted: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. So based on that precedent, there is no reason for this article to be there as well, a merge to Owen Hart is also acceptable.
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This was first marked as a speedy and the tag was removed then it was marked as prod and the tag was removed by an anon without comment so here it is at AfD. No Ghits, commendable academic record but non the less non notable bio. John Lake 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
There is nothing in this article that asserts the subject's notability per Wikipedia:Notability, and it appears to read like a promotions piece. SunStar Net talk 16:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted by admin as reposted content. Agent 86 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. LILVOKA 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Keep This article has made serious improvements, and I think it is now acceptable. --
Adam Riley
Talk
02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Keep I really could care less about this individual school, but I think all high schools are notable enough to be listed on wikipedia. Many high schools are larger than universities, and all universities (at least all of them I have ever searched for) are considered notable enough. (and if you only consider some high schools notable enough, then what are the criteria for a high school being notable enough? I would think being the only one in a city, as this one is, would qualify as much as a library or any of the other types of things listed here.) If this high school is not notable enough, then there are thousands of high school wikipedia entries out there that need to be deleted too, since it wouldn't be fair to single out one high school over the others. ( Cardsplayer4life 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)) reply
In addition to what I wrote previously, the Wikipedia:Schools which was brought to my attention by the nominator for deletion clearly shows that (per item #3) the school (and most schools) are "locally distinctive". I just wanted to add this point to my original statement, even though discussion about it is also included further down. ( Cardsplayer4life 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)) reply
The result was delete Metros232 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This person does not seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Adam Riley Talk 07:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article fails to establish notability, and vast majority of google search results are copies of this article from various sources rernst 10:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The article has no reliable secondary sources and is just connected to one person's ideology, and this ideology is not notable at all. TruthSpreader Talk 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete as a copyright violation. Right now, this is just a reproduction of the author's work, no different than an article on a song that consisted of the name of the artist and a verbatim copy of the lyrics. If the copyvio portion was removed, there would be precious little left. -
Eron
Talk 18:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Amended to Keep following rewrite. Good job. -
Eron
Talk
16:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
* Delete per Eron as copyvio. With no other content in the article than the copy violation, it ought not stand. Keep - good job on the rewrite; I've no further problems with it.
RGTraynor
20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is based on [67], which is an Islamic propagandist website (see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Answering-Islam.org). And as reason given by User:Truthspreader on talk page that Zad al-Ma'ad is a historical document, and hence a primary source.
Major flaws include:
-- Herald reply 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per explanation of creator and sole editor that this was a mistake. Uncle G 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Was meant to be a cat, not an article Kevlar67 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as the author requests deletion - could have used {{ db-author}} instead. (aeropagitica) 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
DELETE : Now that I think about it, this is a pointless article that I shouldn't have created. This character was only on B&B for a short time and no longer has any connections on the show. Kogsquinge 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - hahnch e n 19:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, the subject of this article fails WP:Notability. FrummerThanThou 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Ironicly the strongest argument to delete was made by someone wanting to keep it... --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research synthesis about a Yu-Gi-Oh! parody fan series on YouTube. Now, as a disclaimer, I think it's hilarious, but I'm afraid it doesn't meet the Web content notability guidelines. Specifically:
Additionally, the article in is current form is an unencyclopedic analytical guide to the series based upon personal observation, not information published in reliable sources. -- Slowking Man 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the second time someone has wanted to delete an article I have written under rights of notability so you'll forgive me if I sound...unhappy. While I will admit when i first began the article most of the infomation provided on The Abridged Series was from my own personal interpretation (It has since been edited several times) It is simply because I am not Little Kuriboh, and therefore can not give use reliable sources, short of asking Kuriboh himself (Something I have been trying to do, but have been unable to due his busy lifestyle). Another thing to point out is not every article subject on Wikipedia has been the subject of published works, nor has every article subject won a notable independent award. As to the host issue, Youtube is hardly a trivial host. Although, yes, anyone can upload onto the site (I myself own an account there) some of the contributors are well known companies such as NBS and CBS just to name a couple. I would also like to point out that episodes 1-14 were recently realeased onto Bittorrent (As close as it will ever get to a DVD release) thus taking it away from hosts all together. I am aware that the article doesn't read like other pages, but I am trying my hardest to change it. Also, unless the article is deleted, I am trying to improve it as best I can (Episode guide, etc) Finally, People LIKE this page. The articles talk page only has one person wanting to delete it (For it's notability) I have worked hard on it, and am pleased that people have taken an interest in updating it. in other words, I don't think you should delete this page. Dearing 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
If you are going to delete this article, I will not stop you (I know other people simply keep putting old pages back up after being deleted.) However, I would like to say two things. The first is that I will be keeping a copy of this page in case THe Abridged Series reaches the specifications needed to to be classed as a wikipedia article. the second thing is that after reading the articles talk page, I discovered several people found the article to be useful (Note i said useful, not "They liked it".) Cactus Bob said and i quote "I personally searched for this topic myself. I believe that this page is a valuable resource for finding references that would be different to research on one's own", while MoChan said "I actually found out about this series in the first place thanks to this article". I always thought Wikipedia was here to inform people, that was the only reason I began this article. I think that the series is notable enough to get a page here, even though it's hasn't won any awards or been featured in publications, but judging from this page, many of you don't think the same. I can understand that. We all have to follow the rules, otherwise we'd have chaos. Dearing 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
"Encyclopedia-A comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics." extract taken from Wiktionary's article on Encylopedia. Now to me, that just says "A Reference book used to tell people about all kinds of stuff," Which is what I use Encylopedias for, to look up info on things I want to know about. I couldn't find a page on The Abridged Series, so I wrote one in the hopes I could tell other people about it, and they'd find it useful. and for what it's worth, they did. Dearing 11:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
"Comprehensive-Broadly or completely covering," so yes, essentually it IS all-inclusive. The most recent watched episode of THe Abridged series as of the date of this message was 257,526. three of it's episodes currently hold positions in You tube's top rated comedy section. It's featured on thousands of dirrerent forums. If this is notible, then I don't know what is. Dearing 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
It also adds a bit about characters behaviors, comparing them to their original behavior, in the original series. There is really no harm done with this article, it's well-built, and actually HELPS, by showing you certain quotations and their origin. N 14:32, 19 December 2006 [UTC]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.66.234.124 ( talk) 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC). reply
Perhaps it does qualify as "original research," but as the writer of this article argued earlier, when there are no available primary sources, you are restricted to origial research.
here HAVE been third-party publications about this cartoon series, on many Internet sites that should be considered non-trivial.
So what draws the line between this article and a "primary source" article hosted somewhere "non-trivial"?
The tens-of-thousands of them who found out about the series by reading about it on third-party Internet sites.
Someone earlier in this AfD also mentioned the release of episodes 1-14 to Bittorrent, which sounds to me like it fits the bill of "well known and independent of the creators," although it too would fall under your trivial clause, wouldn't it?
So yeah... 'm very sorry. Hopefully I can figure out this whole torrent thing, so's at least people can download the series to their hard-drives. That'd be neat, huh?
Torrential Tribute
Can anybody who knows about torrents check this out and see if it works?
Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series Torrent
If it doesn't, then can ya tell me what I'm doin' wrong? *blush*
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmky87 ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC). reply
The result was delete. Davnel03 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe this should be deleted as it covers a tour that wasn't shown live all over the world, although it came out on DVD, it was not a Pay-Per-View. Davnel03 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because it, like the others was not a Pay-Per-View and not shown all over the world:
The result was Merge to The Game (rapper) (unsurprisingly), and since it has already been done I shall redirect it. Yomangani talk 11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is already covered in greater detail (with sources) at The Game (rapper) L0b0t 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a dictionary definition of a phrase. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
And do you have this phrase in english?
If you do then I apologize and won't mind if you remove it..
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy tag and PROD tag were removed, but I still don't see evidence that this is notable enough for inclusion. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 17:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
1) The guidelines for Resources under Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines are basically non-existent, so it is unclear as to what criteria are being utilized to judge the validity of this entry.
2) Even under the more general guidelines for articles/entries, it should be noted that The Music Box and its staff have been resources for and have provided content to other mainstream media outlets.
a) Print: Its editor and staff have been resources and contributors to at least a few mainstream publications/newspapers. Both the Florida Times-Union and the Louisville Courier-Journal, for example, are the major papers that serve their respective areas.
b) Radio: Its editor has made guest appearances on at least one major radio station, where he served as the co-host of a regular segment. WKZE 98.1 FM is a large and well-respected commercial station in Connecticut.
That The Music Box has passed both the editorial and the commercial considerations of at least a few major print and radio outlets means that it has been recognized within the industry as being a notable, reputable, and authoritative media outlet in its own right.
Also, given that The Music Box is based in Illinois, these (Kentucky, Florida, Connecticut) are big geographic distances to traverse for a non-notable publication.
When combined with the 2-year duration of the radio segment, these facts lend very strong credence to the notion that The Music Box has knowledgeable expertise that has been recognized outside the scope of its own existence, which therefore makes it a notable resource/publication.
In addition, I also submit the following:
3) The registered users who created the article in February 2006 (and have since worked on it and categorized it) clearly have felt that The Music Box was a notable resource. It is puzzling that after all this time, it now is being targeted for deletion with a simple 'nn' designation.
4) The Music Box has been published since 1994, and while one could argue that longevity is not necessarily indicative of notability, it also could be argued that its having a track record of 12+ years is.
5) The Music Box is well-written and informative, the latter being the very definition of a useful resource. Again, taken on its own, this might not refute the argument that it is not notable, but the publication's well-reasoned reviews and its attention to accurate historical detail make it worthwhile to include.
6) Perhaps it also is worth mentioning that in its 12+ year existence, The Music Box staff has conducted and published interviews with many well-known artists and music industry representatives, including Bruce Hornsby, Burning Spear, author and historian Dennis McNally, Be Good Tanyas/Po Girl's Trish Klein and Train. For years, The Music Box also has covered quite a few albums from major artists prior to their release. Clearly, the industry views The Music Box as a notable resource. 71.155.233.121 00:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Factbites.com/NRPS, and
San Francisco Mission District. 71.155.229.125 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, CSD A7 (:saddowns:) Luigi30 ( Taλk) 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Color name of questionable notability. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 22:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this article for deletion a second time for several reasons.
Delete unless the above concerns are addressed. TheRingess 18:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe this article to be a hoax. Fails verifiability, notability and has all the hallmarks of failing WP:NFT too. Demiurge 18:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an exact duplicate of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Shepherd_Community_Church_Toronto and is a Church Stub, giving information, and help to Scarbourites about this church. This is in NO WAY an advertisement, but just informational. AllanVS 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Park_Baptist_Church#Sunday_Services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Thomas_Anglican_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James-Bond_Church_%28Toronto%29 to name a few. By golly! They all sound like advertisements!!! AllanVS 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Guy ( Help!) 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unable to verify any of this. Strongly suspect it to be completely fabricated. Delete. StoptheDatabaseState 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, on the balance of arguments presented. As one !voter puts it, We shouldn't be combing through fansites looking for speculative material to make an article out of.. The question of whether or not it is original research was discussed in some depth, with credible arguments for, some creative interpretations of that policy, and some individual elements undoubtedly having credible arguments against OR, but the overall subject - insignia not covered in canon - is pretty much a guarantee that, whether or not it is technically OR in every respect, it contains core elements which must be original research, and it unquestionably represents a level of detail in excess of what is generally considered appropriate for a general encyclopaedia. Material of interest only to a very small number of dedicated fans - carefully avoiding that piece of Wikijargon which I know is on the tips of several tongues. Friends, let's not fight any longer. This can go to memory Alpha, I'll happily hand over the source if anyone wants it, but on the basis of the arguments presented below this is simply too far from the core principles of verifiable material neutrally stated from reliable secondary sources. Guy ( Help!) 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A prior "no consensus" closure was overturned at deletion review and is now here for reconsideration. Please consider both prior discussions, especially the questions about WP:OR. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The way I read that, quoting a statement directly from an off-screen source (such as a technical manual or a novel) is fine, as long as you make it clear where it's from, and that it's not canon. OTOH, using any source to invent new material yourself would definitely be OR.
"The Branch Admiral rank appears in the non-canon "Star Trek: The Next Generation Officer's Manual"" (the claim that it appears in this book is a verifiable fact)
"Leonard McCoy rose to the rank of Branch Admiral" (not stated on-screen, so it's conjecture)
Here are a couple other examples to illustrate my point (totally made up, of course):
Good, in-universe tone: "Luke blew up the Death Star (source: "A New Hope" movie)"
(based on canon source)
Good, out-of-universe tone: "In the novel "Dark Side", it is suggested that Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star. However, this novel is not considered canon."
(sources the claim, but makes it clear it's only suggested, and it's not an established fact within the fictional universe yet.)
Bad, in-universe tone: "Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star. (source: "Dark Side" novel)."
(it's not clear from this sentence that the source is non-canon)
Bad, out-of-universe tone: "It is suggested that Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star"
(unsourced, dismiss as purely original research by the editor until a source is found)
If anyone has some arguments about this reasoning, please share them here.
Now, onto this article - the old Warrant Officer section was a mess, but it's been much improved. The only section that still bugs me is the Admiral's ranks - four versions of TOS ranks, based on two websites? (cough) OR (cough). I asked for a definitive source last time this came up, but none's appeared, so I'm going to delete this section - it can be put back if sourced.
The main concern that would make me jump between keep and merge is the size of the article - if the current article (minus admiral's ranks) is below the current minimum size for an article it should be merged to the main ranks page (while making very bloody clear that these aren't canon ranks). If articles of this size are commonly allowed to stay independent, then the same standard should be applied. Quack 688 01:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Since there appears to be a level of confusion, let me explain a few things about Star Trek franchise's understanding of canon:
As for wikipedias approach to the matter at hand:
As for the merge idea:
As for the move to other wiki idea:
-- Cat out 04:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*KEEP: Camel Commodore would like to keep this article. It is from star trek books and magazines and shows insignia which we would otherwise not no about. Camel Commodore votes keep! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CamelCommodore (
talk •
contribs)
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is partly a copy paste from List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but entirely POV since it's only Israli massacres. Complete original research, POV, and unverifiable by nature. There's been some 3RR over prodding it and redirecting it to List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but I'd rather see it deleted and salted Elar a girl Talk| Count 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
comment if its a duplicate as stated then obviously it goes. equally obviously same logic should be applied to all these lists from this conflict, predating al nakba up until the present, they should all be laid out as in List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war not these random pov 'lists of x by y organisation'. this also provides the most logical/'neutral' way of list massacres whose perpetrators are disputed. ⇒ bsnowball 08:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Why not merge the page with "Terrorism against Israel" that way we solve 2 problems at once/....-- Burgas00 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep: (or possibly merge with all the various list of massacres commited by Palestinians)
Abu ali
22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy Delete (G11).-- Hús ö nd 20:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy. Business offering no indication of notability Nuttah68 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a blog.
Yossiea
19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. -- Core desat 00:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The subject of this article does not meet WP:MUSIC. Under the criteria for musicians and ensembles, he could meet number 10, but I disagree with the notion that any of the appearances in games were notable enough to require more than a passing notion in the respective articles, especially considering the great amount of minor artists that are featured in things such as Dance Dance Revolution. The article is not referenced properly, with most of the references being to trivial web sources. The article's subject has been actively editing the article. Voretus talk 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Let's go through the qualifications of WP:MUSIC: not close on #2 through #6, #8, #11, and #12; falls short on #10 (as it appears to be his "only claim" - and he creates music for software, which many would consider less than "notable" per the description); while some people could argue about the applicability of #7, his work is not representative of a specific city, particularly his native New York City. This leaves #9 (won or placed in a major music competition) and #1 (subject of reliable, independent coverage).
Some would argue that his winning Konami's music competition is notable enough, but others would counter that it is not unlike the jingle contests of the 1950s and 1960s and therefore not "major enough" to satisfy #9; regarding #1, triviality is in the eye of the beholder. Almost all of the links provided are not independent of the subject and do not exhibit notoriety beyond that of a limited audience of "the beat game community", and the one that could have worked if the article originated in something a bit more circulated than a college newspaper. It's a very close call - weak delete unless/until notability beyond the beat game community is better established via WP:MUSIC #1 or #9. B.Wind 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. Why must we keep going back to WP:MUSIC? As previously stated by Pumeleon, WP:MUSIC is not a policy. As it states in the article itself, it is a guideline. Bkid 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 21:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable documentary. A Google search for "'Electric Purgatory' -wikipedia" yields 570 hits. The top hits are the movie's website, a MySpace, and various directory entries. Consequentially 03:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, and No discussion that ties this to applicable policy. ~ trialsanderrors 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet notability standards of WP:Bio SteveHopson 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Here is another example of an artist who in my opinion should be listed somewhere. Emerging can be many things to many people. Some artists are always emerging. Is emerging a dirty word? Am I missing something here? Seems the butt of a joke even. Oh well.
Notability standards for artists should be slightly different than say if they were an author or lawyer. People often times are trying to find info on artiists in all kinds of places and obscurity based on notablility doesn't help the seeker at all here on Wikipedia.
Shouldn't Wikipedia make it easier to find things like in a dictionary and isn't it set up to supposedly be democratic at least?
Artist sites are developed differently and react differently and made for differing reasons. These site are established to do something in a totally different way than say a product site. Should the criterion be different here? I dont think it bodes well to pat everyone on the back and say job well done when nothing was accomplished except a delete of someones time and energy.
Maybe the artists themselves should have something like a WikiArtProject site set up separately to deal with all the complex nuancing and exclusivity issues and problems. Who knows? I just have an opinion after having worked with so many artists for over 20 years in galleries, museums and non-for-profits and my background is behavioral psychology, not art.
Also, in googling artists, I realize why so many sites only have one mention of an artist, which is fine by me, depending on the site and the type of gallery, museum or non-for-profit that administers the site. Many public and private institutions only have so much money for space that they are willing to devote and I suspect that if you are a non-for-profit that a single listing can and does go a long way if it is presented in the right, read nuanced, way and this is the point I am trying to make here. Nuance has to occur when subjectively deciding on whether an artist has merit. If a person is a full time artist and pays the bills and if this person is hardly ever mentioned in a googleable manner does she/he not have any kind of merit at all? Please do not bend art and artists into a wikifyable set of information that may only deminish the role they play in our society.
So many gray areas and so many ways to ill-understand them. Please be passionate but please consider that art is truth based in the reality that creates it and our future without it is not a culture. Artsojourner 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Also, this guy finished Bard. Know how hard and to what high standards Bard holds? This, in and of itself, is something of merit. I assure you but yet again this is only a nuance that has to be discerned. Artsojourner 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability of the band is not established in the article. theProject 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Springfield (The Simpsons). No sourced mergeable content, but maybe someone wants to scavenge the edit history and salvage sourceable material. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This information can be covered perfectly well in the respective episode articles. Having an article for two unrelated jokes in an 18-year-running (so far) show is ridiculous. Natalie 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. Cbrown1023 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
An article on the seal -- i.e., the insignia -- of Dartmouth College -- not notable beyond maybe a passing mention in the College's main article. Is the seal important beyond Dartmouth? Has it been recognized as historical, ground-breaking, notable, etc. beyond Dartmouth? Has it made an impact on the world beyond Dartmouth? I would characterize this as an indiscriminate collection of information. Dylan 21:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
SpongeBob fancruft. Article is about a store than appeared in only one episode of the show. Doesn't need its own article, can't ever be more than a stub. -- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Although I've put a lot of work into this article, I've recently realized it does not pass WP:NEO, because there has never been a definitive work on the subject ( the toastyfrog article does not count). When I first joined Wikipedia, it welcomed neologisms, quirky articles, and even original research with the expectation that such seeds would sprout into full, referenced articles. The current Wikipedia is a very different beast, or maybe I was just deluding myself. This article does not belong in the current Wikipedia. Luvcraft 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete an a non-encyclopedic interview, better suited to a fan website. (aeropagitica) 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an original interview with the subject, contrary to WP:NOR. Moreover, there's no evidence that this individual merits inclusion per WP:BIO, despite the first sentence in the article: Austin Hedges is a notable member of the Straight Edge movement. However, because I'm uncertain about the relevance of Dark Planet: Visions of America, or his role in it, I've deferred to the community instead of slapping a CSD on it. Mind matrix 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
the interview conducted for his article was done by a group of straight edge kids for a documentary. this documentary never made it past an amature level and never gained much notice out of the straight edge community. a few people from the crew that made the documentary went on to be Team Empire members. this is why it said that we conducted the interview ourselves. also many of the facts and quotes come from the documentary "Ive Got the Straight Edge". A member of Team Empire knows Austin on a semi-personal basis, and he provides us with updates on things like his MMA and musical status. also, because of the nature of Austin's notability, it is hard for there to be mass media coverage about him. There is little to no mass mediacoverage about anyone in the Straight Edge community. get back to me on any thing else i can clear up. -Steve and Team Empire Straightxedge 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
weve had this argument with user: Academic Challenger before. He checked our references and gave us the clearence for the page. i dont see whats any difference this time. you say he is a notable member of a notable movement, so how is he not notable? Straightxedge 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Austin has had important interviews in 2 films that have a "cult following" within the undergroud subculture of Straight Edge, so i would say so. Straightxedge 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as original research, lacking in sources. (aeropagitica) 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I am not sure about this article. To be honest, I do not know what it is about, but I am tired and not Canadian. It may well deserve to be kept, that is why I am bringing it here, and remaining neutral for now. Apologies if I have nominated a perfectly valid article. J Milburn 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
(Looks like some Canadian kids are just experimenting with Wikipedia. I've just prodded the linked to Bernie Beanie article). Bwithh 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable product. (aeropagitica) 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable product. Article appears to have been created and maintained by parties associated with the product. Talk:Damminix has more information Oasisbob 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 22:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this entry as a failure of WP:SPAM. The article has been written by a user with the organization's name. They are using an affiliate link to track the amount of traffic comeing to them via the article. I did not bring this deletion via speedy as I anticipated the creator would want to comment.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, as withdrawn by nominator, and only objection is that there is vandalism to the article, which is not really a deletion criterion. I suggest doing WP:RM for move to Silver Chips. - Patstuart talk| edits 01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Despite the awards, hardly any content asserts the notability or importance of this online school newspaper. The awards themselves appear to be non-notable ( ghits), thus not making the article meet WP:WEB. Hús ö nd 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
138.88.11.172 04:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as an unsourced article. Nothing mentioned with reliable sources to merge with Afro. (aeropagitica) 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
neologism; unsourced, probable OR; prod removed after Gafro went to AfD B.Wind 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as an unsourced an non-notable biography. Proof needs to be offered for claims of notability, using reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable person; only purported achievement in the article is claim he invented instant coffee, which I'm pretty sure was invented by George Washington Carver. (As an aside, I've also {{ prod}}ded the article for the grocery store referred to in this article.) Agent 86 23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as an unsourced biography without any claim as to the notability of its subject. (aeropagitica) 21:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The son of a minor nobleman who has done nothing on his own does not pass WP:BIO. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
He is actually quite well known in aristocratic circles, his family are friends with the royals. I've seen him pictured with Prince William before, as they are friends. -- Charles.bradbury 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I've heard of him before. In fact, there was quite a lot of discussion among certain groups here in London last year, because of his actions. I'll try to find the news article online. It was in the Times last year. Jamie p077 18:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
But as Jamie p077 wrote, there were certainly many mentions of him in the past few years in the papers. In fact, the reason I even ended up here was because I had tried to look him up before, but there wasn't an article, so I am glad that there is now, even if it does only contain basic information. -- Charles.bradbury 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as speculation and Original research. (aeropagitica) 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I prodded this article a few days ago but an anon editor deprodded without any explanation. The original reason I gave was "Loose collection of ideas related only by the fact that they don't exist, ie, inappropriate subject for an encyclopedia article" and I stand by this assessment. It also looks a little like crystal-balling but I'm not sure. Any objections? Axem Titanium 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable football club that apparently cannot even spell its own name correctly - Millennium, ibid. (aeropagitica) 21:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
No reply to queries on Talk:Onyx Millenium Football Club or my note to Celtic0106. Presuming non-notable. -- Smjg 23:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. — Larry V ( talk | contribs) 05:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
NN teacher. Nekohakase 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not noteworthy, poorly written, fanboiism. As far as I can see, they never even had an album. Grymsqueaker 09:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as per above Grymsqueaker 09:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete A7. Luna Santin 09:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is absolute nonsense, it probsbly links to a virus site. -- Bezking 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Bezking 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, as keep is unopposed, and nomination withdrawn. Patstuart talk| edits 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a list of things; claims to have been "under construction" by creator who's not returned. Patstuart talk| edits 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete. — ERcheck ( talk) 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:CORP BJ Talk 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Lots of people write poetry. Seems NN compared to many other poets in existence. Contested prod figured I would send it for afd. My nom is Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and move to Lan Yu (general). ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable stub on an obscure person, fails WP:BIO. when typed into google, the results are for Lan Yu, a controversial 2001 Hong Kong film and Orchid Island of Taiwan. Abstrakt 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, on the balance of arguments presented plus a quick sanity check which finds that (a) the article is unreferenced; (b) there are only 26 unique Google hits for "Copperfield Death Saw"; (c) Copperfield's own site does not figure in that list, so that doesn't appear to be what he calls it. Wrong content, wrong title. Guy ( Help!) 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
It's hard to fix although the trick is curectly discribed, doomed to remain a stub, would be better if made into a section of a bigger article.
The result was Keep and merge with Four Ppillars of destiny. Guy ( Help!) 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article and the similar Four pillars of destiny should have any verifiable and useful text merged to Chinese astrology. At this time, though, there is no verified text to merge, so anyone with sources should begin a section at Chinese astrology rather than here. Delete because it's unverified, unsourced, because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and because I suspect that both pages are advertisements for astro . fungshui . com masquerading as articles TheronJ 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A very undefined list that really is to vague to serve any use Gnevin 00:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No deal, delete ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article, which is unreferenced at present and reads like an ad, was originally speedied under A7/G11. The magazine was launched "this fall", so I question it's notability. The creator, who by his own admission [3] is associated with the magazine and/or company and whose only edits are to this and one other related article [1], maintains that it's notable, so I'm bringing it here for review. I'm indifferent to it myself. -- Steel 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as converted to disambig page. Agent 86 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no links to the page, and have not been since August at least, and the article of the book from where this character originates is a stub. Character not deserving of an article, should be included on a "List of Characters" page at most. -- MPD01605 ( T / C) 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
PAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO DAB AFTER ALL ABOVE VOTES New voting on dab replaced at 15:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) begins below.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a made-up term for an essay written on a subject of choice. When I prodded it, it was half how-to and half-completely made up- the links added by its author bear no relevance to the article. Anyway, I think this is an unverifiable neologism. I should also mention the Wiktionary article does not exist, and the Essay article has no mention of such a topic. Wafulz 00:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Nihonjoe. MER-C 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like a resume, and if not, a bio of a company that is not notable. JudahBlaze 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JudahBlaze 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
delete fails notability, only nominated, did not receive academy award Buridan 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article sounds like an advertisement. It does not state what makes it notable. There are thousands of forums on the Internet. We cannot write an article about each one of them. Meno25 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
As for WP:WEB: That has been in use for a long time now. "It's only a guideline." cuts no mustard at all. You are making a bad argument that has been made many times before, and that has been rebutted many times over long since. For one thing, not having an entire article on something is not the same as not including information about it. See Wikipedia:Notability#Dealing_with_non-notable_topics. As I said, the aforementioned one sentence of verifiable information (now one-and-a-half, with the addition of Asia Times) can be easily included in Al-Quaeda, a very natural home for it. For another thing, until you can cite as many independent sources for this web site as Bulbasaur#Notes_and_references cites, your Pokémon argument (for that is what it is) will hold no water at all. Uncle G 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
delete list cruft, it would contain everyon by definition in wikipedia in the 20th century.. Buridan 01:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails wp:prof, only a few edited volumes and nothing else Buridan 01:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Basically nothing can be written about it (self-admitted in the article). Basically all speculation. — Mets501 ( talk) 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Nom - non-notable "star" of non-notable video (a video previously AfD'd). Other than the non-notable video, this person has no other claim to notability. If the video fails notability, and its "star" has only this to his/her credits, then it follows that the star is also not notable. Rklawton 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I reckon this should be deleted as failing WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Otherwise, this will certainly grow into a collection of lists of each and every person who has appeared on each and every magazine in the world. Note that, this article is already much larger than the article on Dime Magazine itself. I would suggest merging the contents to Dime Magazine (already done), and deleting the article page as redundant. Ohconfucius 02:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirecting to Away team under WP:SNOW. Morwen - Talk 13:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Total, unapologetic original research. I thought about a merger into Redshirt or Away team, but there does not seem to be anything worth saving in this article, which violates Wikipedia is not for things forwarded in e-mails. JChap2007 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article should be deleted on the grounds of WP:OR and that it is offensive. - Gilliam 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom - Gilliam 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename Interesting topic, needs to be expanded with more references. "Offensive" is irrelevant, this is factual and relevant, and people's emotional reactions to articles are not our business. Haiduc 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by User:Alkivar with the rationale of "WP:NOT a Crystal Ball". Sandstein 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced rumours about a non-released game. Reposted twice, The previous AFDs are here and here, results were no consensus and delete respectively. Contested prod. MER-C 02:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn with no alternative opinions to "keep" given. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable Pakistani corporation; about $350 million in sales, they make fertilizer and sell or resell various agriculture-related products. I don't see any real claim of notability. Brianyoumans 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete. -- 210 physicq ( c) 04:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
NN; author has repeatedly removed speedy tags Perel 03:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Businessman and former mayor of Springville, Utah (pop 20,424). Fails WP:BIO. 17 unique Ghits, nothing which indicates he is anything but a very local figure. Ohconfucius 03:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The author sealed the fate of this one: "Clay3D is aiming to be blah, blah, blah" and "currently in the planning stages of its development. As of January 2006, no binary or source releases of the software have been made yet". It also is a vaporware product and does not meet our notability criteria for software. TTV| talk| contribs| email 04:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Punkmorten 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
At first it looked OK. On second glance nothing of particular note or importance, likely just a puff piece. Akihabara 07:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This was listed on DRV, where the lister was self-admittely confused about the process regarding renomination of kept articles. The debate, which was withdrawn by the applicant, can be viewed here: [19] The original AfD can be viewed here (closed as no concensus), that took place about five months ago.
The reason for listing was:The concensus from DRV was to relist at AfD, so here it is. Eat your heart out - this is a procedural nomination, so no opinion from me just yet. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC) replyDelete or Merge with article on Election -- WP:BIO. Proponents for keeping the article during the July discussion centered on her viability as a candidate in the November 2006 election. As the election is over and she has lost, her notability seems to have declined. AndrewSaint 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted by Nihonjoe. MER-C 07:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Mojo Energy Drink seems to be an advertising page. No references are given and Google searches return almost no unique articles. – Someguy0830 ( T | C) 05:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. KOS | talk 08:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently the author looked in the bathroom mirror, said " Biggie Smalls" three times, then signed the resurrected rapper into an English football club under the pseudonym "Joe Cook" ...Admin refused to speedy this, so here it is... I already copied to WP:BJAODN Tubezone 05:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 07:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy. Sure looks like egregious spam to me. Proprietary name for particular manufacturing process. I'm happy for them, but we don't need an article consisting mainly of unsourced crowing about how their technique shaves great wads of cost from making FPGAs. Only ref is company site. Herostratus 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 07:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A poorly-formatted list of inconsistently named extremely minor opponents in a game series. This list of minor, interchangeable viruses is comparable to a list of every single piece of furniture in the Final Fantasy series, or every single kind of block in the Super Mario games. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete (G4, A7). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 07:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable young record company. Article was deleted in september after an uncontested prod, but is now recreated. The record label gets only 11 distinct Google hits excluding Myspace [26], and 24 if you include myspace [27]. None of these hits indicate any notability, outside reviews, famous bands, ... Could perhaps be speedied for spam, but I prefer to give it an AfD and get it done with. Fram 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnotability, never heard of it Splintercellguy 06:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete as nonsense (without comment on previous admin's decision). AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A kiddie prank article, no monarchs in Bohemia until 910, and they didn't have Scottish names like "McCarthy"... Again, an admin declined to speedy this obvious nonsense. Tubezone 06:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (normal speed) - Yomangani talk 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy deleted, reposted, prodded and speedy-tagged again, but this time around sort of asserts notability. What do you think? Procedural nomination, no opinion. Sandstein 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The reasoning why hoax is not speedy is, or at least ought to be, that this is not the sort of judgment a single person should make, as its basically saying "I have never heard of it." DGG 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT for how-to content. Tagged for speedy deletion, but meets no criteria of WP:CSD. Sandstein 06:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John Lake 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
How can this wreck of a page ever be NPOV? There isn't even a single source for this list, and why do we need to promote a single state's opinions about other states? -- Nyp 06:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:SOFTWARE and has no reliable sources BJ Talk 06:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Oxford University Labour Club. Nothing is sourced, so nothing for me to merge directly, but the edit history is preserved if someone wants to include sourced content in the OULC article. ~ trialsanderrors 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Is Rupert Murdoch big enough to save this weekly student rag published by Oxford University Labour Club? This is one great big list to massage the egos of those Labour Club secretaries. Delete or mergeandredirectto Oxford University Labour Club: the choice is yours. Ohconfucius 07:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was created by the same person who created Agnosticalia, an apparent hoax/nonsense. This has a few more Ghits, but it's all columnists using the phrase as an aside, forum posts and the like. It was used as a phrase a few times, but otherwise doesn't register. Kchase T 07:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 07:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced autobiography of a non-notable person. Contested prod. MER-C 07:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be very notable. I couldn't find much info on him. External links are his website, a magazine that has printed 6 issues, and a foreign website with an interview about his artwork.--Joe Jklin ( T C) 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is problematic on two counts. First: it is assumed that there is a definition for the word "dictator", which in today's usage signifies an autocratic, tyrannical ruler - an inherently subjective definition. (Yes, one could re-name the ever-popular List of Dictators to List of people called Dictators or something, but time would be better spent at calling those rulers by their nominal title and instead discussing the political system in depth.)
Second: the fact that an autocrat might choose to pass on the anoint a family membe his successor is extremely trivial. Running a hgovernment racket is profitable and of course one chooses to keep the profits in the family.
Trivial, subjective stuff. Dr Zak 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Gallery of fair use images with little context. Contested prod. MER-C 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
List of trivia copied from old version of List of Metalocalypse episodes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor does such fancruft deserve its own page. – Someguy0830 ( T | C) 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because some person posted a message on your talk page, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was delete. Wickethewok 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Game in development ( WP:NOT a crystal ball), has only a main website as a source, no multiple reliable indepedent third-party media coverage ( WP:V and WP:N) The Kinslayer 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Deprodded. Notability not established, no indication that it has been or will be released. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Kchase T 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, apparent hoax. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax article. There is no species as Salmo cervus, or a fish with a common name as "elk trout". The "the Elk trout have minor horns protruding just above their eyes" sentence is a dead giveaway. Article creation is the editor's only contributions to Wikipedia. Neil916 ( Talk) 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Lectonar. MER-C 10:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A webcomic with no assertion of notability. Renata 08:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Canderson7 ( talk) 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The "Bunting-Friedmann Threat Index" was contrived in a one-shot joke in a Penny Arcade blog post. In that post, two levels on this "index" were supplied. The rest of the levels listed in the article were made up by:
— MementoVivere ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Several apparent problems with this. WP:COI, article was created by the subject of the article; no assertion of notability, no sources other than the subject's own websites; and the article is about a failed third party candidate from an already-concluded election. This was a contested prod back in August but never brought to AFD. I'm doing it now. Dragomiloff 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
It is a vanity page. "-- Railcgun 13:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)" reply
As above - this page was deleted yesterday as vanity and has been recreated by the same user. The text is almost all false, and the user certainly doesn't meet notability. gummAY 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The subect does not seem all that notable and may be only of very narrow sectarian interest. Apart from his day job, he writes book reviews in the Guardian. The vast majority of hits for reviews of his book are from booksellers' sites (including several for www.ekklesia.co.uk, which he heads), I only found one independent review for the Subversive Manifesto, and one for Faith and Politics After Christendom, but am unsure about the quality of the sources. Neither book is ranked by Amazon.com. Ohconfucius 09:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to list of towers. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
We have been deleting all masts without significance below 350m in height. I propose to knock this 25m wooden observation tower on the head too, unless someone can indicate why this mast may be notable.... Ohconfucius 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as an attack article that is a thinly veiled negative characterization of an identifiable person. I was going to let the discussion run its course, with a strong recommendation to delete it if no sources were forthcoming by the end of the AFD discussion period, until I read the Slashdot thread. It's clear from reading that that this is a mis-use of Wikipedia to promote a protologism, and that there is zero chance of sources being provided, since no sources exist for something that was made up on Slashdot one day in the hopes that "people would start actually using the term". Uncle G 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A somewhat unknown neologism. Might be merge material, but based on a random it doesn't appear to be exactly widespread (Most google hits appear to be in German; I get 38 distinct google hits in English). wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 09:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. -- Core desat 13:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable unsigned kids band without any commercial releases. Also doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Most likely a vanity page. kollision 10:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Might have qualified as a speedy. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:COI. Created by User:Onodream (domain name of his site). 38 unique Ghits for him and 5 unique hits for "Spirit, Concrete, Earth" Ohconfucius 10:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Prodded by nominator, who doesn't think this is worth having a 5-day discussion over.. riana_dzasta 13:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Probably qualifies for speedying under A7, but I just want to err on the side of caution. Hardly notable enough for its own article. riana_dzasta 11:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Listcruft, and quite offensive to those people who have (through no fault of their own) parents who were not married to each other. It might be argued to move to List of people born outside of marriage or some such title but that would be a useless list of mere coincidences. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 11:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong keep but rename to "List of persons born out of wedlock" or some such. Illegitimacy was an important legal status in many countries (including Russia); the illegitimate couldn't marry, own property, or even work in some professions. Having such a list, especially for people born before ca. 1918, would make it easier for a student looking at the changing status of the illegitimate. I think that at least with respect to historical individuals it's quite encyclopedic. -- Charlene 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Guy ( Help!) 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject is an academic professional, but non-notable. Text of article taken from here. Media anthro 12:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non Notable Radio and TV personality, contested Prod. WP:COI voldemortuet 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:48, 19 December 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}} . |
Wikipedia is not a place to host resumes of non-notable actors. Gladlyplaid 13:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete (A7). Blatant WP:COI, obnoxious talk page. Will salt if recreated.-- Hús ö nd 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a place to host resumes of non-notable actors. Also, this may or may not be relevant, but a user with the name User:AndrewJesseBrown edited the Jason Modica article (another non-notable resume) and accused him of rape and drug charges, which is a pretty serious claim to make without any citations. See the edit here. Gladlyplaid 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)— Gladlyplaid ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant with list of monotremes and marsupials. Delete UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
From speedy, decided to bring to AfD. The original speedy reason was a lack of notability, but A7 doesn't apply to schools. This is procedural - no opinion. Core desat 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
the general style of religious converts lists has always been "List of converts to X", because their conversion to X is what has been notable. a "List of people who left Islam" or "List of ex-A" is unnecessary and irrelevant because a) it falsely assumes ex-Y became so because of Y, and not because of their conviction in something else (i.e. religion X); b) it consists of unnecessary duplication, by "leaving Y" they have automatically become a "convert to X"'; c) there is no precedence for this as we do not have a "
List of people who left Christianity", "
List of people who left Hinduism", "
List of people who left Athiesm", nor do we need it. d) the focus is inappropriately on negation, the title and entire purpose of such a list is implicitly loaded with a negative connotation against religion Y, and under the false premise discussed in point a) serves as a vehicle for propaganda/advocacy.
i have also included the following in this nom:
Delete all as unnecessary and irrelevant (previous AfD was no consensus, but it included all convert lists and not those exclusively associated with negatative identification like ex-A) -- ITAQALLAH 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep or Delete the lists mentioned by
T. Anthony with it
Alf photoman
15:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Redirect to Chris Pontius. Agent 86 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a notable enough character to warrant its own page. The information is already on the Chris Pontius and Jackass pages. Ocatecir 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. Fails WP:BIO. Has appeared in a few episodes of a TV series and a few movies in minor roles. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. Appeared in a single film in 1985. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. Appeared in a minor role in a single film. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Rename to Wikipedia:Encyclopodia. Redirect was deleted, since it's cross-namespace. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
In the absence of any mentioned notability I propose moving this article to Wikipedia:Encyclopodia but would be happy if instead some thrid party references could be added. -- BozMo talk 16:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Owen Hart. Let's put this one to bed. Deizio talk 15:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus. Davnel03 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
[59], not to mention that most other "special" editions of RAW have also been deleted: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. So based on that precedent, there is no reason for this article to be there as well, a merge to Owen Hart is also acceptable.
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This was first marked as a speedy and the tag was removed then it was marked as prod and the tag was removed by an anon without comment so here it is at AfD. No Ghits, commendable academic record but non the less non notable bio. John Lake 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
There is nothing in this article that asserts the subject's notability per Wikipedia:Notability, and it appears to read like a promotions piece. SunStar Net talk 16:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted by admin as reposted content. Agent 86 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. LILVOKA 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Keep This article has made serious improvements, and I think it is now acceptable. --
Adam Riley
Talk
02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Keep I really could care less about this individual school, but I think all high schools are notable enough to be listed on wikipedia. Many high schools are larger than universities, and all universities (at least all of them I have ever searched for) are considered notable enough. (and if you only consider some high schools notable enough, then what are the criteria for a high school being notable enough? I would think being the only one in a city, as this one is, would qualify as much as a library or any of the other types of things listed here.) If this high school is not notable enough, then there are thousands of high school wikipedia entries out there that need to be deleted too, since it wouldn't be fair to single out one high school over the others. ( Cardsplayer4life 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)) reply
In addition to what I wrote previously, the Wikipedia:Schools which was brought to my attention by the nominator for deletion clearly shows that (per item #3) the school (and most schools) are "locally distinctive". I just wanted to add this point to my original statement, even though discussion about it is also included further down. ( Cardsplayer4life 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)) reply
The result was delete Metros232 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This person does not seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Adam Riley Talk 07:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article fails to establish notability, and vast majority of google search results are copies of this article from various sources rernst 10:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The article has no reliable secondary sources and is just connected to one person's ideology, and this ideology is not notable at all. TruthSpreader Talk 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete as a copyright violation. Right now, this is just a reproduction of the author's work, no different than an article on a song that consisted of the name of the artist and a verbatim copy of the lyrics. If the copyvio portion was removed, there would be precious little left. -
Eron
Talk 18:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Amended to Keep following rewrite. Good job. -
Eron
Talk
16:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
* Delete per Eron as copyvio. With no other content in the article than the copy violation, it ought not stand. Keep - good job on the rewrite; I've no further problems with it.
RGTraynor
20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is based on [67], which is an Islamic propagandist website (see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Answering-Islam.org). And as reason given by User:Truthspreader on talk page that Zad al-Ma'ad is a historical document, and hence a primary source.
Major flaws include:
-- Herald reply 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per explanation of creator and sole editor that this was a mistake. Uncle G 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Was meant to be a cat, not an article Kevlar67 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as the author requests deletion - could have used {{ db-author}} instead. (aeropagitica) 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
DELETE : Now that I think about it, this is a pointless article that I shouldn't have created. This character was only on B&B for a short time and no longer has any connections on the show. Kogsquinge 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - hahnch e n 19:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, the subject of this article fails WP:Notability. FrummerThanThou 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Ironicly the strongest argument to delete was made by someone wanting to keep it... --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research synthesis about a Yu-Gi-Oh! parody fan series on YouTube. Now, as a disclaimer, I think it's hilarious, but I'm afraid it doesn't meet the Web content notability guidelines. Specifically:
Additionally, the article in is current form is an unencyclopedic analytical guide to the series based upon personal observation, not information published in reliable sources. -- Slowking Man 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the second time someone has wanted to delete an article I have written under rights of notability so you'll forgive me if I sound...unhappy. While I will admit when i first began the article most of the infomation provided on The Abridged Series was from my own personal interpretation (It has since been edited several times) It is simply because I am not Little Kuriboh, and therefore can not give use reliable sources, short of asking Kuriboh himself (Something I have been trying to do, but have been unable to due his busy lifestyle). Another thing to point out is not every article subject on Wikipedia has been the subject of published works, nor has every article subject won a notable independent award. As to the host issue, Youtube is hardly a trivial host. Although, yes, anyone can upload onto the site (I myself own an account there) some of the contributors are well known companies such as NBS and CBS just to name a couple. I would also like to point out that episodes 1-14 were recently realeased onto Bittorrent (As close as it will ever get to a DVD release) thus taking it away from hosts all together. I am aware that the article doesn't read like other pages, but I am trying my hardest to change it. Also, unless the article is deleted, I am trying to improve it as best I can (Episode guide, etc) Finally, People LIKE this page. The articles talk page only has one person wanting to delete it (For it's notability) I have worked hard on it, and am pleased that people have taken an interest in updating it. in other words, I don't think you should delete this page. Dearing 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
If you are going to delete this article, I will not stop you (I know other people simply keep putting old pages back up after being deleted.) However, I would like to say two things. The first is that I will be keeping a copy of this page in case THe Abridged Series reaches the specifications needed to to be classed as a wikipedia article. the second thing is that after reading the articles talk page, I discovered several people found the article to be useful (Note i said useful, not "They liked it".) Cactus Bob said and i quote "I personally searched for this topic myself. I believe that this page is a valuable resource for finding references that would be different to research on one's own", while MoChan said "I actually found out about this series in the first place thanks to this article". I always thought Wikipedia was here to inform people, that was the only reason I began this article. I think that the series is notable enough to get a page here, even though it's hasn't won any awards or been featured in publications, but judging from this page, many of you don't think the same. I can understand that. We all have to follow the rules, otherwise we'd have chaos. Dearing 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
"Encyclopedia-A comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics." extract taken from Wiktionary's article on Encylopedia. Now to me, that just says "A Reference book used to tell people about all kinds of stuff," Which is what I use Encylopedias for, to look up info on things I want to know about. I couldn't find a page on The Abridged Series, so I wrote one in the hopes I could tell other people about it, and they'd find it useful. and for what it's worth, they did. Dearing 11:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
"Comprehensive-Broadly or completely covering," so yes, essentually it IS all-inclusive. The most recent watched episode of THe Abridged series as of the date of this message was 257,526. three of it's episodes currently hold positions in You tube's top rated comedy section. It's featured on thousands of dirrerent forums. If this is notible, then I don't know what is. Dearing 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
It also adds a bit about characters behaviors, comparing them to their original behavior, in the original series. There is really no harm done with this article, it's well-built, and actually HELPS, by showing you certain quotations and their origin. N 14:32, 19 December 2006 [UTC]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.66.234.124 ( talk) 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC). reply
Perhaps it does qualify as "original research," but as the writer of this article argued earlier, when there are no available primary sources, you are restricted to origial research.
here HAVE been third-party publications about this cartoon series, on many Internet sites that should be considered non-trivial.
So what draws the line between this article and a "primary source" article hosted somewhere "non-trivial"?
The tens-of-thousands of them who found out about the series by reading about it on third-party Internet sites.
Someone earlier in this AfD also mentioned the release of episodes 1-14 to Bittorrent, which sounds to me like it fits the bill of "well known and independent of the creators," although it too would fall under your trivial clause, wouldn't it?
So yeah... 'm very sorry. Hopefully I can figure out this whole torrent thing, so's at least people can download the series to their hard-drives. That'd be neat, huh?
Torrential Tribute
Can anybody who knows about torrents check this out and see if it works?
Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series Torrent
If it doesn't, then can ya tell me what I'm doin' wrong? *blush*
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmky87 ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC). reply
The result was delete. Davnel03 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe this should be deleted as it covers a tour that wasn't shown live all over the world, although it came out on DVD, it was not a Pay-Per-View. Davnel03 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because it, like the others was not a Pay-Per-View and not shown all over the world:
The result was Merge to The Game (rapper) (unsurprisingly), and since it has already been done I shall redirect it. Yomangani talk 11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is already covered in greater detail (with sources) at The Game (rapper) L0b0t 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a dictionary definition of a phrase. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
And do you have this phrase in english?
If you do then I apologize and won't mind if you remove it..
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy tag and PROD tag were removed, but I still don't see evidence that this is notable enough for inclusion. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 17:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
1) The guidelines for Resources under Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines are basically non-existent, so it is unclear as to what criteria are being utilized to judge the validity of this entry.
2) Even under the more general guidelines for articles/entries, it should be noted that The Music Box and its staff have been resources for and have provided content to other mainstream media outlets.
a) Print: Its editor and staff have been resources and contributors to at least a few mainstream publications/newspapers. Both the Florida Times-Union and the Louisville Courier-Journal, for example, are the major papers that serve their respective areas.
b) Radio: Its editor has made guest appearances on at least one major radio station, where he served as the co-host of a regular segment. WKZE 98.1 FM is a large and well-respected commercial station in Connecticut.
That The Music Box has passed both the editorial and the commercial considerations of at least a few major print and radio outlets means that it has been recognized within the industry as being a notable, reputable, and authoritative media outlet in its own right.
Also, given that The Music Box is based in Illinois, these (Kentucky, Florida, Connecticut) are big geographic distances to traverse for a non-notable publication.
When combined with the 2-year duration of the radio segment, these facts lend very strong credence to the notion that The Music Box has knowledgeable expertise that has been recognized outside the scope of its own existence, which therefore makes it a notable resource/publication.
In addition, I also submit the following:
3) The registered users who created the article in February 2006 (and have since worked on it and categorized it) clearly have felt that The Music Box was a notable resource. It is puzzling that after all this time, it now is being targeted for deletion with a simple 'nn' designation.
4) The Music Box has been published since 1994, and while one could argue that longevity is not necessarily indicative of notability, it also could be argued that its having a track record of 12+ years is.
5) The Music Box is well-written and informative, the latter being the very definition of a useful resource. Again, taken on its own, this might not refute the argument that it is not notable, but the publication's well-reasoned reviews and its attention to accurate historical detail make it worthwhile to include.
6) Perhaps it also is worth mentioning that in its 12+ year existence, The Music Box staff has conducted and published interviews with many well-known artists and music industry representatives, including Bruce Hornsby, Burning Spear, author and historian Dennis McNally, Be Good Tanyas/Po Girl's Trish Klein and Train. For years, The Music Box also has covered quite a few albums from major artists prior to their release. Clearly, the industry views The Music Box as a notable resource. 71.155.233.121 00:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Factbites.com/NRPS, and
San Francisco Mission District. 71.155.229.125 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, CSD A7 (:saddowns:) Luigi30 ( Taλk) 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Color name of questionable notability. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 22:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this article for deletion a second time for several reasons.
Delete unless the above concerns are addressed. TheRingess 18:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe this article to be a hoax. Fails verifiability, notability and has all the hallmarks of failing WP:NFT too. Demiurge 18:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an exact duplicate of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Shepherd_Community_Church_Toronto and is a Church Stub, giving information, and help to Scarbourites about this church. This is in NO WAY an advertisement, but just informational. AllanVS 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Park_Baptist_Church#Sunday_Services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Thomas_Anglican_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James-Bond_Church_%28Toronto%29 to name a few. By golly! They all sound like advertisements!!! AllanVS 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Guy ( Help!) 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unable to verify any of this. Strongly suspect it to be completely fabricated. Delete. StoptheDatabaseState 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, on the balance of arguments presented. As one !voter puts it, We shouldn't be combing through fansites looking for speculative material to make an article out of.. The question of whether or not it is original research was discussed in some depth, with credible arguments for, some creative interpretations of that policy, and some individual elements undoubtedly having credible arguments against OR, but the overall subject - insignia not covered in canon - is pretty much a guarantee that, whether or not it is technically OR in every respect, it contains core elements which must be original research, and it unquestionably represents a level of detail in excess of what is generally considered appropriate for a general encyclopaedia. Material of interest only to a very small number of dedicated fans - carefully avoiding that piece of Wikijargon which I know is on the tips of several tongues. Friends, let's not fight any longer. This can go to memory Alpha, I'll happily hand over the source if anyone wants it, but on the basis of the arguments presented below this is simply too far from the core principles of verifiable material neutrally stated from reliable secondary sources. Guy ( Help!) 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
A prior "no consensus" closure was overturned at deletion review and is now here for reconsideration. Please consider both prior discussions, especially the questions about WP:OR. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The way I read that, quoting a statement directly from an off-screen source (such as a technical manual or a novel) is fine, as long as you make it clear where it's from, and that it's not canon. OTOH, using any source to invent new material yourself would definitely be OR.
"The Branch Admiral rank appears in the non-canon "Star Trek: The Next Generation Officer's Manual"" (the claim that it appears in this book is a verifiable fact)
"Leonard McCoy rose to the rank of Branch Admiral" (not stated on-screen, so it's conjecture)
Here are a couple other examples to illustrate my point (totally made up, of course):
Good, in-universe tone: "Luke blew up the Death Star (source: "A New Hope" movie)"
(based on canon source)
Good, out-of-universe tone: "In the novel "Dark Side", it is suggested that Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star. However, this novel is not considered canon."
(sources the claim, but makes it clear it's only suggested, and it's not an established fact within the fictional universe yet.)
Bad, in-universe tone: "Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star. (source: "Dark Side" novel)."
(it's not clear from this sentence that the source is non-canon)
Bad, out-of-universe tone: "It is suggested that Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star"
(unsourced, dismiss as purely original research by the editor until a source is found)
If anyone has some arguments about this reasoning, please share them here.
Now, onto this article - the old Warrant Officer section was a mess, but it's been much improved. The only section that still bugs me is the Admiral's ranks - four versions of TOS ranks, based on two websites? (cough) OR (cough). I asked for a definitive source last time this came up, but none's appeared, so I'm going to delete this section - it can be put back if sourced.
The main concern that would make me jump between keep and merge is the size of the article - if the current article (minus admiral's ranks) is below the current minimum size for an article it should be merged to the main ranks page (while making very bloody clear that these aren't canon ranks). If articles of this size are commonly allowed to stay independent, then the same standard should be applied. Quack 688 01:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Since there appears to be a level of confusion, let me explain a few things about Star Trek franchise's understanding of canon:
As for wikipedias approach to the matter at hand:
As for the merge idea:
As for the move to other wiki idea:
-- Cat out 04:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*KEEP: Camel Commodore would like to keep this article. It is from star trek books and magazines and shows insignia which we would otherwise not no about. Camel Commodore votes keep! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CamelCommodore (
talk •
contribs)
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is partly a copy paste from List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but entirely POV since it's only Israli massacres. Complete original research, POV, and unverifiable by nature. There's been some 3RR over prodding it and redirecting it to List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but I'd rather see it deleted and salted Elar a girl Talk| Count 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
comment if its a duplicate as stated then obviously it goes. equally obviously same logic should be applied to all these lists from this conflict, predating al nakba up until the present, they should all be laid out as in List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war not these random pov 'lists of x by y organisation'. this also provides the most logical/'neutral' way of list massacres whose perpetrators are disputed. ⇒ bsnowball 08:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Why not merge the page with "Terrorism against Israel" that way we solve 2 problems at once/....-- Burgas00 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep: (or possibly merge with all the various list of massacres commited by Palestinians)
Abu ali
22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy Delete (G11).-- Hús ö nd 20:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy. Business offering no indication of notability Nuttah68 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a blog.
Yossiea
19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. -- Core desat 00:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The subject of this article does not meet WP:MUSIC. Under the criteria for musicians and ensembles, he could meet number 10, but I disagree with the notion that any of the appearances in games were notable enough to require more than a passing notion in the respective articles, especially considering the great amount of minor artists that are featured in things such as Dance Dance Revolution. The article is not referenced properly, with most of the references being to trivial web sources. The article's subject has been actively editing the article. Voretus talk 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Let's go through the qualifications of WP:MUSIC: not close on #2 through #6, #8, #11, and #12; falls short on #10 (as it appears to be his "only claim" - and he creates music for software, which many would consider less than "notable" per the description); while some people could argue about the applicability of #7, his work is not representative of a specific city, particularly his native New York City. This leaves #9 (won or placed in a major music competition) and #1 (subject of reliable, independent coverage).
Some would argue that his winning Konami's music competition is notable enough, but others would counter that it is not unlike the jingle contests of the 1950s and 1960s and therefore not "major enough" to satisfy #9; regarding #1, triviality is in the eye of the beholder. Almost all of the links provided are not independent of the subject and do not exhibit notoriety beyond that of a limited audience of "the beat game community", and the one that could have worked if the article originated in something a bit more circulated than a college newspaper. It's a very close call - weak delete unless/until notability beyond the beat game community is better established via WP:MUSIC #1 or #9. B.Wind 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. Why must we keep going back to WP:MUSIC? As previously stated by Pumeleon, WP:MUSIC is not a policy. As it states in the article itself, it is a guideline. Bkid 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 21:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable documentary. A Google search for "'Electric Purgatory' -wikipedia" yields 570 hits. The top hits are the movie's website, a MySpace, and various directory entries. Consequentially 03:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, and No discussion that ties this to applicable policy. ~ trialsanderrors 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet notability standards of WP:Bio SteveHopson 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Here is another example of an artist who in my opinion should be listed somewhere. Emerging can be many things to many people. Some artists are always emerging. Is emerging a dirty word? Am I missing something here? Seems the butt of a joke even. Oh well.
Notability standards for artists should be slightly different than say if they were an author or lawyer. People often times are trying to find info on artiists in all kinds of places and obscurity based on notablility doesn't help the seeker at all here on Wikipedia.
Shouldn't Wikipedia make it easier to find things like in a dictionary and isn't it set up to supposedly be democratic at least?
Artist sites are developed differently and react differently and made for differing reasons. These site are established to do something in a totally different way than say a product site. Should the criterion be different here? I dont think it bodes well to pat everyone on the back and say job well done when nothing was accomplished except a delete of someones time and energy.
Maybe the artists themselves should have something like a WikiArtProject site set up separately to deal with all the complex nuancing and exclusivity issues and problems. Who knows? I just have an opinion after having worked with so many artists for over 20 years in galleries, museums and non-for-profits and my background is behavioral psychology, not art.
Also, in googling artists, I realize why so many sites only have one mention of an artist, which is fine by me, depending on the site and the type of gallery, museum or non-for-profit that administers the site. Many public and private institutions only have so much money for space that they are willing to devote and I suspect that if you are a non-for-profit that a single listing can and does go a long way if it is presented in the right, read nuanced, way and this is the point I am trying to make here. Nuance has to occur when subjectively deciding on whether an artist has merit. If a person is a full time artist and pays the bills and if this person is hardly ever mentioned in a googleable manner does she/he not have any kind of merit at all? Please do not bend art and artists into a wikifyable set of information that may only deminish the role they play in our society.
So many gray areas and so many ways to ill-understand them. Please be passionate but please consider that art is truth based in the reality that creates it and our future without it is not a culture. Artsojourner 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Also, this guy finished Bard. Know how hard and to what high standards Bard holds? This, in and of itself, is something of merit. I assure you but yet again this is only a nuance that has to be discerned. Artsojourner 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability of the band is not established in the article. theProject 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Springfield (The Simpsons). No sourced mergeable content, but maybe someone wants to scavenge the edit history and salvage sourceable material. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This information can be covered perfectly well in the respective episode articles. Having an article for two unrelated jokes in an 18-year-running (so far) show is ridiculous. Natalie 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. Cbrown1023 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
An article on the seal -- i.e., the insignia -- of Dartmouth College -- not notable beyond maybe a passing mention in the College's main article. Is the seal important beyond Dartmouth? Has it been recognized as historical, ground-breaking, notable, etc. beyond Dartmouth? Has it made an impact on the world beyond Dartmouth? I would characterize this as an indiscriminate collection of information. Dylan 21:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
SpongeBob fancruft. Article is about a store than appeared in only one episode of the show. Doesn't need its own article, can't ever be more than a stub. -- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Although I've put a lot of work into this article, I've recently realized it does not pass WP:NEO, because there has never been a definitive work on the subject ( the toastyfrog article does not count). When I first joined Wikipedia, it welcomed neologisms, quirky articles, and even original research with the expectation that such seeds would sprout into full, referenced articles. The current Wikipedia is a very different beast, or maybe I was just deluding myself. This article does not belong in the current Wikipedia. Luvcraft 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete an a non-encyclopedic interview, better suited to a fan website. (aeropagitica) 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an original interview with the subject, contrary to WP:NOR. Moreover, there's no evidence that this individual merits inclusion per WP:BIO, despite the first sentence in the article: Austin Hedges is a notable member of the Straight Edge movement. However, because I'm uncertain about the relevance of Dark Planet: Visions of America, or his role in it, I've deferred to the community instead of slapping a CSD on it. Mind matrix 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
the interview conducted for his article was done by a group of straight edge kids for a documentary. this documentary never made it past an amature level and never gained much notice out of the straight edge community. a few people from the crew that made the documentary went on to be Team Empire members. this is why it said that we conducted the interview ourselves. also many of the facts and quotes come from the documentary "Ive Got the Straight Edge". A member of Team Empire knows Austin on a semi-personal basis, and he provides us with updates on things like his MMA and musical status. also, because of the nature of Austin's notability, it is hard for there to be mass media coverage about him. There is little to no mass mediacoverage about anyone in the Straight Edge community. get back to me on any thing else i can clear up. -Steve and Team Empire Straightxedge 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
weve had this argument with user: Academic Challenger before. He checked our references and gave us the clearence for the page. i dont see whats any difference this time. you say he is a notable member of a notable movement, so how is he not notable? Straightxedge 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Austin has had important interviews in 2 films that have a "cult following" within the undergroud subculture of Straight Edge, so i would say so. Straightxedge 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as original research, lacking in sources. (aeropagitica) 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I am not sure about this article. To be honest, I do not know what it is about, but I am tired and not Canadian. It may well deserve to be kept, that is why I am bringing it here, and remaining neutral for now. Apologies if I have nominated a perfectly valid article. J Milburn 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
(Looks like some Canadian kids are just experimenting with Wikipedia. I've just prodded the linked to Bernie Beanie article). Bwithh 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable product. (aeropagitica) 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable product. Article appears to have been created and maintained by parties associated with the product. Talk:Damminix has more information Oasisbob 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 22:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this entry as a failure of WP:SPAM. The article has been written by a user with the organization's name. They are using an affiliate link to track the amount of traffic comeing to them via the article. I did not bring this deletion via speedy as I anticipated the creator would want to comment.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, as withdrawn by nominator, and only objection is that there is vandalism to the article, which is not really a deletion criterion. I suggest doing WP:RM for move to Silver Chips. - Patstuart talk| edits 01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Despite the awards, hardly any content asserts the notability or importance of this online school newspaper. The awards themselves appear to be non-notable ( ghits), thus not making the article meet WP:WEB. Hús ö nd 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
138.88.11.172 04:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as an unsourced article. Nothing mentioned with reliable sources to merge with Afro. (aeropagitica) 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
neologism; unsourced, probable OR; prod removed after Gafro went to AfD B.Wind 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as an unsourced an non-notable biography. Proof needs to be offered for claims of notability, using reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable person; only purported achievement in the article is claim he invented instant coffee, which I'm pretty sure was invented by George Washington Carver. (As an aside, I've also {{ prod}}ded the article for the grocery store referred to in this article.) Agent 86 23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as an unsourced biography without any claim as to the notability of its subject. (aeropagitica) 21:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The son of a minor nobleman who has done nothing on his own does not pass WP:BIO. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
He is actually quite well known in aristocratic circles, his family are friends with the royals. I've seen him pictured with Prince William before, as they are friends. -- Charles.bradbury 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I've heard of him before. In fact, there was quite a lot of discussion among certain groups here in London last year, because of his actions. I'll try to find the news article online. It was in the Times last year. Jamie p077 18:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
But as Jamie p077 wrote, there were certainly many mentions of him in the past few years in the papers. In fact, the reason I even ended up here was because I had tried to look him up before, but there wasn't an article, so I am glad that there is now, even if it does only contain basic information. -- Charles.bradbury 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as speculation and Original research. (aeropagitica) 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I prodded this article a few days ago but an anon editor deprodded without any explanation. The original reason I gave was "Loose collection of ideas related only by the fact that they don't exist, ie, inappropriate subject for an encyclopedia article" and I stand by this assessment. It also looks a little like crystal-balling but I'm not sure. Any objections? Axem Titanium 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a non-notable football club that apparently cannot even spell its own name correctly - Millennium, ibid. (aeropagitica) 21:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
No reply to queries on Talk:Onyx Millenium Football Club or my note to Celtic0106. Presuming non-notable. -- Smjg 23:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. — Larry V ( talk | contribs) 05:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
NN teacher. Nekohakase 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not noteworthy, poorly written, fanboiism. As far as I can see, they never even had an album. Grymsqueaker 09:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as per above Grymsqueaker 09:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete A7. Luna Santin 09:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is absolute nonsense, it probsbly links to a virus site. -- Bezking 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Bezking 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply