The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply
It was recently listed for Afd ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikas Khanna)) but was speedied due to copyvio. Relisting the new version which, as far as i can find, is not a direct copy from anywhere. Tintin ( talk) 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason for the first listing : non-notable, vanity bio, self authored by the subject Batman2005 21:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, published in vanity press – Joke 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable vanity page. OCNative 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the complete text of somebody's research paper, including the original page numbers. All sorts of reasons to delete this. Xyzzyplugh 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Google shows only 1 website linking to them. Xyzzyplugh 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete.
Soothing
R
21:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete. Google only shows 10 hits on this word, making it not suitable for wikipedia, wiktionary or anyplace else. Xyzzyplugh 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Either this is original research or an instruction manual, though it has a long history. If it is neither, vote KEEP. If it is, what do we do with it? -- Perfecto 00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
⇒⇒ It means a lot of work, but I think it can be combined with Technical architecture as a general (Technical) Architecture article (in particular, this is a Systems Architecture article and Technical Architecture is a Software Architecture article). I am sure I can find enough relevant references. I have (privately) saved this article, so if you want to delete until I (or someone else) can get around to doing the edit, it's OK by me. As it stands, it really is not appropriate to Wikipedia, but it has a lot of good content.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to military strategy. Babajobu 02:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Either this is original research or an instruction manual, though it has a long history. If it is neither, vote KEEP. If it is, what do we do with it?-- Perfecto 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, defaults to a keeper. Ifnord 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Either this is original research or an instruction manual, though it has a long history. If it is neither, vote KEEP. If it is, what do we do with it?-- Perfecto 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was despite the sockfest, there was no consensus between established Wikipedias to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
(I edited the beginnings of the entries to reflect the votes thus far) 3H 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
As the Founder and Administrator I assure you that we've been in rotation since 2001. We don't have have a proliferation of clone bots and/or drones because we heavily filter our userbase to disallow these things. We respect IRC and the related communities. We contribute to the Wikipedia community as well as the IRC community. In turn, our communities respect us and the manner in which we strive to deliver quality. While we are not as superficially large as other networks we are equally relevant. This should not become a forum for irc politics because a person from one 'network' feels the need to reduce the relevance of another. AbleNET is relevant in that it continues a long chronological history dating back to some of the former great IRC Networks such as InnerNET and its community has a very distinct legacy. I don't know why we were 'singled out', nor is it appreciated. I don't want to get into a war of words. It is unethical to vandalize and troll our entry in such a manner and then to visit us to incite argument.
[19:33] * Fro (woooo@dsl-41.hoosier.net) has joined #ablenet [19:34] <Fro> just so you guys know, we're getting your article deleted from wikipedia
Efnet, undernet and Dalnet are not the only relevant networks and to consider them as so is a bias toward their size without respect to contribution. To delete our entry would be unfair and incite movement against other Networks listed for repeat action by this or other individuals. To use the term 'unencyclopedic' equally discredits our peers.
The mission for any 'encylopedia' is to gather information in a factual manner. To use an analogy; Switzerland is not consider irrelevant in the forum of world because of their size. To use 'size' as an argument is narrow in both thought and focus.
We respectfully implore the administration of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Community to recognize our right to exist and our right to equality amongst our colleagues and peers in the IRC community as well as the Internet Community at large.
Respectfully,
Anthony Sanchez
Santavez 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
"Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised."
"Please make your recommendation only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to make multiple recommendations, such additional recommendations will be discounted."
Santavez 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
An ip removed the prod tag without comment, so I'm bringing it here. Website that fails WP:WEB.-- Perfecto 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Creator removed the prod tag without comment or expansion, so I'm bringing it here. Reason to delete: Non-notable organisation.-- Perfecto 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Page is just an advertisement for a commercial product. All google links on this topic appear to me to be part of a network of pages by the same company to hawk its product. Xyzzyplugh 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I am not an expert in the area -- or particularly well-acquainted, for that matter, in the area -- but gut feeling-wise it simply doesn't feel notable enough. Weak delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 01:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Durin 14:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Not encyclopedic.. unless I guess we make a series of them. Aaronw 01:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, Original research Mr Adequate 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Marudubshinki as copyvio - SCEhard T 22:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable biography which provices no sources, also his work on the atomic bomb is non-verifiable. This information should be covered in his sons article. Batman2005 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as copyvio, previously short article with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. It's unneccesary and unencyclopdiac.
original unsigned nomination by Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL ( talk · contribs)
altered to "I recommend we keep this scholarly article" as unsigned edit by 158.158.240.231 ( talk · contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This trilogy, author, and subject seem to be completely non-notable. Absolutely no hits for search:"Zach Chapman" Flarians or search "Zachary Chapman" Flarians. Delete Mak emi 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
EDIT: Left a note on the creator's talk page informing him of the AFD; it is yet to be seen if he takes interest. -- Mas T er of Puppets Peek! 02:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Although there were claims to notability in this article, they were neither specific nor terribly credible, e.g. "Her science was humane since she wrote her first book about life when she was five years old."
brenneman
{T}
{L}
04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
non-notable bio. Batman2005 02:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable, non-encyclopedic, nonsense...should I go on? Batman2005 02:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh, by the way, how many non notable artists have singles that go for 70 bucks on ebay? [8] -- HasNoClue 02:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Quite the contrary, it would appear you are the one who "HasNoClue." I made an effort to find information on this artist. I tried to find a cd at my local music store....nothing. Tried to find mention of him on reputable web-pages like billboard charts, or the like...nothing. If he's now signed with "Rap-a-Lot" records....great! When he's satisfied the criteria for inclusion here....which by the way is TWO albums released on a well known/major record label...then by all means...include him. The article as is reads as vanity and non-notable content. I'm also looking through ebay and don't see a $70.00 single for this artist anywhere...do you have a link for that? And please, leave your personal "weirdo" attacks out of here, or you'll be blocked from editing here. Batman2005 02:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No my friend, I didn't ignore any post that you made. I just chose not to respond to the same stuff i've been responding to the entire time. This guy is not notable. Period. I'm sorry you feel like you need to admonish me and say that I don't know what I'm talking about. It must be difficult for you to be up against so many people who claerly deem this artist non-notable. Are you Trae? I'm guessing you just might be. Sorry kiddie, don't let your feelings get hurt, you'll make it big one day! Batman2005 06:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete & redirect to morris dance. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable, possibly vanity Garglebutt / (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6 Google hits. delete
Lotsofissues 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This information is covered in about 9 or 10 other articles on Special Forces in the United States, any information here that is not covered in those should be merged Batman2005 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not-notable vanity page Mikker ... 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page, doesn't meet WP:BIO DVD+ R/W 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think that a slang phrase used by some students to describe the bus that transports students between Wellesley College, Harvard University, and MIT is encyclopedic. Besides notability concerns, much of this (brief) article consists of original research: i.e., "It is widely shared perception among Harvard amd MIT male students that Wellesley students are eager to have sex because Wellesley is a females-only institution." -- as a Wellesley alum, I agree that this perception probably does exist among students, but I really can't see how this could be cited using an acceptable published source. Delete. Catamorphism 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
--Wikipedia is not citeable in any case. This term is popularly known and used and the entry is valid. Why make entries editable by any one if you're going to try to take them down single-handedly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.222.40 ( talk • contribs)
--seems to pass the requirements of objectiveness and verifiability. keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.19.140 ( talk • contribs)
"'Delete'", not notable and a stereotype imposed upon the character of all Wellesley Women. Very offensive. Vote by User:149.130.224.66 CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or cleanup. I'm a student at MIT and am familiar with this term and its connotations and can attest to its existence and whatnot. However, I feel that the present article is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Perhaps if the title was changed to a less colloquial term, with "Fuck truck" included as an "also known as". The article could use some cleanup. Isopropyl 06:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Looks to be a MMORPG of some kind, but the only info I can find is at [12], which is... fairly incomplete Aaronw 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A search for his full name yields zero hits on Google. Plus, the article's writing hints at vanity. Delete. Acetic Acid 03:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Listcruft. Little encyclopedic value and unlikely to even if the list is more complete. Delete
CHANLORD
[T]/
[C]
03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album of non-notable artist - artist's article is also up for deletion Mikker ... 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax/Vanity. Claims to be a 15 year old actress/published poet. Nothing on IMDb, google returns 7 unique google hits, none of which confirm article's claims. TheMidnighters 04:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Seriously non-notable. Mikker ... 04:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a dictionary, info should be in Go (placed info on talk:go) Mikker ... 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete.
Soothing
R
21:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Unremarkable protologism with roughly 500 Google hits on a restrictive search [13], few of which are related. No evidence of widespread use. No vote. Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN software, advertisement. 551 Google hits [15] -- F a ng Aili 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau ( talk) 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
patent nonsense Savidan 04:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; ad; only 301 google hits [16]... Mikker ... 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, unverifable neologism Savidan 04:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable bio, 107 unique ghits, member of one marginally notable band, but not notable himself. Delete Mak emi 04:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable bio, possible vanity Savidan 05:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not vanity, I know of this mathematician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.128.60 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
vanity page for nn gaming group Savidan 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is clearly an advertisement for the Times Square Church. The use of a first-person perspective, an unstructured format, business hours, and mailing address are clear indications that this article serves no purpose other than to advertise. The introduction to the article is a direct copy-and-paste from this section on the Time Square Church’s website. The Statement of Faith section is a direct copy-and-paste from this section. I tagged the article requesting a complete rewrite. However, the page has been up for about 1½ years, and there have only been 20 edits, which were all direct copy-and-pastes from the church's main webpage. Since a rewrite request failed, and since nobody is jumping on this article to improve it, my vote is nothing less than Delete. ( Notorious4life 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable ... gaming type thing. Of some sort. Yes. It has to do with games, and it's non-notable, and that's all I could figure out.
Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete -- Durin 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism (and what is wrong with atheist?) Avi 05:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was complicated.. Counting, I see 25 "votes" for deletion, 12 for keep, and 5 for merge to Islamophobia. However, four of the keep votes come from anonymous voters, one from a user with two edits, and one unsigned vote, which is discounted. Using some judgement here, I think that this is strong enough to delete. Bratsch e talk 03:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Note the extra -phobia. This article was created explicitly (it seems to me) to make a point about Islamophobia. Justification on the Talk page reads, "It's true that this page was created in part to be a knock on the Islamophobia article, that's a fair point. However, at the same time, this article is basically as legitimate as the Islamophobia article itself is... why exactly should it be deleted while the original specious article remains?" I refer us all to WP:POINT. Please, please, delete. bikeable (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete nn pub band. No albums. No evidence of any tours. Nothing links to this article. Bruce1ee 06:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible promotion/vanity of private theory (but not WP:OR). This reads like something out of DSM IV, but there's nothing even close in DSM, and, oddly enough, most of the non-Wikipedia-mirror links seem to tie this term to the listed author in all of the "references", one Brian G. Gilmartin. Then I go to his(?) website, love-shy.com, which prominently links this Wikipedia article, and fails to offer any evidence that anyone but him has ever written anything about this condition.
Is there any evidence that this isn't some (non-notable) psychologist's pet theory? Is the fact that it is published (the books aren't vanity press as far as I can tell) enough to make this notable even if it is?
As for me, I say no to both questions, and think this article should be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell this either a wilderness or under construction, and does not yet exist as a documented town or community. (see comments by contributor)
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. However, googling for "rowbike" gets 10,000 hits. Is this a big thing in the USA or somewhere? Maybe cleanup instead of delete? Weregerbil 07:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 17:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Inventor of a carjacking deterrent
Blaster (flamethrower). Invention itself has an article, but does wikipedia need a article on the inventor himself? Suggest merging with invention page
OscarTheCat
talk
07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep/merge. W.marsh 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable website, Alexa rating ~113,000, contributes nothing of lasting value to Wikipedia. Delete Warrens 07:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate wasspeedy delete by User:Chairboy as non-notable. - SCEhard T 22:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. A non-notable creator of a local online social network service. Google search yields 203 results and his website's traffic rank is only within the range of five millionth [25]. -- *drew 07:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I put a prod tag on this page, but it was removed, so I'm listing it here. As I said then, it's a "main article" branched off of Calvin and Hobbes which serves no useful purpose. Rather than being an encyclopaedia article, this page throws together a bunch of storylines from different strips. Massive copy-editing would be necessary to make the prose navigable. If we have to say more about Susie Derkins than the Calvin and Hobbes FA already says, this article isn't convincing me about it. Comic cruft about a great comic is still cruft. Anville 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reached 12th position in a local Idol show. A search on Google yields 9 results. -- *drew 08:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This page and concept a complete fabrication.. no mention anywhere of Killuminati other than a play on words in a rap song. This conspiracy theory isn't even that... manufactured by one guy, I am sure. Dyslexic agnostic 08:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Here are the entries which led to the deletion request, from the Killuminati talk page:
The above included here for easy reference. - Dyslexic agnostic 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete and merge to Walsall. Bratsch e talk 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This article started out as a stub about a statue in Walsall, but has been turned into rambling lunacy. It may be appropriate to revert it back to the stub, but since there's only a single reference even for the original information, which itself was just a passing reference, I felt we should review the subject itself to see if any of this is salvageable. Jeff Q (talk) 09:00, 13 February 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}} . |
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete -- Appears to be just made up with no real following or significant number of proponents Mwelch 10:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Essjay as attack page/a6 Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 10:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable, no facts can be cited Tawker 09:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Francolini is a gun engraver. The article has been proposed for deletion (i.e. {{prod}}ed) as "completely autobiographical, non encyclopedic". That it is autobiography is clear. However, there are a couple of claims of notability in the article, which may make it worthwhile for anyone interested in guns and gun collecting. A couple of Francolini's guns have been featured on the cover of magazines. Another one has been made for the Royal Armoury in London. He gets more than 3,000 Google hits, which seems quite a lot for someone in this probably rather specialized field. The question: is Francolini a notable person in his field? Is someone interested in cleaning up the article? u p p l a n d 10:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Added a few words for clarification. u p p l a n d 05:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was nominated for speedy deletion under A3, but doesn't qualify, since the article is a (sub)stub but not empty. I'm nominating this for AfD instead. No vote, but I'm inclined to send this to cleanup for expansion. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 10:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP (Nomination Withdrawn). Mike Beckham 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, opinion-based. Note: at the time of nomination, article consisted of a list of artists, without reference to a TV series etc. Given how the article now looks, I would suggest a keep --
OscarTheCat
talk
22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
First of all please dont point me to articles thats rude in itself and obviously you would vote that way as you have a "This user is a Wikipedia deletionist." as I am an inclusionist I would vote my way not only that this is a article that deserves to stay, now you are not even near Australia and I am guessing wouldent have a clue about the show or anything else on the subject so you just vote delete as you are a deletist apparently. And this isnt a personal attack its just stating some facts and a opinion of mine. - Mike Beckham 22:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity Jkf 16:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was OBVIOUS SPEEDY KEEP. Duh. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete, self promoting site that is irrevelant especially when it comes to alexa's rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannabebritney ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nn Compu te r Jo e 17:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. 2000 google hits Advertising. Sleepyhead 17:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Books appear to be a vanity press publication ( Lulu press). Delete per WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Moved from Prod since deletion was contested. Hansnesse 17:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied as nonsense by me. android 79 15:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable (the link at bottom does endorse the content of the article). Hoax. Was tagged as prod, but that tag was removed. - Liberatore( T) 18:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This was a good article... What was wrong with it?
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about a random mall somewhere. Initially tagged as prod, removed with motivation "could be merged somewhere". As far as I can see, the best article to merge it into is List of non-notable malls, which unfortunately we don't have. - Liberatore( T) 18:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- Ardenn 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Biased content, non-scientific basis for information, needs deleting and completely rewritten. CitrusC 18:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
rewrite, to object to this article saying its not true is invalid, the information is based on what psionics is not what is or is not scientificly proven.
The result of the debate was 1, 2, 3... (40 keep/23 delete/2 other/1 disq.) no consensus, defaults to keep. This conclusion refers to the subject of the article, not the article itself.
I think the best compromise to put this messy past behind us is to give it a fresh start, (with unprotection) and let Wikipedians rewrite a neutral and verifiable version. If there are libellous/disparaging additions, delete only these edits, not the entire article. If it's vandalised, then revert on sight, and keep a watch on the article. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject. Ral315 ( talk) 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Alright. Wikipedia is not the place for obscure neologisms, such as this one. Although "Wikiphilosophy" has some notability inside Wikipedia, it most certainly doesn't outside it. We shouldn't be biased about articles relating to our community, so I propose to delete this.
Soothing
R
22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Even though I suspect a lot of sockpuppeteering or meatpuppeteering here, Alkivar, Kappa, et. al. have provided good reasons to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverified, non-notable. Delete Ardenn 22:15, 13 February 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}} . |
PLA is a significant site for phreak culture. This significance only increases over time as phreaks and phreaking fade from the popular memory, and are gradually replaced by other [more current] cultures. As an encyclopedic instrument, WP owes it's readership the preservation of this significant subcultural history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.71.179 ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia has Zerg rushes. Wikipedia has lengthy articles of Starcraft strategy and the origins of every computer game known to man that DOESN'T MEAN A DAMNED THING. PLA doesn't meet the exacting standards of a website that half-believes Star Trek is real? Having a small article about PLA is somehow worse than devoting pages to gaming strategy and science fiction? Enjoy your world humans, I am off to see Hubbard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolp ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was speedy delete as A6 (attack). Superm401 - Talk 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable, obvious joke about a friend. James Kendall [talk] 22:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. There is already an article on NGC Magazine which is much more detailed and was in place before this one was even created. DVD Smith 22:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete because Google only shows 60 hits on this word, making it not suitable for wikipedia. If it is notable, possibly merge with Fascism Magdela 22:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as a useless article with no context (unsourced neologism). - Mike Rosoft 23:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. 7 unique google results. Prod tag was removed twice by the article's creator so I'm bringing it here. TheMidnighters 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The article was de-prodded, so I bring it here. NN forum, few users and few posts. Only a few months old. Vanity. per WP:WEB, etc. Broken Segue 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Appears to be mostly an ad. May be notable. ChemGardener 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable band. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). About one relevant google hit. Liface 22:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Was listed for speedy deletion without any valid criteria given, so I thought I'd list it here instead. Leith p 22:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Vanity. The author apparently wrote about himself. He even put an e-mail in the article [33]. As far as I know he is not notable enough to deserve to be included in Wikipedia. Eleassar my talk 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP as a bad-faith or mistaken nomination. JIP | Talk 11:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Afd orphaned by User:4.224.192.146 O bli ( Talk) 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Obituary of non-notable person Xyzzyplugh 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - non-encyclopedic and NPOV. Identical to Valley Guard. ChemGardener 22:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious term, could maybe be merged with
upskirt (wich is far more widely used) but in the end looks like a gratuitous excuse to insert an image of breasts.
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie). Article about the author ( Knox (animator)) has been deleted as unverified/not notable. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This and several others are created as advertising. User:Gregatwan2 created this page, L.A. Direct Models, and several links elsewhere. He did this in one day. Google searches for Name Her Shame do not come up with any hits that match LA Models. Defenestrate
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website; Vanity page KHM03 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising non-notable commercial enterprise. See also Name Her Shame Defenestrate 23:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply
It was recently listed for Afd ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikas Khanna)) but was speedied due to copyvio. Relisting the new version which, as far as i can find, is not a direct copy from anywhere. Tintin ( talk) 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason for the first listing : non-notable, vanity bio, self authored by the subject Batman2005 21:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, published in vanity press – Joke 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable vanity page. OCNative 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the complete text of somebody's research paper, including the original page numbers. All sorts of reasons to delete this. Xyzzyplugh 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Google shows only 1 website linking to them. Xyzzyplugh 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete.
Soothing
R
21:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete. Google only shows 10 hits on this word, making it not suitable for wikipedia, wiktionary or anyplace else. Xyzzyplugh 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Either this is original research or an instruction manual, though it has a long history. If it is neither, vote KEEP. If it is, what do we do with it? -- Perfecto 00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
⇒⇒ It means a lot of work, but I think it can be combined with Technical architecture as a general (Technical) Architecture article (in particular, this is a Systems Architecture article and Technical Architecture is a Software Architecture article). I am sure I can find enough relevant references. I have (privately) saved this article, so if you want to delete until I (or someone else) can get around to doing the edit, it's OK by me. As it stands, it really is not appropriate to Wikipedia, but it has a lot of good content.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to military strategy. Babajobu 02:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Either this is original research or an instruction manual, though it has a long history. If it is neither, vote KEEP. If it is, what do we do with it?-- Perfecto 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, defaults to a keeper. Ifnord 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Either this is original research or an instruction manual, though it has a long history. If it is neither, vote KEEP. If it is, what do we do with it?-- Perfecto 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was despite the sockfest, there was no consensus between established Wikipedias to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
(I edited the beginnings of the entries to reflect the votes thus far) 3H 00:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
As the Founder and Administrator I assure you that we've been in rotation since 2001. We don't have have a proliferation of clone bots and/or drones because we heavily filter our userbase to disallow these things. We respect IRC and the related communities. We contribute to the Wikipedia community as well as the IRC community. In turn, our communities respect us and the manner in which we strive to deliver quality. While we are not as superficially large as other networks we are equally relevant. This should not become a forum for irc politics because a person from one 'network' feels the need to reduce the relevance of another. AbleNET is relevant in that it continues a long chronological history dating back to some of the former great IRC Networks such as InnerNET and its community has a very distinct legacy. I don't know why we were 'singled out', nor is it appreciated. I don't want to get into a war of words. It is unethical to vandalize and troll our entry in such a manner and then to visit us to incite argument.
[19:33] * Fro (woooo@dsl-41.hoosier.net) has joined #ablenet [19:34] <Fro> just so you guys know, we're getting your article deleted from wikipedia
Efnet, undernet and Dalnet are not the only relevant networks and to consider them as so is a bias toward their size without respect to contribution. To delete our entry would be unfair and incite movement against other Networks listed for repeat action by this or other individuals. To use the term 'unencyclopedic' equally discredits our peers.
The mission for any 'encylopedia' is to gather information in a factual manner. To use an analogy; Switzerland is not consider irrelevant in the forum of world because of their size. To use 'size' as an argument is narrow in both thought and focus.
We respectfully implore the administration of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Community to recognize our right to exist and our right to equality amongst our colleagues and peers in the IRC community as well as the Internet Community at large.
Respectfully,
Anthony Sanchez
Santavez 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
"Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised."
"Please make your recommendation only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to make multiple recommendations, such additional recommendations will be discounted."
Santavez 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
An ip removed the prod tag without comment, so I'm bringing it here. Website that fails WP:WEB.-- Perfecto 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Creator removed the prod tag without comment or expansion, so I'm bringing it here. Reason to delete: Non-notable organisation.-- Perfecto 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Page is just an advertisement for a commercial product. All google links on this topic appear to me to be part of a network of pages by the same company to hawk its product. Xyzzyplugh 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I am not an expert in the area -- or particularly well-acquainted, for that matter, in the area -- but gut feeling-wise it simply doesn't feel notable enough. Weak delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 01:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Durin 14:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Not encyclopedic.. unless I guess we make a series of them. Aaronw 01:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, Original research Mr Adequate 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Marudubshinki as copyvio - SCEhard T 22:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable biography which provices no sources, also his work on the atomic bomb is non-verifiable. This information should be covered in his sons article. Batman2005 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as copyvio, previously short article with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. It's unneccesary and unencyclopdiac.
original unsigned nomination by Rmzy717 AT SCHOOL ( talk · contribs)
altered to "I recommend we keep this scholarly article" as unsigned edit by 158.158.240.231 ( talk · contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This trilogy, author, and subject seem to be completely non-notable. Absolutely no hits for search:"Zach Chapman" Flarians or search "Zachary Chapman" Flarians. Delete Mak emi 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
EDIT: Left a note on the creator's talk page informing him of the AFD; it is yet to be seen if he takes interest. -- Mas T er of Puppets Peek! 02:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Although there were claims to notability in this article, they were neither specific nor terribly credible, e.g. "Her science was humane since she wrote her first book about life when she was five years old."
brenneman
{T}
{L}
04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
non-notable bio. Batman2005 02:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable, non-encyclopedic, nonsense...should I go on? Batman2005 02:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh, by the way, how many non notable artists have singles that go for 70 bucks on ebay? [8] -- HasNoClue 02:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Quite the contrary, it would appear you are the one who "HasNoClue." I made an effort to find information on this artist. I tried to find a cd at my local music store....nothing. Tried to find mention of him on reputable web-pages like billboard charts, or the like...nothing. If he's now signed with "Rap-a-Lot" records....great! When he's satisfied the criteria for inclusion here....which by the way is TWO albums released on a well known/major record label...then by all means...include him. The article as is reads as vanity and non-notable content. I'm also looking through ebay and don't see a $70.00 single for this artist anywhere...do you have a link for that? And please, leave your personal "weirdo" attacks out of here, or you'll be blocked from editing here. Batman2005 02:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
No my friend, I didn't ignore any post that you made. I just chose not to respond to the same stuff i've been responding to the entire time. This guy is not notable. Period. I'm sorry you feel like you need to admonish me and say that I don't know what I'm talking about. It must be difficult for you to be up against so many people who claerly deem this artist non-notable. Are you Trae? I'm guessing you just might be. Sorry kiddie, don't let your feelings get hurt, you'll make it big one day! Batman2005 06:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete & redirect to morris dance. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable, possibly vanity Garglebutt / (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6 Google hits. delete
Lotsofissues 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This information is covered in about 9 or 10 other articles on Special Forces in the United States, any information here that is not covered in those should be merged Batman2005 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not-notable vanity page Mikker ... 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page, doesn't meet WP:BIO DVD+ R/W 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think that a slang phrase used by some students to describe the bus that transports students between Wellesley College, Harvard University, and MIT is encyclopedic. Besides notability concerns, much of this (brief) article consists of original research: i.e., "It is widely shared perception among Harvard amd MIT male students that Wellesley students are eager to have sex because Wellesley is a females-only institution." -- as a Wellesley alum, I agree that this perception probably does exist among students, but I really can't see how this could be cited using an acceptable published source. Delete. Catamorphism 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
--Wikipedia is not citeable in any case. This term is popularly known and used and the entry is valid. Why make entries editable by any one if you're going to try to take them down single-handedly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.222.40 ( talk • contribs)
--seems to pass the requirements of objectiveness and verifiability. keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.19.140 ( talk • contribs)
"'Delete'", not notable and a stereotype imposed upon the character of all Wellesley Women. Very offensive. Vote by User:149.130.224.66 CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or cleanup. I'm a student at MIT and am familiar with this term and its connotations and can attest to its existence and whatnot. However, I feel that the present article is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Perhaps if the title was changed to a less colloquial term, with "Fuck truck" included as an "also known as". The article could use some cleanup. Isopropyl 06:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Looks to be a MMORPG of some kind, but the only info I can find is at [12], which is... fairly incomplete Aaronw 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A search for his full name yields zero hits on Google. Plus, the article's writing hints at vanity. Delete. Acetic Acid 03:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Listcruft. Little encyclopedic value and unlikely to even if the list is more complete. Delete
CHANLORD
[T]/
[C]
03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album of non-notable artist - artist's article is also up for deletion Mikker ... 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax/Vanity. Claims to be a 15 year old actress/published poet. Nothing on IMDb, google returns 7 unique google hits, none of which confirm article's claims. TheMidnighters 04:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Seriously non-notable. Mikker ... 04:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a dictionary, info should be in Go (placed info on talk:go) Mikker ... 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete.
Soothing
R
21:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Unremarkable protologism with roughly 500 Google hits on a restrictive search [13], few of which are related. No evidence of widespread use. No vote. Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN software, advertisement. 551 Google hits [15] -- F a ng Aili 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau ( talk) 05:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
patent nonsense Savidan 04:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; ad; only 301 google hits [16]... Mikker ... 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, unverifable neologism Savidan 04:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable bio, 107 unique ghits, member of one marginally notable band, but not notable himself. Delete Mak emi 04:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable bio, possible vanity Savidan 05:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not vanity, I know of this mathematician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.128.60 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
vanity page for nn gaming group Savidan 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is clearly an advertisement for the Times Square Church. The use of a first-person perspective, an unstructured format, business hours, and mailing address are clear indications that this article serves no purpose other than to advertise. The introduction to the article is a direct copy-and-paste from this section on the Time Square Church’s website. The Statement of Faith section is a direct copy-and-paste from this section. I tagged the article requesting a complete rewrite. However, the page has been up for about 1½ years, and there have only been 20 edits, which were all direct copy-and-pastes from the church's main webpage. Since a rewrite request failed, and since nobody is jumping on this article to improve it, my vote is nothing less than Delete. ( Notorious4life 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable ... gaming type thing. Of some sort. Yes. It has to do with games, and it's non-notable, and that's all I could figure out.
Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 05:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete -- Durin 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism (and what is wrong with atheist?) Avi 05:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was complicated.. Counting, I see 25 "votes" for deletion, 12 for keep, and 5 for merge to Islamophobia. However, four of the keep votes come from anonymous voters, one from a user with two edits, and one unsigned vote, which is discounted. Using some judgement here, I think that this is strong enough to delete. Bratsch e talk 03:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Note the extra -phobia. This article was created explicitly (it seems to me) to make a point about Islamophobia. Justification on the Talk page reads, "It's true that this page was created in part to be a knock on the Islamophobia article, that's a fair point. However, at the same time, this article is basically as legitimate as the Islamophobia article itself is... why exactly should it be deleted while the original specious article remains?" I refer us all to WP:POINT. Please, please, delete. bikeable (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete nn pub band. No albums. No evidence of any tours. Nothing links to this article. Bruce1ee 06:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible promotion/vanity of private theory (but not WP:OR). This reads like something out of DSM IV, but there's nothing even close in DSM, and, oddly enough, most of the non-Wikipedia-mirror links seem to tie this term to the listed author in all of the "references", one Brian G. Gilmartin. Then I go to his(?) website, love-shy.com, which prominently links this Wikipedia article, and fails to offer any evidence that anyone but him has ever written anything about this condition.
Is there any evidence that this isn't some (non-notable) psychologist's pet theory? Is the fact that it is published (the books aren't vanity press as far as I can tell) enough to make this notable even if it is?
As for me, I say no to both questions, and think this article should be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell this either a wilderness or under construction, and does not yet exist as a documented town or community. (see comments by contributor)
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. However, googling for "rowbike" gets 10,000 hits. Is this a big thing in the USA or somewhere? Maybe cleanup instead of delete? Weregerbil 07:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 17:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Inventor of a carjacking deterrent
Blaster (flamethrower). Invention itself has an article, but does wikipedia need a article on the inventor himself? Suggest merging with invention page
OscarTheCat
talk
07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep/merge. W.marsh 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable website, Alexa rating ~113,000, contributes nothing of lasting value to Wikipedia. Delete Warrens 07:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate wasspeedy delete by User:Chairboy as non-notable. - SCEhard T 22:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. A non-notable creator of a local online social network service. Google search yields 203 results and his website's traffic rank is only within the range of five millionth [25]. -- *drew 07:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I put a prod tag on this page, but it was removed, so I'm listing it here. As I said then, it's a "main article" branched off of Calvin and Hobbes which serves no useful purpose. Rather than being an encyclopaedia article, this page throws together a bunch of storylines from different strips. Massive copy-editing would be necessary to make the prose navigable. If we have to say more about Susie Derkins than the Calvin and Hobbes FA already says, this article isn't convincing me about it. Comic cruft about a great comic is still cruft. Anville 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reached 12th position in a local Idol show. A search on Google yields 9 results. -- *drew 08:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This page and concept a complete fabrication.. no mention anywhere of Killuminati other than a play on words in a rap song. This conspiracy theory isn't even that... manufactured by one guy, I am sure. Dyslexic agnostic 08:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Here are the entries which led to the deletion request, from the Killuminati talk page:
The above included here for easy reference. - Dyslexic agnostic 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete and merge to Walsall. Bratsch e talk 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This article started out as a stub about a statue in Walsall, but has been turned into rambling lunacy. It may be appropriate to revert it back to the stub, but since there's only a single reference even for the original information, which itself was just a passing reference, I felt we should review the subject itself to see if any of this is salvageable. Jeff Q (talk) 09:00, 13 February 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}} . |
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete -- Appears to be just made up with no real following or significant number of proponents Mwelch 10:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Essjay as attack page/a6 Adrian~enwiki ( talk) 10:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable, no facts can be cited Tawker 09:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Francolini is a gun engraver. The article has been proposed for deletion (i.e. {{prod}}ed) as "completely autobiographical, non encyclopedic". That it is autobiography is clear. However, there are a couple of claims of notability in the article, which may make it worthwhile for anyone interested in guns and gun collecting. A couple of Francolini's guns have been featured on the cover of magazines. Another one has been made for the Royal Armoury in London. He gets more than 3,000 Google hits, which seems quite a lot for someone in this probably rather specialized field. The question: is Francolini a notable person in his field? Is someone interested in cleaning up the article? u p p l a n d 10:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Added a few words for clarification. u p p l a n d 05:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was nominated for speedy deletion under A3, but doesn't qualify, since the article is a (sub)stub but not empty. I'm nominating this for AfD instead. No vote, but I'm inclined to send this to cleanup for expansion. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 10:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP (Nomination Withdrawn). Mike Beckham 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, opinion-based. Note: at the time of nomination, article consisted of a list of artists, without reference to a TV series etc. Given how the article now looks, I would suggest a keep --
OscarTheCat
talk
22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
First of all please dont point me to articles thats rude in itself and obviously you would vote that way as you have a "This user is a Wikipedia deletionist." as I am an inclusionist I would vote my way not only that this is a article that deserves to stay, now you are not even near Australia and I am guessing wouldent have a clue about the show or anything else on the subject so you just vote delete as you are a deletist apparently. And this isnt a personal attack its just stating some facts and a opinion of mine. - Mike Beckham 22:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity Jkf 16:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was OBVIOUS SPEEDY KEEP. Duh. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete, self promoting site that is irrevelant especially when it comes to alexa's rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannabebritney ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nn Compu te r Jo e 17:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. 2000 google hits Advertising. Sleepyhead 17:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Books appear to be a vanity press publication ( Lulu press). Delete per WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Moved from Prod since deletion was contested. Hansnesse 17:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied as nonsense by me. android 79 15:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable (the link at bottom does endorse the content of the article). Hoax. Was tagged as prod, but that tag was removed. - Liberatore( T) 18:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This was a good article... What was wrong with it?
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about a random mall somewhere. Initially tagged as prod, removed with motivation "could be merged somewhere". As far as I can see, the best article to merge it into is List of non-notable malls, which unfortunately we don't have. - Liberatore( T) 18:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- Ardenn 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Biased content, non-scientific basis for information, needs deleting and completely rewritten. CitrusC 18:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
rewrite, to object to this article saying its not true is invalid, the information is based on what psionics is not what is or is not scientificly proven.
The result of the debate was 1, 2, 3... (40 keep/23 delete/2 other/1 disq.) no consensus, defaults to keep. This conclusion refers to the subject of the article, not the article itself.
I think the best compromise to put this messy past behind us is to give it a fresh start, (with unprotection) and let Wikipedians rewrite a neutral and verifiable version. If there are libellous/disparaging additions, delete only these edits, not the entire article. If it's vandalised, then revert on sight, and keep a watch on the article. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject. Ral315 ( talk) 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Alright. Wikipedia is not the place for obscure neologisms, such as this one. Although "Wikiphilosophy" has some notability inside Wikipedia, it most certainly doesn't outside it. We shouldn't be biased about articles relating to our community, so I propose to delete this.
Soothing
R
22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Even though I suspect a lot of sockpuppeteering or meatpuppeteering here, Alkivar, Kappa, et. al. have provided good reasons to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverified, non-notable. Delete Ardenn 22:15, 13 February 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}} . |
PLA is a significant site for phreak culture. This significance only increases over time as phreaks and phreaking fade from the popular memory, and are gradually replaced by other [more current] cultures. As an encyclopedic instrument, WP owes it's readership the preservation of this significant subcultural history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.71.179 ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia has Zerg rushes. Wikipedia has lengthy articles of Starcraft strategy and the origins of every computer game known to man that DOESN'T MEAN A DAMNED THING. PLA doesn't meet the exacting standards of a website that half-believes Star Trek is real? Having a small article about PLA is somehow worse than devoting pages to gaming strategy and science fiction? Enjoy your world humans, I am off to see Hubbard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolp ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was speedy delete as A6 (attack). Superm401 - Talk 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable, obvious joke about a friend. James Kendall [talk] 22:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. There is already an article on NGC Magazine which is much more detailed and was in place before this one was even created. DVD Smith 22:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete because Google only shows 60 hits on this word, making it not suitable for wikipedia. If it is notable, possibly merge with Fascism Magdela 22:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as a useless article with no context (unsourced neologism). - Mike Rosoft 23:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. 7 unique google results. Prod tag was removed twice by the article's creator so I'm bringing it here. TheMidnighters 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The article was de-prodded, so I bring it here. NN forum, few users and few posts. Only a few months old. Vanity. per WP:WEB, etc. Broken Segue 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Appears to be mostly an ad. May be notable. ChemGardener 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable band. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). About one relevant google hit. Liface 22:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Was listed for speedy deletion without any valid criteria given, so I thought I'd list it here instead. Leith p 22:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Vanity. The author apparently wrote about himself. He even put an e-mail in the article [33]. As far as I know he is not notable enough to deserve to be included in Wikipedia. Eleassar my talk 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP as a bad-faith or mistaken nomination. JIP | Talk 11:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Afd orphaned by User:4.224.192.146 O bli ( Talk) 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Obituary of non-notable person Xyzzyplugh 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - non-encyclopedic and NPOV. Identical to Valley Guard. ChemGardener 22:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious term, could maybe be merged with
upskirt (wich is far more widely used) but in the end looks like a gratuitous excuse to insert an image of breasts.
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie). Article about the author ( Knox (animator)) has been deleted as unverified/not notable. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This and several others are created as advertising. User:Gregatwan2 created this page, L.A. Direct Models, and several links elsewhere. He did this in one day. Google searches for Name Her Shame do not come up with any hits that match LA Models. Defenestrate
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website; Vanity page KHM03 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising non-notable commercial enterprise. See also Name Her Shame Defenestrate 23:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply