< December 6 | December 8 > |
---|
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, runs a firm in Brooklyn catering to "small and mid-size" clients. A recent google search turned-up no entries other than this WP article. See here. Regards, Signature brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 08:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kielbasa (with small "merge" copy edit). — Doug Bell talk 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
del foreign language dicdef. "Kovbasa" simply means sausage in Ukrainian language. `' mikkanarxi 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently one of the distinguishing features is a heavy-garlic taste. Drew30319 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment on kielbasa: I've seen this page. But even if some Polish colleaguse see me as a Polonophobe, I did not put it for deletion, for two reasons: (1) the article indeed describes Polish sausage and (2) the term has significant English presence, just look into your dictionaries. Not to say that the article is well-written and clearly ditinguishes national and American usage. `' mikkanarxi 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Well, there's a clear consensus to redirect. This article should be unlisted from AfD and redirected per the consensus.
The result was keep. Note that just because there may be a conflict of interest by the person that creates an article, this is not in and of itself reason to delete the article. — Doug Bell talk 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a children's writer, created by Ericwainwright who is the subject's husband. Article appears to be little more than an excuse to list Amazon links for her books (there are 10 Amazon links in total). Saikokira 00:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Author appears to be notable enought. TSO1D 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Fixing malformed nomination by 24.62.167.158 ( talk · contribs). Apparent nomination reason: " Taqiyya Libel is just an editorial comment on Taqiyya." No vote — Wrathchild ( talk) 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Random and unsourced list of phrases. Edison 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
One sentence descriptor, uncited, I don't believe there is enough for a stub. PWdiamond 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Typical fancruft nonsense. Make up a cute title and add every single famous person associated with Disney nowadays. No sources backing this up. Mad Jack 01:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per nom and redirect. This nomination gets a star in my book as an example of a nomination with enough reliable sources to qualify as an article. — Doug Bell talk 20:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Koreatown is not a recognized or generally accepted neighborhood in Chicago. A stretch of Lawrence Avenue is known for its concentration of businesses that cater to Korean-Americans. As such, the city gave it the honorary street name of Seoul Drive. But the article also mentions the Korean Festival on Bryn Mawr Avenue, which is several blocks north of Lawrence. Some can consider this to be a "Koreatown". There is no definitive or recognized Koreatown in Chicago like there is in Manhattan and Los Angeles. Also, the content is not correct. Chicago may not have one of the world's largest Korean population outside Korea, if you include Zainichi Koreans in Japan. Besides, the article is supposed to be about a Koreatown, which does not refer to all Koreans scattered about in the large city of Chicago. Also the sentence about Naperville is not true. While (according to the 2000 census) Naperville has 1,141 Korean American residents (scattered about, not concentrated in one or two areas), that's just 0.9% of the population. One can argue with more authority that the northern suburbs has a bigger and more noticeable population, concentration, etc. Glenview, which is smaller, has 1,866 / 4.5% of the population, still not significant enough but more so than the example of Naperville. Besides, inclusion of these trivial nonsignificant tidbits further points to the fact that there really is no Koreatown in Chicago yet. The article should redirect to Albany Park, Chicago, which better explains the Korean community in Chicago, because that is the most commonly used and accepted name for the neighborhood a few may call "Koreatown". Though Lawrence Avenue (or Bryn Mawr Avenue to the north) may be a "Koreatown", it's not called Koreatown. The listing under Koreatown is sufficient. Someone once listed Arlington Heights, Illinois on a list in the Japantown article. The only "Japantown" there is a Japanese shopping center ( Mitsuwa Marketplace (Chicago Store)). This is a similar example of mislabelling. Wizmo 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability - music wp:not PWdiamond 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The page includes information that already exists on Wonder Woman, and it's enough to move past a short article. Best to keep it on the WW page. Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article seems to be advertising. Google returns one result. Was created by single-purpose account, registered today. Speedy tags were removed by another single-purpose account, registered today. Accounts are Executive Assistant and CEOCEO. This is suspicious. Notability claim was added that is backed by article that doesn't seem to refer to IMPACTS, but I'm not an expert. As such I nominate this for Deletion as non-notable and/or advertising. AubreyEllenShomo 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
unsourced, non-notable, all contributors to the article have contributed a total of one other edit to any other page Drunken Pirate 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Note that the article had been incorrectly nominated for Speedy deletion before. However, it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion per Admin Stifle [ [5]], Drunken Pirate 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, attack page, no assertion of notability. Also falls under WP:SNOW here. — Cuivi é nen 03:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and WP:NEO. Veinor ( ヴエノル(talk)) 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article exist, in virtually identical form, at the more appropriately named 501st Military Intelligence Brigade. I don't think this meets any of the speedy criteria, and doesn't seem like a real candidate for a merge and redirect, so Delete. (I think this is the right place for this, but feel free to move it if need be. Carom 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory. Article is an expansion on plot summeries, which is a nono according to WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE with regards to plot summaries. Dstanfor 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod and contested speedy. Film producer with below average notability. 27 unique GHits. Of the 56 Ghits for "Elise Kelly" + producer, most referred to someone in the reggae music field. 1 IMDB credit, for a film which is only due for release next year. Notability is not inherited. Ohconfucius 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is more of a brief essay than an encyclopaedia article. Little encyclopaedic content, no direct citations (just links to external sites), and little to expand upon. -- NMChico24 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. The other article will need to be nominated separately. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT#IINFO - In particular, I don't see why this bible passage is independantly notable from the main article on Ezekial, let alone why it is important (other than the quote, which I don't consider that important either. -- Sigma 7 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete Thou hath not shown thine notability. -
WarthogDemon
05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Consensus to Keep. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
2nd nom. 1st nom here. Still fails WP:WEB. - crz crztalk 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Proto:: ► 15:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Page nominated previously, but critical corrections have not been made. Page is now 60K of original research, violating WP:NOR, without a single citation. Much of the content appears to be fancruft and notable messiahs-in-fiction are better served by having it in the individual articles, rather than this long list. JRP 04:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This "list" does seem redundant, as all Messiah characters would theoretically already be categorized by Category:Fictional messiahs and could therefore be found easily. But I'd vote yes to a strictly-defined LIST, without any descriptions (thereby discouraging all the blather) TAnthony 06:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable company, WP:CORP and {{ db-corp}} both refer. (aeropagitica) 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:AUTO (as suggested by the username of the author), currently non-notable // I c e d K o l a ( Contribs) 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-noteable environmental group. A Google search] for "'Environmental Earth Angels' -wikipedia" yields 194 results. A Google news search yields zero. Compare to 2 million for Greenpeace, 33,000 for Taiga Rescue Network, or 707,000 for The Nature Conservancy. Consequentially 04:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable model railroading club. A Google search yields 185 results minus Wikipedia mirrors, thirty more than my name. The page claims that it hosted a successful national convention, but I can't find anything in the Google results to verify the claim. In-line citations from the article lead to articles about model railroading, not the club. Consequentially 04:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Proto:: ► 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
On the contrary, it was a major topic of discussion among the American Founders, who emphasized the distinction between "militia" and "select militia" as conflicting concepts. Most of the partisan armed groups to which the term is so often applied today would have been considered "select militia" by the Founders, and clear examples of what they did not want for the United States. This would include, by the way, organizations such as the National Guard.
To be historically and etymologically accurate, we should move much of the content from the "militia" entry to the "select militia" entry, leaving the latter to discuss only the original concept, which is now understood in Switzerland but is being misused almost everywhere else.
The terms are terms of law, and while we can recognize contemporary departures from original, correct usage, the emphasis should always be on the legal meanings. Consider, for example, the effect of replacing the meanings of constitutional terms like "due process", "jury", "crime", "speech", "press", "probable cause", or "right" with some modern slang usage that has a quite different meaning. We have a responsibility to preserve the meanings of legal terms on which the integrity of government and law depend.
For more on this see
http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0818.htm http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/penn_min.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar18.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar03.htm http://www.constitution.org/jw/acm_1-m.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp6ch04.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch04.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/48senh.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/43hala.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/90thec.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/37val-.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/gun_control_dencite.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/27thes.htm
For more just go to http://www.constitution.org/search.htm and search on the phrase "select militia", either on constitution.org or across the WWW.
Jon Roland 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Select_militia"
I should point out that I am considered a leading constitutional scholar and legal historian, often cited by others, and my work is hardly "marginal". Jon Roland 18:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not verifiable; the article even declares this is the case. Also, it is not clear that this is a notable company. Ginkgo 100 talk 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was consensus to Delete. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{ db-a7}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason in this case, the article has several non-trivial sources. I am not sure if that is enough to leave it in this encyclopedia or not... but it does not deserve a speedy delete. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 04:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok, this should fix the broken nomination ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 3D Global Solutions I'm not sure how this malformed.....anyway, article is not sourced. External links refer to other companies. Half the article is off topic and refers to other companies such as Wackenhut and Triple Canopy, not 3D Global. Reads like an advertisement. WP:V, WP:OR, etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestler, she hasn't done anything notable, nor has she wrestled for any notable promotions. -- James Duggan 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Profile on Glorywrestling.com There is clearly a wrestler/diva (more manly than woman!) here, who has accomplished some stuff. The question here is how extensive do you want the wikipedia to be. I don't mind the article and can see room for improvement. On the other side of the coin, I can easily see reasons for deleting it. I wouldn't call her a well known wrestler by any means. But I am a person that likes to keep everything on the evidence so far I would say. Keep Govvy 11:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 04:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as neologism. — Doug Bell talk 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This 'soundseeing tour' idea is not mainstream enough to be on Wikipedia. -- Amanduhh 03:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- This is a book review, not an encyclopedic article.. 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) 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO - Nv8200p talk 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to Brandeis University. I'm also closing the similar AfD on "The Justice" with the same result and redirecting The Blowfish and The Louis Lunatic on the same reasoning. — Doug Bell talk 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet guidlines for notability of WP:ORG - Nv8200p talk 04:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Only achievement seems to be answering questions absurdly at the end of an episode of People's Court. — Perceval 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod contested by User:Unfocused citing his cycling wins. University (non-professional) sportsmen are not notable per WP:BIO and per consensus. Ohconfucius 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Common good. Agent 86 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The original deleting administrator offered to undelete, however after I went digging for sources I came to the opinion that the deletion as a non-notable biography was correct. I hence withdrew my request for undeletion. Since, the article has been recreated (with slightly different content, with some more details), and I'm still not 100% convinced its' notable. Then again, the new version does assert more notability than the last. I'm gonna sit on the fence and abstain, for now. Eat your heart out :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply"The article makes a claim about initiating the Maasina Ruru revolution movement. I'm not 100% sure how notable that makes this guy (the article for the revolution isn't the best), however could I could have 15-20mins to see if this is correct (ie. WP:V it), and to determine how notable it is, before deleting?"
The result was Speedy Merge to
List of transgender bartenders Speedy Delete under A7 or A3, your choice. -
crz
crztalk
23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
What can I say? This is a one-man "list" of some completely unnotable guy who doesn't have a wikipedia article, and it's not even linked to by anything other than List of Peruvian Jews. The "list" is basically limited to one person because "astronomer" is singular, but even if it wasn't, it'd still never grow because this is such a specific category of people. Descendall 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted by Geogre. (aeropagitica) 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. It seems to me that some of the information in the section "MX-3 Modifications" can be merged to Mazda MX-3 or one of the other related articles. If anyone needs to get at this deleted information in order to merge it just ask me. — Doug Bell talk 20:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable club. Conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gosteli. Contested prod. MER-C 04:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Marked as non-notable since October 2006 with no reply Brianhe 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverfiiable. Impossible to know if true or a prank. -- Chris is me 22:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm going to delete this one. No reliable sources means it can't be verified (per WP:V). --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy deletion as probable hoax was overturned at WP:DRV and is now thrown out to the hoax sleuths at AfD. No opinion from me. trialsanderrors 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a virtually unknown organisation, and the Wikipedia entry seems to be only publicity for it. For further details please see the talk page of the article. Slackbuie 17:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, but please cite a source. W.marsh 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Only notable thing is that it shared the same name as a paper in the UK that made it. MECU≈ talk 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
search for http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22Lids+for+legs%22&btnG=Search produces 19 hits. Possibly a hoax. Josh Parris # : 06:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Web radio station. Alexa rank of 5.096 millionsths .This article is borderline spam, and fails WP:NOT, as wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Ohconfucius 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
{{ importance}} tagged for almost two weeks. An NN performance poetry group. Going on the the username of the creator, his first edit summary [15] and the entirely OR content of the article, this seems a pretty clear case of COI. The only specific mentions of media coverage are on this (very) local radio station and on NPR, whose website doesn't seem to have heard of them [16]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
"Extreme" UK porn director with 41 hits in BGAFD and 253 unique Ghits. I also nominate Miyah ( BGAFD listing) as failing WP:PORN BIO. Ohconfucius 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism or suspected hoax. 23 unique Ghits, none relevant. Ohconfucius 07:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Postscript. The topic has now been covered at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 October 30#Will it fly?. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as recreation of previously deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A plane on a conveyor belt). — Doug Bell talk 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I am sure I have seen this posted before but I cannot find it. Someone please find the previous version and redirect this as a fork or mark it for the same deletion treatment. -- RHaworth 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Nomination also withdrawn. Agent 86 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet Verifiability or Notable Biography requirements. Further, the article seems to have no useful information other than to identify that the man exists and he published some works. This article is over a year old and I don't see it evolving. Alan.ca 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
wp:v clearly states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Would someone please tell me, what verified information is in this article other than what I just stated. If the article only contains what I have explained it seems to be it is not worthy of keeping. Again, remember, the person and the article are two different things. We're not discussing deleting the man, but only his poorly sourced, non encyclopedic article. What value do we get from this entry? Alan.ca 04:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as non-notable author per WP:BIO. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources of "multiple independent reviews of or awards for his work" can be provided—currently this requirement is not satisfied. Highest Amazon sales rank of any book is 157,888. Note that WP:AUTO should not be used as a reason to delete biographies—the arguments need to be based on actual notability, not on who created the article. WP:AUTO is a guideline discouraging the creation of an autobiography and editing of your own biography, but does not prohibit nor provide a rationale for deleting autobiographies. Also note that although Ohconfucius (who is not the nominator) has stated the nomination is withdrawn, this is only a reason for speedy keep if the nominator withdraws the nomination and no other arguments to delete have been made. — Doug Bell talk 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Biography by user:Ralphellis who has done few other edits. Does this look like spam to you? -- RHaworth 09:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:V non-negotiable. Proto:: ► 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article contains no third-party sources whatsoever. I requested on November 29 that reliable third-party sources be added, but none have been forthcoming, let alone multiple non-trivial sources. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Previous AfDs ( 1, 2, 3) have been riddled with sockpuppetry and ignored the sourcing issue. Simply, as Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This AfD is a notice and opportunity to add such sources; without which the article must be deleted. — Centrx→ talk • 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. 'Sources needed' tag was removed at the same time. No evidence of notability. Google results are less than convincing. The JPS talk to me 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) It now resembles a useful article about a notable team. My delete is withdrawn, as is the AFD. The JPS talk to me 10:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not exactly a very large company with only 230 employees. Badly written page with no sources or references Debaser23 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome 09:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourcable, not notable, WP:NFT tgies 08:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Deb. MER-C 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Pointless page that cites no sources or references and was probably made up by the only editor. Could easily be counted as spam Debaser23 12:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I fail to see the notability of this event. Many deadlier and more destructive incidents are not covered. Anyway, as the story developed the article didn't grew at all. I also welcome any merging options. -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 11:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Necrosexual...I shutter. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a nn neologism, 1890 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - I'm agreeing with everyone else on this one. Debaser23 14:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet guidelines for notability of WP:ORG - Nv8200p talk 12:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 12:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as non-notable, failing WP:BIO. — Doug Bell talk 21:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable losing contestant on a reality TV show. Previously nominated as part of the Train Wreck. Mikeblas 13:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable losing reality show contestant. Previously nominated in the train wreck. Mikeblas 13:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:WEB despite WP:ILIKEIT. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Independent sources? None. Number of players? Not stated. Innovation? None stated. Non-trivial external coverage? None listed, and with only about 700 Ghits including Wikipedia and mirrors I don't see much evidence that any exist. So: this loks on the face of it like yet another generic online game, just like all the other ones we delete for the same reasons. Guy ( Help!) 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Page created and only textual edit by its subject, User:Mercurius fm and this is the only article he has worked on, so a definite COI issue. His album is free. Google search , apart from results from Wikipedia and its copies, mostly show mentions in forums but nothing substantial. Only external link to his own blog. Emeraude 13:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Closing early, too many sock/meatpuppets. It's an obvious delete, so I'm nipping this in the bud. Proto:: ► 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Very funny, but a neologism coined last week obviously does not deserve an article. Skarioffszky 14:11, 7 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}} . |
Finally, after decades without a word that describes the political trend and ideology of many arab leaders, "fatfatism" is here to help :)
I am not going to discuss Ahmad Fatfat. But to answer some earlier comments:
- The term "fatfatism" was not started by an "anti-lebanese pro-syrian writer", but by a Lebanese Professor at Berkley!
- Fatfatism does not insult Lebanese or promote secterianism. Fatfatism is merely a term that described a certain attitude in politics followed by many arab leaders (it neither attacks Lebanese nor certain sects).
- As for the reliability of the Al-Akhbar newspaper, this newspaper only mentioned what As'as Abu Khalil defined as Fatfatism. (Also, the newspaper has proved to be reliable by always providing proofs. Check today's paper for an example - 07/12/06.)
One thing is true, the term is very recent, and not much references are available yet. But the term is spreading like fire! It is widespread now in Lebanon, and mentioned in several news outlets. And it is the only term that describes these specific political traits and ideology. There is a huge need for the term fatfatism, which actually explains why it's spreading quickly :) --
129.215.212.170
18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
ridiculous. -- The Way 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
There is a large section of athletes being added. However, many like this, are borderline notable. In addition, editors/authors are not getting the point. This leaves hundreds of borderline/not notable for review and deletion. This example should be used to clarify Wikipedia:Notability (people). On that, editors should be clear enough such that third-party editors, especially those unfamiliar with sports, may make appropriate choices. meatclerk 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with Ballia. Agent 86 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
There already is a page Ballia. This page was created by mistake P.K.Niyogi 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep & Rename to CLOUDS (60s rock band) or something better if suggested. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not appear
notable. See below Various Googlings of the names of the supposed band members' names in conjunction with "The Clouds" yield very few results.
tgies
10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy Delete as attack page. Agent 86 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Clearly taking the piss out of someone's friend or acquaintance. Delete Emeraude 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Month old website with 2million alexa rating, fails WP:WEB in every way imaginable. Geoffrey Spear 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Agent 86 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I will vote delete on the grounds that we are not a dictionary. (My journalism professor recently informed us that its is actually just deserts, but I'm not sure i believe her.) Cantras 06:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete (G7).-- Hús ö nd 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Entry name is incorrect Thusitha.kodikara 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be a hoax. No web of science hits for the author, and wikipedia provides the only google hits. But for some reason I though WP:PROD wasn't quite appropriate. Delete. Inner Earth 14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Our coverage of accounting-related article is a little sad... --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Short article defining a term that has no chance to be a real article. MECU≈ talk 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:CORP. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
No real notability, page seems to be being used mostly for vanity entries Lost tourist 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Last paragraph has to go, and there's nothing left beyond a directory entry and no notability. Delete Emeraude 16:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
trust me mate iv been to the george a lot. "piss head" bishai is always there and he basically is the reason it didnt close. hes pretty famous throughout east london. theres no need to take this down. J. Stevens— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn ( talk • contribs)
1) The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories Nope, nothing sourced and nothing found online
2)The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications. Um no...
3)The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded. Being a bar/pub, I highly doubt this would ever happen.
Since this is a bar/pub, we could say it offers a service (serving alcohol) so...
1) The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
Still no.
2) The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization Nope. This hasn't happened.
Fails WP:Corp, is NN, Doesn't cite sources. Nuke it. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
PLEASE NOTE User 87.74.17.102 altered my comments above, inserting the sentence: "Even so, this is no reason for deletion" and changing my vote from Delete to Do not Delete. (Evidence is here: [ [23]]. He has also been one of the main recent contributors to the article. Emeraude 00:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC). reply
By the way, as a gay man I find your comments very insulting. Gay people have the same rights as you, you biggot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn ( talk • contribs)
I'v definately read articles about this character in the Wanstead and Ilford Guardian. Their website isnt brilliant but the article might be souced in there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
That is a hate-website against Islam. We have no idea who is running that website see [ [24]]. The website is created for a reason to write against Islam and mix lies with other things to present their points. According to my understanding they have failed to meet WP:WEB, all the three points, you can check yourself. Should we create Answering-christianity.org article too. Obviously not, not at all. Encylopidia is not places for such things. Hence that page should also be deleted. Encylopidia should not be used to increase the number of hits on some hate-website. ALM 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This site is included now included in the discussion section of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/Partisan and extremist websites. You are invited to give your opinion. -- Striver 16:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Aside from being misspelled, I'm not sure it belongs here. I removed the worst of the advertising bloat, but it is only a campsite. It has been marked as linkless since June. -- Sandy Scott 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. A7, no assertion of notability, no sources Tone 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply T-media
A non-notable Slovenian company. Eleassar my talk 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
|
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable claims. The fact that this article claims that "Kunjaan" is a well known hindu term, a google search for "kunjan hindu" currently returns 3 hits. Similarly, an amazon or google books search for this term returns 0 books. This leads me to believe that either the author of this article has misspelled the term, or this is some kind of neologism/hoax. Furthermore, the article uses names like "Siddharth Gautam", which is clearly some kind of parody of Siddhārtha Gautama... Maybe the author is trying to be funny or something? It's not working. -- DDG 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Nothing is sourced, nothing to be merged. --- J.S ( T/ C) 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The name "foodshake" appears to be a neologism. The article itself is mostly recipes and original research, with a helping of POV about what should go into your particular foodshake. FreplySpang 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. This AfD does not prevent renominating this article. — Doug Bell talk 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete.-- Hús ö nd 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No citation whatsoever. Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 18:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I nominated this for deletion because: ~No new information
~Extreme POV piece
~It is just not accurate. It represents the Protestant Christian view as if speaks for all of Christinaity
~I think there could be an interesting article on converting to Christianity- and this is nowhere close to it.
~A few days after this AfD began a user reverted the article to a much earlier version. This is the article I nominated for deletion: [ [25]] Sethie 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. — Mets501 ( talk) 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable slang term, dicdef. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result wasSpeedy Delete- patent nonsense.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk) 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax attempt, or at best a non-notable rapper with a lot of hoax information. Claimed to be a platinum-selling artist, yet has no relevant Google hits, no entry on AllMusic, no albums on Amazon [27]. Also nominating:
As part of the same hoax (claims to be a platinum-selling album, with no record of its existence - one Google hit, but not relevant [28]). Author also created Tha Lyrikal A$$A$SIN, another apparent album hoax in the same vein (claims of 5,000,000 worldwide sales, but nothing at all on Google), which is prodded at the time of writing but may be added to this AfD if the author decides to remove the prod on that article too. Prod nominated article removed by author without comment. ~ Matticus T C 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:BLP, but with no prejudice against recreation. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Nothing cited. Google returns zero hits for this name. 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) 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*Move to
Fredrick Bayley Deeming. At first I though this to be a hoax, but some quick research reveals an identical story for Deeming. See this
[29] and this
[30] (about two thirds of the way down).
Teiresias84
00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
:::*Having googled Frederick Deeming more reliable sources have turned up - notabily this one
[31] and this one
[32]. I think these sources confirm his (Deeming that is, not "Novum") notabilty. The article of course needs to be wikified as well, and if we end up moving the article it will probably be re-written sufficently (by me probably) that it wouldn't be a copyvio anyway.
Teiresias84
07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
:*Good point, clearly "Scott Norum" doesn't exist, but Deeming does an Deakin's ADB page mentions him and Deeming himself also has ADB page
[35].
Teiresias84
07:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete as non-notable organization. — Doug Bell talk 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Proposed deletion was removed by anon without a reason. The organization is rather minor and doesn't meet WP:ORG. Scores a solid three Google hits- one is a myspace, one is their website, one is the wiki article. Unverifiable. Wafulz 18:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to NaN. — Mets501 ( talk) 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research: this "transreal math" appears to be self-published original research, with no peer review. For something that claims to revolutionize arithmetic, peer-reviewed publication is essential. -- Carnildo 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I s'pose also that this should not redirect to NaN. It's not another name for NaN and is only somewhat related. In the same vein, I don't think it should redirect to wheel theory, nimber, hyperreals, or the like. Lunch 22:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is certainly true of Anderson's "perspex machine". You argue that Wikipedia should have a fair and unbiased article on the subject. Please think that argument through. Wikipedia is not magic. There is no way to have a fair and unbiased article on a subject when the only person to have ever properly written and published works about it is its creator and proponent.
Similarly, there is no way for Wikipedia to magically have a reliable article on something where the source is, in your very own word, "unreliable".
"transreal numbers" and "nullity" have been contested and discussed by people other than Anderson. But only very weakly and badly. Most of the sources are unreliable, being pseudonymous web log postings of unknown provenance. Only Daniel Firth did the right thing. Uncle G 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The only proper way to discuss this system of numbers is in the same way that the only reliable sources that we have discuss it: in the context of discussing James Anderson (computer scientist). Uncle G 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'd like to also note that this was also deleted off of wiktionary as well. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Likely hoax. Term gets no Ghits. Robotman1974 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
http://the-life-in-me.deviantart.com/ http://xshedevilx.deviantart.com/ http://Emevas.deviantart.com/ http://saccharin.deviantart.com How is a fettish, no matter how obscure a hoax? Like a phobia, it can be just about anything. If you so desire me to, I'll make more edits, assuming that makes me a "Credible" wikipedia user. Look at the above reasons for deletion: "Per above"?, "Hoaxallicous"? How is that a valid arguement? Let's be open minded people. - XKrozz 09:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Note: would have been deleted if WP:PROD used per nominator's reasoning. — Doug Bell talk 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Not Enough content to be worthwhile. 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) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Steel 12:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be a content fork. Article appears to be a catch all for criticism of Wikipedia and does not establish that said criticism is a phenomenon that is itself notable for inclusion as an article. Additionally this article is redundant to Wikipedia:Criticisms, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections and the information collected in this article could be merged into those projects. Deleting this article should not be considered censorship as a majority of the properly cited material could be condensed and included in the Wikipedia article. The rest should go to the project space articles. — Malber ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The article has no verifiable information that isn't already in Big Brother (UK), and everything else is unsourced speculation. JD talk 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as non-notable band. — Doug Bell talk 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This band may not meet the standards of WP:MUSIC. ➥the Epopt 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per CSD A7. Yeah, I know. Slowest speedy delete ever. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable biographical stub who has 2 unique hits on google and whose only source comes from a user posted martial arts video. Abstrakt 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete.-- Hús ö nd 03:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- CSDA7: non-notable student newspaper. 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) 20:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep; No one is actually proposing deletion and if the other title is proven to be correct, then that's a move issue that needs not to be discussed in AfD. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- the title of the film is actually just "Nicholas Nickleby" for which there is no page. 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) 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 11:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Rather on the edge theory, seems to be the work of a single group with some confrence publications, but few citations. Chief author covered by BBC and slashdot. Salix alba ( talk) 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Statement: I did not initiate, nor induce anyone to initiate, any article currently on Wikipedia. My talk page shows that I initiated an article to explain more about transreal numbers, but this was deleted because it was deemed to be a neologism. I have no view on whether or not the articles describing me or my research should be kept. I regard that as a matter for the Wikipedia community, which initiated these articles, to decide.
Facts: My B.Sc. is in Experimental Psychology from Sussex University, England, and was awarded in 1980. My Ph.D. is from Reading University, England. The title of my Ph.D., awarded in 1992, is “Canonical Description of the Perspective Transformations.” All of my scientific papers were peer reviewed. Recent controversy sprang from an open day I attended at Highdown School, Berkshire. My talk was reported on BBC Radio Berkshire, BBC South Today (regional TV news), and BBC News 24 (Satellite TV). BBC Radio Berkshire is to allow me to reply to my critics on a radio show. The BBC intends to invite a professional mathematician to assist the radio presenter. I have forwarded to the BBC my papers showing how transreal arithmetic is performed as operations on fractions and axiomatically, as well as how transreal arithmetic extends to analysis. There are more papers on my personal web site that could be used to bolster claims in the various articles relating to me and my work.
The perspex machine and transreal arithmetic has been simulated in software which is available on my personal web site. A version of the perspex machine has been implemented in FPGA. All of these versions implement digital and, therefore, Turing computable approximations to the machine and the arithmetic.
The Transreal number article contains a number of historical inaccuracies and misinterpretations of my work, but is very much better informed than most commentary I have seen. If the article is kept I could contribute corrections to its talk page or direct to the article. Given the controversy this has provoked I am inclined to contribute to the talk page if the article is kept. James A.D.W. Anderson 14:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The work on transreal arithmetic, of which nullity forms a part, has been proved consistent by machine proof. This work was undertaken by an independent researcher at a different university from my own. And the machine proof has been examined at a third university. All agree that transreal arithmetic is consistent and contains real arithmetic as a proper subset.
All of my scientific papers are available in paper form from the relevant copyright libraries and, in many cases, from the electronic databases of the publishing organisations. The papers that are on my web site are only a subset of the papers I have written – specifically, the subset for which I have copyright permission to reproduce. The copyright policies of many journals prevent self publication so the papers that appear on an author’s web site are necessarily skewed. This bias may disappear as electronic publishing takes hold -- but it is a bias that Wikipedians may profitably be aware of.
In my, self-interested, view, my papers have been reviewed to the appropriate standards for my subject area. If you accept this, then the relevant test to apply is whether the material is sufficiently noteworthy, or sufficiently well accepted in society at large, to appear in Wikipedia.
Wikepedians are, I am sure, familiar with the concept of flaming. Since the recent publicity surrounding my work I have been flamed in a number of electronic fora. But I have now received a handful of apologies from people after they have read my papers on transreal arithmetic. None of the hundred or so counter-proofs I have seen to my work are valid, except one, which exposed an error in the guarding clause of equation ten in the analysis paper. This error does not affect the validity of any of the material publicised in the media. Indeed, before making the public presentation, I had obtained a second proof of the 0^0 result using the transreal exponential and logarithm: 0^0 = e^(ln 0^0) = e^(0 ln 0) = e^(0 * -infinity) = e^nullity = nullity.) I invite you to consider whether this is consistent with your (informal) view of the exponential function at these extremes, and then reflect on whether it is valuable to have a total and consistent arithmetic. As a computer scientist I can tell you, for example, that a total and consistent arithmetic guarantees that all functions are differentiable, though I, personally, cannot find many of the differentials. But I can, for example, find the first differential of tan(theta) at theta = pi/2 using nothing more than the gradient formula and transreal arithmetic, along with knowledge of which order to compute end points in. Which I can easily obtain by examining the function in the neighbourhood of pi/2. (The gradient is –infinity.) I can also evaluate tan(pi/2) and obtain its unique numerical value at this point. (Nullity.) Thus, my total and consistent arithmetic supplies results where standard mathematics struggles or fails completely. I believe this work has now reached the level of maturity where it can, and should, be published in mathematical journals, and I will take steps to do so.
On the issue of the size of the SPIE conferences, you will note that in a conference the number of peers is equal to the number of conference attendees. Of course, one wants academic peer review of scientific papers, but even here the number of academic peers is quite plausibly a constant factor of the number of attendees. Consider this case: in a conference of one million mathematicians each mathematician reviews three anonymised papers, other than his or her own. Three blind reviews have then been obtained for every mathematician at the conference. And this result would be the same in a conference of one billion or one trillion mathematicians. When it comes to peer review, size does not matter. James A.D.W. Anderson 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
And, no the subject does not satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion. Once again: The "ongoing public discussion" does not address this subject directly, only tangentially and in passing. There are no non-trivial published works, from reliable and independent sources, that cover the subject. In any case, the overwhelming majority of the public discussion is by unreliable sources (e.g. people posting on web logs under pseudonyms).
To make a case for treating this like Intelligent Design, you need to cite as many good sources as can be found in Intelligent Design#Notes_and_references. Intelligent Design even has books that address the subject, you'll notice. You haven't cited any sources at all to demonstrate that your suggestion is workable. Uncle G 10:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete.-- Hús ö nd 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I think this pretty much embodies what Wikipedia is not. It's a mere list of statistics, with no source, which has been linked to almost all of the soap opera articles. Ratings history is already covered in the separate articles on soap opera series. Delete. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non notable album by non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Gets only 25 distinct Google hits, by the way [46]. And the release date is probably a mistake... Fram 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Article has a single reliable source and contains original research. This decision is without prejudice to creating an article discussing outside views and debate on this issue instead of presenting the outside views and debate, if properly sourced, neutral, and without original research. — Doug Bell talk 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is supposed to be about how some people want to see racism in Tolkien's writings, or in Tolkien himself. Notably the article is not at all clear on this. It is filled with original research, opinion, weasel words, and utter nonsense. -- Jordi· ✆ 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article definitely needs to be deleted. I searched for Google hits about the new album and there has been no other evidence, that One for the Kids would be the title, other than the listed sources on this article. The title for the album is nothing but speculation, so this makes the title of the album a fake. Also, I looked at Google News and there has been no evidence about it too. Alex 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable - references point only to self-published, close or trivial blogs and web sites Backface 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
abstain (I am the nominator). Perhaps someone can find sources.
Delete Having gone through the first 5 pages of Google stuff, I have not been able to find any solid RS. The impressive sounding P2P Foundation appears to be a self-published web site and there is plenty of OR around this across the web. Bauwens appears to be an impressive self-publicist having attached his name to a concept of P2P and being interviewed and quoted on all sorts of NN blogs and the like. Apparently he formed some dot.coms in Belgium at some point, although these appear to be dead and are not named anywhere that I can find. He is an impressive but NN college prof. So on balance and in the absence of any good firm sources, I have changed my opinion to Delete. Happy to see it stay if someone finds good solid sources.
--
Backface
11:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Furthermore, User:ForrestLane42 and User:Backface, both seeming single-purpose accounts of extremely recent vintage, have been working in tandem to nominate for deletion virtually all of the articles in the integral thought category. I wonder on what basis and with what familiarity with the subject User:ForrestLane42 says: "This guy is irrelevant." — goethean ॐ 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC) replyMichel Bauwens has played a major role in the digital revolution of his home country Belgium, where he is known as an internet pioneer. He created two dotcom companies, was (eBusiness) strategic director for the telecommunications company Belgacom, and 'European Manager of Thought Leadership' for the U.S. webconsultancy MarchFIRST. He co-produced the 3-hour TV documentary 'TechnoCalyps: the metaphysics of technology and the end of man', and co-edited two French-language books on the 'Anthropology of Digital Society', and was editor in chief of the Flemish digital magazine Wave. He now lives in Chiang Mai, Thailand, where he created the Foundation for P2P Alternatives (P2PFoundation.net). He taught the Anthropology of Digital Society for postgraduate students at ICHEC/St. Louis in Brussels, Belgium and related courses to Payap University and Chiang Mai University in Thailand. He can be contacted at michelsub2003@yahoo.com
Comment Tom - if you have some sources that lead you be understand that Bauwens has some notability, perhaps you can provide them. If not... -- 82.35.193.80 08:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Doug Bell talk 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Insignificant charactrer in an epic saga doesn't need separate article Frater Xyzzy 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Leet. — Doug Bell talk 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- dictdef, nn/uncited neologism. 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) 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted this patent nonsense. Guy ( Help!) 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{ nonsense}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason in this case based on what I see on the talk page. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by someone else in the meantime. Sandstein 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Silly neologism, WP:NFT, no pertinent Google hits. Speedy deletion contested. Sandstein 21:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as non-notable unreleased game. — Doug Bell talk 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreleased non-notable game. If it becomes notable after it is released, we can re-create the article then. Andre ( talk) 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to Ar nDraiocht Fein. Subject of article fails WP:BIO tests. The material for merging is in the redirect page history. — Doug Bell talk 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability is not established. A few self-published books and a senior position in some Wiccan sect do not mean notability. No references other than from his sect Alex Bakharev 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete.-- Hús ö nd 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB, only about 4 Google hits(!), no external refs. Prod removed. Ginkgo 100 talk 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Crap joke article. SmartGuy 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Doug Bell talk 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NOT: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. Delete. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Page just seems to be a long and winding ramble. All I can see that'd be salvageable is the opening sentence, which doesn't seem enough for an article. I am also nominating the following related page because it's just a building in Rearcross:
If the nom fails, I'd recommend pruning everything but the opening sentence of Rearcross, and redirecting Rearcross Hall. -- DeLarge 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
delete - fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
delete - fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is clear, we already have meta pages on vandalism so we don't need this self-referential original research. Rather than revert yet more vandalism on the article (how original), I'm nuking it. Guy ( Help!) 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not verified by any reliable sources. As far as I know, unverifiable - Google turns up, rather unsurprisingly, mostly us, other wikis, blogs and similar self-published net posts, which can't be used. It was probably inevitable that someone would create an article on this, given that we're on a wiki that's frequently vandalised; but before that we're an encyclopaedia, and the fact that it's a topic close to our hearts doesn't make verifiability any less negotiable. Delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 01:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
delete - fails WP:V, notability not established, only sources seem to be geocities hosted personal sites Frater Xyzzy 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
keep - Mills is clearly a pivotal figure in Germanic neopaganism. I have moved a non geocities external link to the top of the list as you appear to have missed it. Also added a link to one of his books.-- Hengest 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Per Hengest. Mallanox 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - Needs to be fleshed out further, but verifiable sources do exist for this man's work. - WeniWidiWiki 09:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - As far as the re-awakening of Odinism this man is very important. He has inspired many a person. -- Donvonmilikowski 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
delete - notability extremely dubious in light of lack of any sources beyond personal websites, fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect and protect.-- Hús ö nd 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Another unsourced article on a supposedly rumoured forthcoming single. I've redirected this to the appropriate album article three times, but every time I've been reverted without explanation or discussion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 23:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an unsourced article about an album that was originally scheduled for release in the summer of 2006, then scheduled for December 5, and now pushed back to March, 2007. The contents of the album are only rumored, and the only 'sources' I can find are blogs. Donald Albury 23:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Relates to the person responsible for today's Nullity coining and the Transreal_number deletion, see that entry/talk page for more details. Also vanity publisher and not suitable for a sourced encyclopedia. Lee-Jon 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: Article has been moved to James Anderson (computer scientist), the AfD notice persists there also and links to this discussion. fintler 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Also does anyone know where else in the news this fellow has appeared? That is, besides a one paragraph article in Slashdot and the article in the Berkshire local edition of the BBC. And on Slashdot, virtually all the comments are poking fun of the guy. Lunch 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Moreover, your argument about rescuing cats from trees is a straw man. You are ignoring the words "multiple" and "non-trivial" in the PNC. The rescue of a cat from a tree would almost certainly not be an in-depth article, and other articles would be required. Please think about notability, about why it is not the same as importance, and about why arguments about cat rescues are straw men. Uncle G 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD G7. This would be RfD material ordinarily. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I created this to redirect to Semantic URL but then realized that a Logical URL is by no means necessarily semantic.
The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Google test = zero hits. Penguin, his supposed publisher, has nothing at all on him. Article creater is Willb285 which appears to be a possible conflict of interest. Willb285 has already removed the AfD notice once. IrishGuy talk 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article contains only original research and trivial subject matter Goldfritha 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
< December 6 | December 8 > |
---|
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, runs a firm in Brooklyn catering to "small and mid-size" clients. A recent google search turned-up no entries other than this WP article. See here. Regards, Signature brendel HAPPY HOLIDAYS 08:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kielbasa (with small "merge" copy edit). — Doug Bell talk 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
del foreign language dicdef. "Kovbasa" simply means sausage in Ukrainian language. `' mikkanarxi 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently one of the distinguishing features is a heavy-garlic taste. Drew30319 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment on kielbasa: I've seen this page. But even if some Polish colleaguse see me as a Polonophobe, I did not put it for deletion, for two reasons: (1) the article indeed describes Polish sausage and (2) the term has significant English presence, just look into your dictionaries. Not to say that the article is well-written and clearly ditinguishes national and American usage. `' mikkanarxi 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Well, there's a clear consensus to redirect. This article should be unlisted from AfD and redirected per the consensus.
The result was keep. Note that just because there may be a conflict of interest by the person that creates an article, this is not in and of itself reason to delete the article. — Doug Bell talk 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a children's writer, created by Ericwainwright who is the subject's husband. Article appears to be little more than an excuse to list Amazon links for her books (there are 10 Amazon links in total). Saikokira 00:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Author appears to be notable enought. TSO1D 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Fixing malformed nomination by 24.62.167.158 ( talk · contribs). Apparent nomination reason: " Taqiyya Libel is just an editorial comment on Taqiyya." No vote — Wrathchild ( talk) 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Random and unsourced list of phrases. Edison 00:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
One sentence descriptor, uncited, I don't believe there is enough for a stub. PWdiamond 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Typical fancruft nonsense. Make up a cute title and add every single famous person associated with Disney nowadays. No sources backing this up. Mad Jack 01:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per nom and redirect. This nomination gets a star in my book as an example of a nomination with enough reliable sources to qualify as an article. — Doug Bell talk 20:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Koreatown is not a recognized or generally accepted neighborhood in Chicago. A stretch of Lawrence Avenue is known for its concentration of businesses that cater to Korean-Americans. As such, the city gave it the honorary street name of Seoul Drive. But the article also mentions the Korean Festival on Bryn Mawr Avenue, which is several blocks north of Lawrence. Some can consider this to be a "Koreatown". There is no definitive or recognized Koreatown in Chicago like there is in Manhattan and Los Angeles. Also, the content is not correct. Chicago may not have one of the world's largest Korean population outside Korea, if you include Zainichi Koreans in Japan. Besides, the article is supposed to be about a Koreatown, which does not refer to all Koreans scattered about in the large city of Chicago. Also the sentence about Naperville is not true. While (according to the 2000 census) Naperville has 1,141 Korean American residents (scattered about, not concentrated in one or two areas), that's just 0.9% of the population. One can argue with more authority that the northern suburbs has a bigger and more noticeable population, concentration, etc. Glenview, which is smaller, has 1,866 / 4.5% of the population, still not significant enough but more so than the example of Naperville. Besides, inclusion of these trivial nonsignificant tidbits further points to the fact that there really is no Koreatown in Chicago yet. The article should redirect to Albany Park, Chicago, which better explains the Korean community in Chicago, because that is the most commonly used and accepted name for the neighborhood a few may call "Koreatown". Though Lawrence Avenue (or Bryn Mawr Avenue to the north) may be a "Koreatown", it's not called Koreatown. The listing under Koreatown is sufficient. Someone once listed Arlington Heights, Illinois on a list in the Japantown article. The only "Japantown" there is a Japanese shopping center ( Mitsuwa Marketplace (Chicago Store)). This is a similar example of mislabelling. Wizmo 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability - music wp:not PWdiamond 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The page includes information that already exists on Wonder Woman, and it's enough to move past a short article. Best to keep it on the WW page. Ipstenu ( talk| contribs) 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article seems to be advertising. Google returns one result. Was created by single-purpose account, registered today. Speedy tags were removed by another single-purpose account, registered today. Accounts are Executive Assistant and CEOCEO. This is suspicious. Notability claim was added that is backed by article that doesn't seem to refer to IMPACTS, but I'm not an expert. As such I nominate this for Deletion as non-notable and/or advertising. AubreyEllenShomo 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
unsourced, non-notable, all contributors to the article have contributed a total of one other edit to any other page Drunken Pirate 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Note that the article had been incorrectly nominated for Speedy deletion before. However, it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion per Admin Stifle [ [5]], Drunken Pirate 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, attack page, no assertion of notability. Also falls under WP:SNOW here. — Cuivi é nen 03:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and WP:NEO. Veinor ( ヴエノル(talk)) 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article exist, in virtually identical form, at the more appropriately named 501st Military Intelligence Brigade. I don't think this meets any of the speedy criteria, and doesn't seem like a real candidate for a merge and redirect, so Delete. (I think this is the right place for this, but feel free to move it if need be. Carom 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory. Article is an expansion on plot summeries, which is a nono according to WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE with regards to plot summaries. Dstanfor 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod and contested speedy. Film producer with below average notability. 27 unique GHits. Of the 56 Ghits for "Elise Kelly" + producer, most referred to someone in the reggae music field. 1 IMDB credit, for a film which is only due for release next year. Notability is not inherited. Ohconfucius 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is more of a brief essay than an encyclopaedia article. Little encyclopaedic content, no direct citations (just links to external sites), and little to expand upon. -- NMChico24 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. The other article will need to be nominated separately. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT#IINFO - In particular, I don't see why this bible passage is independantly notable from the main article on Ezekial, let alone why it is important (other than the quote, which I don't consider that important either. -- Sigma 7 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete Thou hath not shown thine notability. -
WarthogDemon
05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Consensus to Keep. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
2nd nom. 1st nom here. Still fails WP:WEB. - crz crztalk 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Proto:: ► 15:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Page nominated previously, but critical corrections have not been made. Page is now 60K of original research, violating WP:NOR, without a single citation. Much of the content appears to be fancruft and notable messiahs-in-fiction are better served by having it in the individual articles, rather than this long list. JRP 04:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This "list" does seem redundant, as all Messiah characters would theoretically already be categorized by Category:Fictional messiahs and could therefore be found easily. But I'd vote yes to a strictly-defined LIST, without any descriptions (thereby discouraging all the blather) TAnthony 06:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable company, WP:CORP and {{ db-corp}} both refer. (aeropagitica) 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:AUTO (as suggested by the username of the author), currently non-notable // I c e d K o l a ( Contribs) 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-noteable environmental group. A Google search] for "'Environmental Earth Angels' -wikipedia" yields 194 results. A Google news search yields zero. Compare to 2 million for Greenpeace, 33,000 for Taiga Rescue Network, or 707,000 for The Nature Conservancy. Consequentially 04:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable model railroading club. A Google search yields 185 results minus Wikipedia mirrors, thirty more than my name. The page claims that it hosted a successful national convention, but I can't find anything in the Google results to verify the claim. In-line citations from the article lead to articles about model railroading, not the club. Consequentially 04:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Proto:: ► 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
On the contrary, it was a major topic of discussion among the American Founders, who emphasized the distinction between "militia" and "select militia" as conflicting concepts. Most of the partisan armed groups to which the term is so often applied today would have been considered "select militia" by the Founders, and clear examples of what they did not want for the United States. This would include, by the way, organizations such as the National Guard.
To be historically and etymologically accurate, we should move much of the content from the "militia" entry to the "select militia" entry, leaving the latter to discuss only the original concept, which is now understood in Switzerland but is being misused almost everywhere else.
The terms are terms of law, and while we can recognize contemporary departures from original, correct usage, the emphasis should always be on the legal meanings. Consider, for example, the effect of replacing the meanings of constitutional terms like "due process", "jury", "crime", "speech", "press", "probable cause", or "right" with some modern slang usage that has a quite different meaning. We have a responsibility to preserve the meanings of legal terms on which the integrity of government and law depend.
For more on this see
http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0818.htm http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/penn_min.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar18.htm http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar03.htm http://www.constitution.org/jw/acm_1-m.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp6ch04.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp5ch04.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/48senh.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/43hala.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/90thec.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/37val-.pdf http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/gun_control_dencite.htm http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/27thes.htm
For more just go to http://www.constitution.org/search.htm and search on the phrase "select militia", either on constitution.org or across the WWW.
Jon Roland 22:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Select_militia"
I should point out that I am considered a leading constitutional scholar and legal historian, often cited by others, and my work is hardly "marginal". Jon Roland 18:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not verifiable; the article even declares this is the case. Also, it is not clear that this is a notable company. Ginkgo 100 talk 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was consensus to Delete. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{ db-a7}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason in this case, the article has several non-trivial sources. I am not sure if that is enough to leave it in this encyclopedia or not... but it does not deserve a speedy delete. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 04:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok, this should fix the broken nomination ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 3D Global Solutions I'm not sure how this malformed.....anyway, article is not sourced. External links refer to other companies. Half the article is off topic and refers to other companies such as Wackenhut and Triple Canopy, not 3D Global. Reads like an advertisement. WP:V, WP:OR, etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestler, she hasn't done anything notable, nor has she wrestled for any notable promotions. -- James Duggan 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Profile on Glorywrestling.com There is clearly a wrestler/diva (more manly than woman!) here, who has accomplished some stuff. The question here is how extensive do you want the wikipedia to be. I don't mind the article and can see room for improvement. On the other side of the coin, I can easily see reasons for deleting it. I wouldn't call her a well known wrestler by any means. But I am a person that likes to keep everything on the evidence so far I would say. Keep Govvy 11:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 04:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as neologism. — Doug Bell talk 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This 'soundseeing tour' idea is not mainstream enough to be on Wikipedia. -- Amanduhh 03:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- This is a book review, not an encyclopedic article.. 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) 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO - Nv8200p talk 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to Brandeis University. I'm also closing the similar AfD on "The Justice" with the same result and redirecting The Blowfish and The Louis Lunatic on the same reasoning. — Doug Bell talk 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet guidlines for notability of WP:ORG - Nv8200p talk 04:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Only achievement seems to be answering questions absurdly at the end of an episode of People's Court. — Perceval 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod contested by User:Unfocused citing his cycling wins. University (non-professional) sportsmen are not notable per WP:BIO and per consensus. Ohconfucius 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Common good. Agent 86 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The original deleting administrator offered to undelete, however after I went digging for sources I came to the opinion that the deletion as a non-notable biography was correct. I hence withdrew my request for undeletion. Since, the article has been recreated (with slightly different content, with some more details), and I'm still not 100% convinced its' notable. Then again, the new version does assert more notability than the last. I'm gonna sit on the fence and abstain, for now. Eat your heart out :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply"The article makes a claim about initiating the Maasina Ruru revolution movement. I'm not 100% sure how notable that makes this guy (the article for the revolution isn't the best), however could I could have 15-20mins to see if this is correct (ie. WP:V it), and to determine how notable it is, before deleting?"
The result was Speedy Merge to
List of transgender bartenders Speedy Delete under A7 or A3, your choice. -
crz
crztalk
23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
What can I say? This is a one-man "list" of some completely unnotable guy who doesn't have a wikipedia article, and it's not even linked to by anything other than List of Peruvian Jews. The "list" is basically limited to one person because "astronomer" is singular, but even if it wasn't, it'd still never grow because this is such a specific category of people. Descendall 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted by Geogre. (aeropagitica) 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. It seems to me that some of the information in the section "MX-3 Modifications" can be merged to Mazda MX-3 or one of the other related articles. If anyone needs to get at this deleted information in order to merge it just ask me. — Doug Bell talk 20:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable club. Conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gosteli. Contested prod. MER-C 04:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Marked as non-notable since October 2006 with no reply Brianhe 19:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverfiiable. Impossible to know if true or a prank. -- Chris is me 22:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm going to delete this one. No reliable sources means it can't be verified (per WP:V). --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy deletion as probable hoax was overturned at WP:DRV and is now thrown out to the hoax sleuths at AfD. No opinion from me. trialsanderrors 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a virtually unknown organisation, and the Wikipedia entry seems to be only publicity for it. For further details please see the talk page of the article. Slackbuie 17:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, but please cite a source. W.marsh 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Only notable thing is that it shared the same name as a paper in the UK that made it. MECU≈ talk 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
search for http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22Lids+for+legs%22&btnG=Search produces 19 hits. Possibly a hoax. Josh Parris # : 06:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Web radio station. Alexa rank of 5.096 millionsths .This article is borderline spam, and fails WP:NOT, as wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Ohconfucius 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
{{ importance}} tagged for almost two weeks. An NN performance poetry group. Going on the the username of the creator, his first edit summary [15] and the entirely OR content of the article, this seems a pretty clear case of COI. The only specific mentions of media coverage are on this (very) local radio station and on NPR, whose website doesn't seem to have heard of them [16]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
"Extreme" UK porn director with 41 hits in BGAFD and 253 unique Ghits. I also nominate Miyah ( BGAFD listing) as failing WP:PORN BIO. Ohconfucius 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism or suspected hoax. 23 unique Ghits, none relevant. Ohconfucius 07:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Postscript. The topic has now been covered at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2007 October 30#Will it fly?. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as recreation of previously deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A plane on a conveyor belt). — Doug Bell talk 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I am sure I have seen this posted before but I cannot find it. Someone please find the previous version and redirect this as a fork or mark it for the same deletion treatment. -- RHaworth 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Nomination also withdrawn. Agent 86 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet Verifiability or Notable Biography requirements. Further, the article seems to have no useful information other than to identify that the man exists and he published some works. This article is over a year old and I don't see it evolving. Alan.ca 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
wp:v clearly states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Would someone please tell me, what verified information is in this article other than what I just stated. If the article only contains what I have explained it seems to be it is not worthy of keeping. Again, remember, the person and the article are two different things. We're not discussing deleting the man, but only his poorly sourced, non encyclopedic article. What value do we get from this entry? Alan.ca 04:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as non-notable author per WP:BIO. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources of "multiple independent reviews of or awards for his work" can be provided—currently this requirement is not satisfied. Highest Amazon sales rank of any book is 157,888. Note that WP:AUTO should not be used as a reason to delete biographies—the arguments need to be based on actual notability, not on who created the article. WP:AUTO is a guideline discouraging the creation of an autobiography and editing of your own biography, but does not prohibit nor provide a rationale for deleting autobiographies. Also note that although Ohconfucius (who is not the nominator) has stated the nomination is withdrawn, this is only a reason for speedy keep if the nominator withdraws the nomination and no other arguments to delete have been made. — Doug Bell talk 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Biography by user:Ralphellis who has done few other edits. Does this look like spam to you? -- RHaworth 09:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:V non-negotiable. Proto:: ► 15:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article contains no third-party sources whatsoever. I requested on November 29 that reliable third-party sources be added, but none have been forthcoming, let alone multiple non-trivial sources. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Previous AfDs ( 1, 2, 3) have been riddled with sockpuppetry and ignored the sourcing issue. Simply, as Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This AfD is a notice and opportunity to add such sources; without which the article must be deleted. — Centrx→ talk • 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. 'Sources needed' tag was removed at the same time. No evidence of notability. Google results are less than convincing. The JPS talk to me 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) It now resembles a useful article about a notable team. My delete is withdrawn, as is the AFD. The JPS talk to me 10:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not exactly a very large company with only 230 employees. Badly written page with no sources or references Debaser23 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome 09:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourcable, not notable, WP:NFT tgies 08:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Deb. MER-C 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Pointless page that cites no sources or references and was probably made up by the only editor. Could easily be counted as spam Debaser23 12:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I fail to see the notability of this event. Many deadlier and more destructive incidents are not covered. Anyway, as the story developed the article didn't grew at all. I also welcome any merging options. -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 11:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Necrosexual...I shutter. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a nn neologism, 1890 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - I'm agreeing with everyone else on this one. Debaser23 14:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet guidelines for notability of WP:ORG - Nv8200p talk 12:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 12:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as non-notable, failing WP:BIO. — Doug Bell talk 21:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable losing contestant on a reality TV show. Previously nominated as part of the Train Wreck. Mikeblas 13:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable losing reality show contestant. Previously nominated in the train wreck. Mikeblas 13:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:WEB despite WP:ILIKEIT. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Independent sources? None. Number of players? Not stated. Innovation? None stated. Non-trivial external coverage? None listed, and with only about 700 Ghits including Wikipedia and mirrors I don't see much evidence that any exist. So: this loks on the face of it like yet another generic online game, just like all the other ones we delete for the same reasons. Guy ( Help!) 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Page created and only textual edit by its subject, User:Mercurius fm and this is the only article he has worked on, so a definite COI issue. His album is free. Google search , apart from results from Wikipedia and its copies, mostly show mentions in forums but nothing substantial. Only external link to his own blog. Emeraude 13:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Closing early, too many sock/meatpuppets. It's an obvious delete, so I'm nipping this in the bud. Proto:: ► 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Very funny, but a neologism coined last week obviously does not deserve an article. Skarioffszky 14:11, 7 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}} . |
Finally, after decades without a word that describes the political trend and ideology of many arab leaders, "fatfatism" is here to help :)
I am not going to discuss Ahmad Fatfat. But to answer some earlier comments:
- The term "fatfatism" was not started by an "anti-lebanese pro-syrian writer", but by a Lebanese Professor at Berkley!
- Fatfatism does not insult Lebanese or promote secterianism. Fatfatism is merely a term that described a certain attitude in politics followed by many arab leaders (it neither attacks Lebanese nor certain sects).
- As for the reliability of the Al-Akhbar newspaper, this newspaper only mentioned what As'as Abu Khalil defined as Fatfatism. (Also, the newspaper has proved to be reliable by always providing proofs. Check today's paper for an example - 07/12/06.)
One thing is true, the term is very recent, and not much references are available yet. But the term is spreading like fire! It is widespread now in Lebanon, and mentioned in several news outlets. And it is the only term that describes these specific political traits and ideology. There is a huge need for the term fatfatism, which actually explains why it's spreading quickly :) --
129.215.212.170
18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
ridiculous. -- The Way 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
There is a large section of athletes being added. However, many like this, are borderline notable. In addition, editors/authors are not getting the point. This leaves hundreds of borderline/not notable for review and deletion. This example should be used to clarify Wikipedia:Notability (people). On that, editors should be clear enough such that third-party editors, especially those unfamiliar with sports, may make appropriate choices. meatclerk 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with Ballia. Agent 86 00:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
There already is a page Ballia. This page was created by mistake P.K.Niyogi 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep & Rename to CLOUDS (60s rock band) or something better if suggested. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject does not appear
notable. See below Various Googlings of the names of the supposed band members' names in conjunction with "The Clouds" yield very few results.
tgies
10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy Delete as attack page. Agent 86 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Clearly taking the piss out of someone's friend or acquaintance. Delete Emeraude 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Month old website with 2million alexa rating, fails WP:WEB in every way imaginable. Geoffrey Spear 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G7. Agent 86 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I will vote delete on the grounds that we are not a dictionary. (My journalism professor recently informed us that its is actually just deserts, but I'm not sure i believe her.) Cantras 06:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete (G7).-- Hús ö nd 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Entry name is incorrect Thusitha.kodikara 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be a hoax. No web of science hits for the author, and wikipedia provides the only google hits. But for some reason I though WP:PROD wasn't quite appropriate. Delete. Inner Earth 14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Our coverage of accounting-related article is a little sad... --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Short article defining a term that has no chance to be a real article. MECU≈ talk 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:CORP. --- J.S ( T/ C) 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
No real notability, page seems to be being used mostly for vanity entries Lost tourist 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Last paragraph has to go, and there's nothing left beyond a directory entry and no notability. Delete Emeraude 16:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
trust me mate iv been to the george a lot. "piss head" bishai is always there and he basically is the reason it didnt close. hes pretty famous throughout east london. theres no need to take this down. J. Stevens— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn ( talk • contribs)
1) The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories Nope, nothing sourced and nothing found online
2)The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications. Um no...
3)The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded. Being a bar/pub, I highly doubt this would ever happen.
Since this is a bar/pub, we could say it offers a service (serving alcohol) so...
1) The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
Still no.
2) The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization Nope. This hasn't happened.
Fails WP:Corp, is NN, Doesn't cite sources. Nuke it. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
PLEASE NOTE User 87.74.17.102 altered my comments above, inserting the sentence: "Even so, this is no reason for deletion" and changing my vote from Delete to Do not Delete. (Evidence is here: [ [23]]. He has also been one of the main recent contributors to the article. Emeraude 00:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC). reply
By the way, as a gay man I find your comments very insulting. Gay people have the same rights as you, you biggot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn ( talk • contribs)
I'v definately read articles about this character in the Wanstead and Ilford Guardian. Their website isnt brilliant but the article might be souced in there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
That is a hate-website against Islam. We have no idea who is running that website see [ [24]]. The website is created for a reason to write against Islam and mix lies with other things to present their points. According to my understanding they have failed to meet WP:WEB, all the three points, you can check yourself. Should we create Answering-christianity.org article too. Obviously not, not at all. Encylopidia is not places for such things. Hence that page should also be deleted. Encylopidia should not be used to increase the number of hits on some hate-website. ALM 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This site is included now included in the discussion section of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/Partisan and extremist websites. You are invited to give your opinion. -- Striver 16:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Aside from being misspelled, I'm not sure it belongs here. I removed the worst of the advertising bloat, but it is only a campsite. It has been marked as linkless since June. -- Sandy Scott 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. A7, no assertion of notability, no sources Tone 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply T-media
A non-notable Slovenian company. Eleassar my talk 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
|
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable claims. The fact that this article claims that "Kunjaan" is a well known hindu term, a google search for "kunjan hindu" currently returns 3 hits. Similarly, an amazon or google books search for this term returns 0 books. This leads me to believe that either the author of this article has misspelled the term, or this is some kind of neologism/hoax. Furthermore, the article uses names like "Siddharth Gautam", which is clearly some kind of parody of Siddhārtha Gautama... Maybe the author is trying to be funny or something? It's not working. -- DDG 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Nothing is sourced, nothing to be merged. --- J.S ( T/ C) 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The name "foodshake" appears to be a neologism. The article itself is mostly recipes and original research, with a helping of POV about what should go into your particular foodshake. FreplySpang 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. This AfD does not prevent renominating this article. — Doug Bell talk 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete.-- Hús ö nd 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No citation whatsoever. Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 18:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I nominated this for deletion because: ~No new information
~Extreme POV piece
~It is just not accurate. It represents the Protestant Christian view as if speaks for all of Christinaity
~I think there could be an interesting article on converting to Christianity- and this is nowhere close to it.
~A few days after this AfD began a user reverted the article to a much earlier version. This is the article I nominated for deletion: [ [25]] Sethie 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. — Mets501 ( talk) 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable slang term, dicdef. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result wasSpeedy Delete- patent nonsense.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk) 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax attempt, or at best a non-notable rapper with a lot of hoax information. Claimed to be a platinum-selling artist, yet has no relevant Google hits, no entry on AllMusic, no albums on Amazon [27]. Also nominating:
As part of the same hoax (claims to be a platinum-selling album, with no record of its existence - one Google hit, but not relevant [28]). Author also created Tha Lyrikal A$$A$SIN, another apparent album hoax in the same vein (claims of 5,000,000 worldwide sales, but nothing at all on Google), which is prodded at the time of writing but may be added to this AfD if the author decides to remove the prod on that article too. Prod nominated article removed by author without comment. ~ Matticus T C 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:BLP, but with no prejudice against recreation. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Nothing cited. Google returns zero hits for this name. 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) 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
*Move to
Fredrick Bayley Deeming. At first I though this to be a hoax, but some quick research reveals an identical story for Deeming. See this
[29] and this
[30] (about two thirds of the way down).
Teiresias84
00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
:::*Having googled Frederick Deeming more reliable sources have turned up - notabily this one
[31] and this one
[32]. I think these sources confirm his (Deeming that is, not "Novum") notabilty. The article of course needs to be wikified as well, and if we end up moving the article it will probably be re-written sufficently (by me probably) that it wouldn't be a copyvio anyway.
Teiresias84
07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
:*Good point, clearly "Scott Norum" doesn't exist, but Deeming does an Deakin's ADB page mentions him and Deeming himself also has ADB page
[35].
Teiresias84
07:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete as non-notable organization. — Doug Bell talk 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Proposed deletion was removed by anon without a reason. The organization is rather minor and doesn't meet WP:ORG. Scores a solid three Google hits- one is a myspace, one is their website, one is the wiki article. Unverifiable. Wafulz 18:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to NaN. — Mets501 ( talk) 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research: this "transreal math" appears to be self-published original research, with no peer review. For something that claims to revolutionize arithmetic, peer-reviewed publication is essential. -- Carnildo 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I s'pose also that this should not redirect to NaN. It's not another name for NaN and is only somewhat related. In the same vein, I don't think it should redirect to wheel theory, nimber, hyperreals, or the like. Lunch 22:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is certainly true of Anderson's "perspex machine". You argue that Wikipedia should have a fair and unbiased article on the subject. Please think that argument through. Wikipedia is not magic. There is no way to have a fair and unbiased article on a subject when the only person to have ever properly written and published works about it is its creator and proponent.
Similarly, there is no way for Wikipedia to magically have a reliable article on something where the source is, in your very own word, "unreliable".
"transreal numbers" and "nullity" have been contested and discussed by people other than Anderson. But only very weakly and badly. Most of the sources are unreliable, being pseudonymous web log postings of unknown provenance. Only Daniel Firth did the right thing. Uncle G 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The only proper way to discuss this system of numbers is in the same way that the only reliable sources that we have discuss it: in the context of discussing James Anderson (computer scientist). Uncle G 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'd like to also note that this was also deleted off of wiktionary as well. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Likely hoax. Term gets no Ghits. Robotman1974 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
http://the-life-in-me.deviantart.com/ http://xshedevilx.deviantart.com/ http://Emevas.deviantart.com/ http://saccharin.deviantart.com How is a fettish, no matter how obscure a hoax? Like a phobia, it can be just about anything. If you so desire me to, I'll make more edits, assuming that makes me a "Credible" wikipedia user. Look at the above reasons for deletion: "Per above"?, "Hoaxallicous"? How is that a valid arguement? Let's be open minded people. - XKrozz 09:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Note: would have been deleted if WP:PROD used per nominator's reasoning. — Doug Bell talk 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Not Enough content to be worthwhile. 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) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Steel 12:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be a content fork. Article appears to be a catch all for criticism of Wikipedia and does not establish that said criticism is a phenomenon that is itself notable for inclusion as an article. Additionally this article is redundant to Wikipedia:Criticisms, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections and the information collected in this article could be merged into those projects. Deleting this article should not be considered censorship as a majority of the properly cited material could be condensed and included in the Wikipedia article. The rest should go to the project space articles. — Malber ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The article has no verifiable information that isn't already in Big Brother (UK), and everything else is unsourced speculation. JD talk 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as non-notable band. — Doug Bell talk 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This band may not meet the standards of WP:MUSIC. ➥the Epopt 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per CSD A7. Yeah, I know. Slowest speedy delete ever. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable biographical stub who has 2 unique hits on google and whose only source comes from a user posted martial arts video. Abstrakt 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete.-- Hús ö nd 03:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- CSDA7: non-notable student newspaper. 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) 20:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep; No one is actually proposing deletion and if the other title is proven to be correct, then that's a move issue that needs not to be discussed in AfD. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- the title of the film is actually just "Nicholas Nickleby" for which there is no page. 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) 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 11:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Rather on the edge theory, seems to be the work of a single group with some confrence publications, but few citations. Chief author covered by BBC and slashdot. Salix alba ( talk) 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Statement: I did not initiate, nor induce anyone to initiate, any article currently on Wikipedia. My talk page shows that I initiated an article to explain more about transreal numbers, but this was deleted because it was deemed to be a neologism. I have no view on whether or not the articles describing me or my research should be kept. I regard that as a matter for the Wikipedia community, which initiated these articles, to decide.
Facts: My B.Sc. is in Experimental Psychology from Sussex University, England, and was awarded in 1980. My Ph.D. is from Reading University, England. The title of my Ph.D., awarded in 1992, is “Canonical Description of the Perspective Transformations.” All of my scientific papers were peer reviewed. Recent controversy sprang from an open day I attended at Highdown School, Berkshire. My talk was reported on BBC Radio Berkshire, BBC South Today (regional TV news), and BBC News 24 (Satellite TV). BBC Radio Berkshire is to allow me to reply to my critics on a radio show. The BBC intends to invite a professional mathematician to assist the radio presenter. I have forwarded to the BBC my papers showing how transreal arithmetic is performed as operations on fractions and axiomatically, as well as how transreal arithmetic extends to analysis. There are more papers on my personal web site that could be used to bolster claims in the various articles relating to me and my work.
The perspex machine and transreal arithmetic has been simulated in software which is available on my personal web site. A version of the perspex machine has been implemented in FPGA. All of these versions implement digital and, therefore, Turing computable approximations to the machine and the arithmetic.
The Transreal number article contains a number of historical inaccuracies and misinterpretations of my work, but is very much better informed than most commentary I have seen. If the article is kept I could contribute corrections to its talk page or direct to the article. Given the controversy this has provoked I am inclined to contribute to the talk page if the article is kept. James A.D.W. Anderson 14:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The work on transreal arithmetic, of which nullity forms a part, has been proved consistent by machine proof. This work was undertaken by an independent researcher at a different university from my own. And the machine proof has been examined at a third university. All agree that transreal arithmetic is consistent and contains real arithmetic as a proper subset.
All of my scientific papers are available in paper form from the relevant copyright libraries and, in many cases, from the electronic databases of the publishing organisations. The papers that are on my web site are only a subset of the papers I have written – specifically, the subset for which I have copyright permission to reproduce. The copyright policies of many journals prevent self publication so the papers that appear on an author’s web site are necessarily skewed. This bias may disappear as electronic publishing takes hold -- but it is a bias that Wikipedians may profitably be aware of.
In my, self-interested, view, my papers have been reviewed to the appropriate standards for my subject area. If you accept this, then the relevant test to apply is whether the material is sufficiently noteworthy, or sufficiently well accepted in society at large, to appear in Wikipedia.
Wikepedians are, I am sure, familiar with the concept of flaming. Since the recent publicity surrounding my work I have been flamed in a number of electronic fora. But I have now received a handful of apologies from people after they have read my papers on transreal arithmetic. None of the hundred or so counter-proofs I have seen to my work are valid, except one, which exposed an error in the guarding clause of equation ten in the analysis paper. This error does not affect the validity of any of the material publicised in the media. Indeed, before making the public presentation, I had obtained a second proof of the 0^0 result using the transreal exponential and logarithm: 0^0 = e^(ln 0^0) = e^(0 ln 0) = e^(0 * -infinity) = e^nullity = nullity.) I invite you to consider whether this is consistent with your (informal) view of the exponential function at these extremes, and then reflect on whether it is valuable to have a total and consistent arithmetic. As a computer scientist I can tell you, for example, that a total and consistent arithmetic guarantees that all functions are differentiable, though I, personally, cannot find many of the differentials. But I can, for example, find the first differential of tan(theta) at theta = pi/2 using nothing more than the gradient formula and transreal arithmetic, along with knowledge of which order to compute end points in. Which I can easily obtain by examining the function in the neighbourhood of pi/2. (The gradient is –infinity.) I can also evaluate tan(pi/2) and obtain its unique numerical value at this point. (Nullity.) Thus, my total and consistent arithmetic supplies results where standard mathematics struggles or fails completely. I believe this work has now reached the level of maturity where it can, and should, be published in mathematical journals, and I will take steps to do so.
On the issue of the size of the SPIE conferences, you will note that in a conference the number of peers is equal to the number of conference attendees. Of course, one wants academic peer review of scientific papers, but even here the number of academic peers is quite plausibly a constant factor of the number of attendees. Consider this case: in a conference of one million mathematicians each mathematician reviews three anonymised papers, other than his or her own. Three blind reviews have then been obtained for every mathematician at the conference. And this result would be the same in a conference of one billion or one trillion mathematicians. When it comes to peer review, size does not matter. James A.D.W. Anderson 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
And, no the subject does not satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion. Once again: The "ongoing public discussion" does not address this subject directly, only tangentially and in passing. There are no non-trivial published works, from reliable and independent sources, that cover the subject. In any case, the overwhelming majority of the public discussion is by unreliable sources (e.g. people posting on web logs under pseudonyms).
To make a case for treating this like Intelligent Design, you need to cite as many good sources as can be found in Intelligent Design#Notes_and_references. Intelligent Design even has books that address the subject, you'll notice. You haven't cited any sources at all to demonstrate that your suggestion is workable. Uncle G 10:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete.-- Hús ö nd 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I think this pretty much embodies what Wikipedia is not. It's a mere list of statistics, with no source, which has been linked to almost all of the soap opera articles. Ratings history is already covered in the separate articles on soap opera series. Delete. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non notable album by non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Gets only 25 distinct Google hits, by the way [46]. And the release date is probably a mistake... Fram 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Article has a single reliable source and contains original research. This decision is without prejudice to creating an article discussing outside views and debate on this issue instead of presenting the outside views and debate, if properly sourced, neutral, and without original research. — Doug Bell talk 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is supposed to be about how some people want to see racism in Tolkien's writings, or in Tolkien himself. Notably the article is not at all clear on this. It is filled with original research, opinion, weasel words, and utter nonsense. -- Jordi· ✆ 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- J.S ( T/ C) 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This article definitely needs to be deleted. I searched for Google hits about the new album and there has been no other evidence, that One for the Kids would be the title, other than the listed sources on this article. The title for the album is nothing but speculation, so this makes the title of the album a fake. Also, I looked at Google News and there has been no evidence about it too. Alex 20:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable - references point only to self-published, close or trivial blogs and web sites Backface 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
abstain (I am the nominator). Perhaps someone can find sources.
Delete Having gone through the first 5 pages of Google stuff, I have not been able to find any solid RS. The impressive sounding P2P Foundation appears to be a self-published web site and there is plenty of OR around this across the web. Bauwens appears to be an impressive self-publicist having attached his name to a concept of P2P and being interviewed and quoted on all sorts of NN blogs and the like. Apparently he formed some dot.coms in Belgium at some point, although these appear to be dead and are not named anywhere that I can find. He is an impressive but NN college prof. So on balance and in the absence of any good firm sources, I have changed my opinion to Delete. Happy to see it stay if someone finds good solid sources.
--
Backface
11:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Furthermore, User:ForrestLane42 and User:Backface, both seeming single-purpose accounts of extremely recent vintage, have been working in tandem to nominate for deletion virtually all of the articles in the integral thought category. I wonder on what basis and with what familiarity with the subject User:ForrestLane42 says: "This guy is irrelevant." — goethean ॐ 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC) replyMichel Bauwens has played a major role in the digital revolution of his home country Belgium, where he is known as an internet pioneer. He created two dotcom companies, was (eBusiness) strategic director for the telecommunications company Belgacom, and 'European Manager of Thought Leadership' for the U.S. webconsultancy MarchFIRST. He co-produced the 3-hour TV documentary 'TechnoCalyps: the metaphysics of technology and the end of man', and co-edited two French-language books on the 'Anthropology of Digital Society', and was editor in chief of the Flemish digital magazine Wave. He now lives in Chiang Mai, Thailand, where he created the Foundation for P2P Alternatives (P2PFoundation.net). He taught the Anthropology of Digital Society for postgraduate students at ICHEC/St. Louis in Brussels, Belgium and related courses to Payap University and Chiang Mai University in Thailand. He can be contacted at michelsub2003@yahoo.com
Comment Tom - if you have some sources that lead you be understand that Bauwens has some notability, perhaps you can provide them. If not... -- 82.35.193.80 08:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Doug Bell talk 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Insignificant charactrer in an epic saga doesn't need separate article Frater Xyzzy 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Leet. — Doug Bell talk 00:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- dictdef, nn/uncited neologism. 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) 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted this patent nonsense. Guy ( Help!) 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{ nonsense}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason in this case based on what I see on the talk page. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by someone else in the meantime. Sandstein 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Silly neologism, WP:NFT, no pertinent Google hits. Speedy deletion contested. Sandstein 21:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as non-notable unreleased game. — Doug Bell talk 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreleased non-notable game. If it becomes notable after it is released, we can re-create the article then. Andre ( talk) 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to Ar nDraiocht Fein. Subject of article fails WP:BIO tests. The material for merging is in the redirect page history. — Doug Bell talk 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability is not established. A few self-published books and a senior position in some Wiccan sect do not mean notability. No references other than from his sect Alex Bakharev 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete.-- Hús ö nd 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB, only about 4 Google hits(!), no external refs. Prod removed. Ginkgo 100 talk 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Crap joke article. SmartGuy 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Doug Bell talk 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NOT: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. Delete. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Page just seems to be a long and winding ramble. All I can see that'd be salvageable is the opening sentence, which doesn't seem enough for an article. I am also nominating the following related page because it's just a building in Rearcross:
If the nom fails, I'd recommend pruning everything but the opening sentence of Rearcross, and redirecting Rearcross Hall. -- DeLarge 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
delete - fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
delete - fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is clear, we already have meta pages on vandalism so we don't need this self-referential original research. Rather than revert yet more vandalism on the article (how original), I'm nuking it. Guy ( Help!) 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Not verified by any reliable sources. As far as I know, unverifiable - Google turns up, rather unsurprisingly, mostly us, other wikis, blogs and similar self-published net posts, which can't be used. It was probably inevitable that someone would create an article on this, given that we're on a wiki that's frequently vandalised; but before that we're an encyclopaedia, and the fact that it's a topic close to our hearts doesn't make verifiability any less negotiable. Delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Agent 86 01:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
delete - fails WP:V, notability not established, only sources seem to be geocities hosted personal sites Frater Xyzzy 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
keep - Mills is clearly a pivotal figure in Germanic neopaganism. I have moved a non geocities external link to the top of the list as you appear to have missed it. Also added a link to one of his books.-- Hengest 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Per Hengest. Mallanox 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - Needs to be fleshed out further, but verifiable sources do exist for this man's work. - WeniWidiWiki 09:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - As far as the re-awakening of Odinism this man is very important. He has inspired many a person. -- Donvonmilikowski 13:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
delete - notability extremely dubious in light of lack of any sources beyond personal websites, fails WP:V Frater Xyzzy 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect and protect.-- Hús ö nd 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Another unsourced article on a supposedly rumoured forthcoming single. I've redirected this to the appropriate album article three times, but every time I've been reverted without explanation or discussion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 23:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an unsourced article about an album that was originally scheduled for release in the summer of 2006, then scheduled for December 5, and now pushed back to March, 2007. The contents of the album are only rumored, and the only 'sources' I can find are blogs. Donald Albury 23:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Relates to the person responsible for today's Nullity coining and the Transreal_number deletion, see that entry/talk page for more details. Also vanity publisher and not suitable for a sourced encyclopedia. Lee-Jon 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: Article has been moved to James Anderson (computer scientist), the AfD notice persists there also and links to this discussion. fintler 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Also does anyone know where else in the news this fellow has appeared? That is, besides a one paragraph article in Slashdot and the article in the Berkshire local edition of the BBC. And on Slashdot, virtually all the comments are poking fun of the guy. Lunch 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Moreover, your argument about rescuing cats from trees is a straw man. You are ignoring the words "multiple" and "non-trivial" in the PNC. The rescue of a cat from a tree would almost certainly not be an in-depth article, and other articles would be required. Please think about notability, about why it is not the same as importance, and about why arguments about cat rescues are straw men. Uncle G 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD G7. This would be RfD material ordinarily. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I created this to redirect to Semantic URL but then realized that a Logical URL is by no means necessarily semantic.
The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Google test = zero hits. Penguin, his supposed publisher, has nothing at all on him. Article creater is Willb285 which appears to be a possible conflict of interest. Willb285 has already removed the AfD notice once. IrishGuy talk 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Article contains only original research and trivial subject matter Goldfritha 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply