< January 21 | January 23 > |
---|
The result of the debate was KEEP Babajobu 18:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable Al Capone brother Melaen 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
dicdef Melaen 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
An article on this topic was originally created at Remixography of Mariah Carey, and was subsequently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remixography of Mariah Carey). The content of this new article is different enough from the earlier article that it does not qualify for speedy deletion, but the reasons for why it was deleted still stand. All of the articles on Carey's singles contain information about their most notable remixes and alternative versions. This article, however, fails to establish the notability of any of these remixes or if they were officially commissioned by Carey's record label. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. FCYTravis 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure I even can decipher what the page says, but it seems to be about a non-notable musical group. See WP:Music Liamdaly620 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this article on a non-notable webcomic which fails
WP:WEB. There is no claim to notability in the article and my attempts to find any verifiable reliable sources (through google, nexis, etc.) for this article have all failed. Has no Alexa rank and a forum with only 20 members. --
Dragonfiend 00:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete per above
Liamdaly620 00:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:WEB, per article it is a place for 'people who are bored' to come and 'hang out'. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as per CSD G4: repost. -- M @ th wiz 2020 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted, and remade. Tokakeke 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Totally Non-notable web page. A small webpage, with less hits and members than PinkPT, which got deleted for non-Notability MatthewF 00:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
dicdef Melaen 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
band un-notability Melaen 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
]
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
DELETE - No record of album having ever been bought or sold- JM Band does not actually exist. Unverifiable. Lostcruft. — TheKMan talk 00:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Worthy of maybe a passing mention in the Lost episode summary, if that, not of its own page. ddevlin
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non encyclopedic algorithm Melaen 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable camp Melaen 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as patent nonsense by Curps. — TheKMan talk 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsensical ramblings about a non-existant personage. Have listed for speedy delete twice but original (and only) contributer keeps removing tag. He has also now removed the afd tag twice and vandalised my user page. Liamdaly620 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
not encyclopedic, may-be worth for wikitravel. Melaen 00:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
google returns way to many results to check for relevance, although filmmaking style is not in the first 100 results, "2 second movie" returns no relevant hits, delete as neologism MNewnham 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Rebuttle
2sec films - are a ligitimate style of filming, and has and is growing in various areas of the Southern United States of America, such as LSU Baton Rouge, University of Birmingham and the University of Alabama. There is also a film festival located in Shreveport, Louisiana that supports and encourages the 2 second film style. [MovieSauce.org] (Which has recieved entries from the entire world, and other festivals such as Slamdance, which is held in Park City, Utah during the Sundance Film Festival.) Also, the term 2 second Movie is not ligitimate because there are no "movies" that are 2 second style - only shorts.
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article. Content (e.g. Members list) mostly nonsense. Zen611 01:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not nonsense, but no context to explain what it is or what its for. Even following the link provides no help MNewnham 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – AB C D e ✉ 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason why the page should be deleted Dangherous 01:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) erythuria have only played one show, and haven't released any songs yet. This, for me, warrants deletion. -- Dangherous 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. ( ESkog)( Talk) 03:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Originally created as autobiography, woefully misses the benchmarks of WP:BIO. ( ESkog)( Talk) 01:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Goth singer,pin-up < 250 relevant google hits, discography not on major label, not on amazon MNewnham 01:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a useful page about an interesting person. The authors are mainly noted for efforts to present poorly reasoned attacks on vaccination in a wide and inappropriate variety of articles. The Quackwatch commentary linked from the page is informative.-- Midgley 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef and unsourced slang term. Andrew Levine 01:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company/wedding videos, etc. Advertisement. — ERcheck @ 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef slang. Andrew Levine 01:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Very few Google hits and this is not him. Curiously, scrape sites Answers.com and freedictionary.com have the same text. Is this something that was once here but deleted? No old AfD comes up. Daniel Case 02:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Karm a fist 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax. Has enough information that if true this is a notable person, but a series of web searches failed to find any hits for things such as his appointment to the Congressional Committees Business Advisory Council. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the information in this article. -- Allen3 talk 02:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It is not right that you attack the credibility of Mr. Smith. We have removed the article and will be working on a version that includes whatever the reliable resources require as by way of info or formatting. Mr. Smith did not put this article up but it was put up by employees. There are numerous articles written in Newspapers including USA Today as well as his appearing on CNN, MSNBC and Dateline NBC and as well as a number of books that outline his family and his life available at bookstores as well as Walmart. Also his appointment as Chairman of the Business Advisory Counsel and as Republican of the Year for Virginia in 2001 (awarded in march of 2002) was announced by the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committe) in a Press Release in March of 2002. We will prep the required reliable source list as soon as that is prepared and then put it back up again. Wikistatman 12:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable event, with about the import of a company picnic. Link points to ESPN. Google indicates there are many veggiefests for all kinds of small towns. Ruby 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Deleate: This has no substance, Appears to be an advertisment rather than a real article. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
No relevant Google hits, doesn't seem like it's notable even if there were any. At the very least, articles about things that might have been, several different times, are not encyclopedic. Daniel Case 02:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. FCYTravis 04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
nn student group, no content Savidan 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as creator has withdrawn support, so article will not be expanded (changing the one weak keep to a delete). = Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 22:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
nn vanity. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
DELEATE this article is an ad, No infomation is told about it. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- D e ath phoenix 01:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable business. Daniel Case 02:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect; enough content in the AFL article to not warrant a merge. Johnleemk | Talk 08:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be original research/advertising/vanity/linkspamming for the poorly designed and completely unreferenced website http://www.gnostics.com, which has an Alexa ranking of 1,379,820. Pretty much all other references to the "Gnostic Pagan Tradition" on the web appear to be links to this page. Article created by Jason Farrow, whose only other Contributions to Wikipedia are links to gnostics.com added to various unrelated articles (like Wicca). It should be noted that Jason Farrow is also the webmaster of gnostics.com ( [12] - see page footer). The "pagan school" this website advertises is a $120 online course. AdelaMae ( talk - contribs) 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was speedily userfied. FCYTravis 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
May be speedyable for nn-bio, but the claim of being a college athlete (though at a non-D1 institution) is probably enough of a claim of notability to list it here. ( ESkog)( Talk) 03:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. -- D e ath phoenix 01:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable distance education program offered by a school. LearnNet yields many google hits, but only a handful of them refer to the program offered by Argyll Centre in Edmonton. Ezeu 03:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Individual guitar pickups are probably not noteworthy unless they're otherwise famous (e.g. Gibson's P-90). This is not one of those pickups, though the SH-4 might be (world's best selling pickup, as I recall) - the creator of this page appears to be confusing this with its more famous cousin. -- Grun t 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Farrell Till simply isn't notable. He was an editor of a publication with a very small audience. He has written a few articles and debated a few people. These things certainly don't make him notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. -- Jason Gastrich 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Karm a fist 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Reggie Finley simply is very notable. he's an internet radio host.
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Mark Bilbo simply isn't notable. There are a total of 4 sentences about him in this entry. Amazon.com shows his books to be very infrequently purchased. Furthermore, Bilbo's only notability comes from the way he swears and curses at Christians on Usenet, while mocking God and Jesus (see Talk:Mark K. Bilbo#Controversy for more) -- Jason Gastrich 03:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete I know this guy on alt.atheism, it would just break my heart to see his Wiki bio go bye bye.
Ruby 03:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) As much as it pains me, I am changing my vote to Keep because it was nominated in bad faith as retaliation for a series of AfDs against Christian leader bios yesterday.
Ruby 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Berliner simply isn't notable. Unless there is far more information about him, being on the board of an organization and someone who compiles information, like he does, isn't worthy of an entry. -- Jason Gastrich 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Strong delete. Per nom. --
Jason Gastrich 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Speedy Keep and expand. Grandmasterka 10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
There is nothing notable in this entry. Binswanger is an editor and compiles information; certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Jason Gastrich 04:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Karm a fist 06:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Besides being the leader of an organization, which, in and of itself isn't necessarily notable, there is nothing else even remotely notable about Brook. -- Jason Gastrich 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Karm a fist 06:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Caplan is an associate professor, who wrote a few articles, and has a number of opinions. He certainly isn't notable. -- Jason Gastrich 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Karm a fist 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Rao doesn't have any books listed on Amazon.com. The name brings only 218 hits on Google.com [19]. He simply isn't notable. -- Jason Gastrich 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Bad faith nom.-- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:43, 25 January 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}} . |
Besides being the leader of an organization, which, in and of itself doesn't make someone notable, she isn't notable at all. -- Jason Gastrich 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Even as an author, Lewis isn't notable. Zero books on Amazon.com. -- Jason Gastrich 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep, president of a country (nothing borderline about this and no reason to waste people's time on this anymore). u p p l a n d 11:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neto simply isn't notable. Nothing in the entry stands out as encyclopedic. -- Jason Gastrich 04:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Prescott isn't notable. Nothing in this entry is remarkable or encyclopedic. -- Jason Gastrich 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Reisman is a professor and wrote a book, but this certainly doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's notability requirements. -- Jason Gastrich 04:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a website/webcomic, makes no assertion of meeting WP:WEB. W.marsh 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
'restating'lemme restate everything to make more sense, its a place for Webcomic artists to show off their work and get good creative input. Over the past year it has grown more popular amoung the webcomic community. However if it isn't good enough to be put on Wikipedia then delete. User: NicholasTreat
The result of the debate was redirect to Yoshi. – Rob e rt 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Yoshee means beautiful one born in the summer time in Japanese. It's a rare name and very nice. There are only so many with that name. 1% of the world, maybe not even. "Yo, she is cool." That is a common sentence for hippy people, that's what some people reffer to. There's a game, "Yoshi and Mario." Complete nomination for original nominator TheRingess 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Rovics isn't notable. He's a singer with free music on the web. Plus, this entry reads like an advertisement. -- Jason Gastrich 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Zoe by CSD:A7. Stifle 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I would've speedied but article claims notability. Even if this is a real person, the claims seem so outrageous as to be a hoax, plus no references cited. Delete TheRingess 05:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy deleted, nn-bio User:Zoe| (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Instructions to do a nn
neologism Wikipedia is
WP:NOT an instruction manual.
Unverifiable term from a nn website that has
stayed too long as a link in the article
Pray.--
Perfecto 05:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Schwartz isn't notable. He's a journalist and on a board and those things certainly aren't worthy of a Wikipedia entry. -- Jason Gastrich 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. -- D e ath phoenix 01:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seaborg isn't notable in the slightest. Not sure why this article was ever created. There are tens of thousands of biologists and activists and nothing makes this one stand out or worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. -- Jason Gastrich 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep, this nomination is too soon after the last one. -- D e ath phoenix 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Sinjin isn't notable. He has only 428 Google hits [28]. He's the author of one book and certainly not notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. -- Jason Gastrich 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
She isn't notable. Nothing here stands out. It's a vanity piece. -- Jason Gastrich 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. I am redirecting there because the content from this article was merged into Calvin and Hobbes. It needs to be redirected there to preserve GFDL (well, that's what I think, anyway). -- D e ath phoenix 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It was agreed to merge the information on this page with the Cardboard Boxes section of the Calvin and Hobbes page. The information on the page is now redundant and since the strip is no longer active, there is no potential for expansion. Delete. — simpatico hi 05:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. Mailer Diablo 06:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be hoax. Part of a series by Sassaffraz ( talk · contribs), also including Maya Bankovic. Fan1967 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The last time anyone actually added something to this page was on September 30, 2005. Almost two months have passed. The fact of the matter is, no one uses this page, either by viewing it since you'd have to click on various links to ever arrive here, or editing it. Any current events in China should simply be added to the world current events page. KI 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was last edited on November 30, 2005. November 30. Thats over two months ago! No one edits nor views this page. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese current events. KI 05:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o 5 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography. Nonsense article. Zero Google hits. Zen611 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. Harr o 5 05:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
As we know, Wikipedia is not a memorial. While his death is sad, this guy isn't notable enough for a bio entry. Harr o 5 05:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
While the guy has a PhD, this is original research, and we don't accept that. It's really just to plug the website down the bottom. Sorry. Harr o 5 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. No useful content beyond the definition of the term. Not viable other than as a dictionary definition. Srleffler 05:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject is a defunct snowboard/skateboard shop in Illinois that gets 16 hits on google. No claim to notability in sophomoric text of article. I also checked the notability of the proprietor, thinking she could be a famous skate/snow boarder, with her name in quotes and skateboard, zero google hits; same with snowboard. Delete as non-notable. Fuhghettaboutit 05:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to The Virgin Suicides (film). There is nohing extra to merge to that article. -- D e ath phoenix 02:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actress. Has appeared in only one movie "The Virgin Suicides" in 1999 and nothing since then. Delete Atrian 06:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to General aviation. – Rob e rt 00:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is pointless, it has the same meaning as General Aviation Change1211 06:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. -- D e ath phoenix 02:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
proposed delete: Total and utter gamecruft. I love Homeworld, but no one coming here would ever want (or need) to see this level of detail on the game's spacecraft. True, the previous host of this information, the Homeworld Shipyards, has temporarily closed, but (to quote Peter Parker and with full knowledge of what it cost him), "I missed the part where that's my problem." Marblespire 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
DON'T BURN THE LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA ON PURPOSE. NEB
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep (and list for cleanup). -- D e ath phoenix 02:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Very poorly written advertisement. No way to verify that list of celebrities actually frequent the bar.Delete TheRingess 07:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)} reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This appears to be the biography from the back of a theatre programme for a minor actor. 1 clear hit on Google that's not Wikipedia. JGF Wilks 07:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was created on June 9 04, and was marked as disambiguation from the start. The second, and only other edit was made on december 30th of 2005, and was only edited to sort the disambig as a geographical one. Neither of the items listed on the disambig page have articles. -- Lightdarkness 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online "game" run from LiveJournal, actually seems to be a web forum with approx 100 members. Article was tagged as disputed, but tag was removed by one of the main editors of the page. There is a real Alexandria High School here. Canley 07:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, as a vanity page probably created by the person herself. JGF Wilks 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. -- D e ath phoenix 02:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks and reads like a travel guide for a nn-road, not a article Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 07:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not verifible, no Google hits nor hits from Google book search, and even if verifiable NN. This looks completely fabricated to me. Lockley 08:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Jogloran 08:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced, google isn't very helpful, has inadequate context. Kappa 09:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like musician vanity. The text seems to be a direct copy of one of the external links provided but as this seems to be written by Karri Ojanen himself I don't think it's a copyvio. Delete. JIP | Talk 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Commodore 64 software. Johnleemk | Talk 08:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable tool with little use and little notoriety. Soothing R 11:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep (and cleanup). I am giving this article a chance to be cleaned up, but I have no objections to this article being AfDed at a later date if it doesn't get a better assertion of notability. -- D e ath phoenix 02:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible vanity. Very little mention of notability. So he interviewed a few famous people? Almost every link from other articles consists of "Interview at Brian M. Palmer", in the external links, which makes it smell even more like vanity. Drat ( Talk) 11:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable vanity spam for a bootleg album which hasn't been released yet, and which nets zero Google hits. chocolateboy 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Likely a vanity article for his project. Project website has no Alexa ranking. [40]
delete
Lotsofissues 12:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously kept here, but since then some addtional information has been garnered, to wit: the full list of SWIFT codes is between 17,000 and 20,000 entries; the active list (those available for electronic transfers) is over 7,500 and the balance are still valid, they just require a manual completion of the process by the parties involved; assuming these codes listed are all on the "active" list, this is about 4.5% of the total codes. The comment "this list is incomplete, you can help by expanding it" looks, in that context, like a rather lame joke. The December and January updates are both pdfs of over 20 pages, indicating that the list is highly dynamic. Under the circumstances I really cannot see any value in mainatianing a partial mirror of an arbitrary subset of codes when a free web-based authoritative lookup tool is available. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 12:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a terribly written page, but the content just strikes me as unencyclopedic. There are, however, claims to notability, so its not CSD7. -- jfg284 you were saying? 12:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
"the first community poetry program that embraces the creative art of spoken word/slam poetry in Waterloo, Iowa" = not notable. 79 Google hits. Punkmorten 12:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
bio/ad for nn artist, "Is millennium mainstream ready for the first openly gay, black male pop artist?", IDK but wikipedia isn't Savidan 13:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. This is a non-notable vanity page if I ever saw one. JIP | Talk 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete; Vanity page Tinus 14:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The article fails to establish the notability of the subject. It appears to me that he is a con artist like many others. Google only returns ~1200 hits for "Mark Sabia". Dismas| (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 04:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
"With an estimated 3 followers, Comcast is arguably the smallest religion with more than one follower in the world." It was also (by the article's claims) created yesterday. Delete as vanity/hoax. Kusma (討論) 15:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete This is a creative hoax. Lots of wang grease went into this one.
Ruby 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Re-voting after vandalism by User:207.200.116.70
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as attack page. ( ESkog)( Talk) 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's rationale was " not notable, but even the information given is unlikely." Neutral. — Cryptic (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Not verifiable Tschild 15:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Bucky -- D e ath phoenix 02:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't find a reference to this term outside Wikipedia. I'm not certain it exists - Rorschach567
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Exiles (comics). -- D e ath phoenix 02:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
THis article is complete gobbledegook. Not worth the diskspace its written in
The result of the debate was Speedy Redirect, Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 23:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has a really screwed up history. I say either Cleanup or Delete to wipe history and recreate majorly. Most of the edits to this article are just vandalism and reversion, and when I went to revert some vandalism, I was unable to find a useful version to revert to. As it stands, the article consists of one sentence. And somebody needs to give this some major cleanup Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 02:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. -- D e ath phoenix 02:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be the ingredient list / explanation for some fruit-based anti-constipation product. I did find 226 English Google hits for PhytoFruit, but couldn't find anything that was not advertising. Delete. Kusma (討論) 15:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an alternative food that helps on the functioning of the intestine. Is an invention, an inovation and an insdustrial possibility not available in Europe, USA, Africa, Asia or Latin America - just in 2 States of Brazil - but must of all is a alternative for many peolpe that can not take medicine and that could have the oportunity of knowing this solution. It is not a medicine, it should be eaten like a "compote" or a sauce. The use of fruits is a knowledge of public dominium, the inovation is that was found a mixture that has this value. The other alternatives, the medicines, natural or not, might bring many problems for the ones who takes them. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sandrahans ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It must be understood of the point of view of science. There are many articles written about it in Brazil. The only one written out of Brazil was written in Austria where it was classified as an invention. The article that we are discussing about in Wikipedia can help many people, but as any invention is associated to an inventor and to a company. It has to be decided if the article related to an invention, that can bring health, not using medicine, using fruits, is important enough or not. Tinus doesn't need to think that the name of the inventor is a secret, because it is not. It is just not the foccus of the subject. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sandrahans ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fan fiction website. Less than 700 search engine hits [42], Alexa ranking in the 200,000's [43]. No claim of notability (or any other details, for that matter) in the article. Mikeblas 15:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- D e ath phoenix 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible non-notable band. Not a speedy delete candidate because article asserts notability, but a Google search for "God Ate My Homework" band only produces 376 hits. Nothing at Allmusic. Page hasn't been modified since June 2004. -- MisterHand 16:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Dimensional lumber. – Rob e rt 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
slang Melaen 16:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
neologism? non -notable term Melaen 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Claims that the word was "officially" introduced into the English language, but this is unverifiable... and I don't believe there exists any officiating body who could do such a thing. Delete. – Sommers (Talk) 17:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
nn website, does not meet web notability criteria Savidan 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this page because: the artickle won't be kept up to date and is about a Swedish NGO, for which the Swedish article will suffice. Also it won't be written in a manner that correctly explains Catahya, when written in English. Wille Raab 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
::Addendum to above: My position should be taken as Abstain because while the nominator gave reasons that, as I explained, are not good reasons for deletion, it does not necessarily follow that it should be kept as a demonstration of notability has not been made.
Daniel Case 20:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete, discounting IPs and anons. -- D e ath phoenix 03:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This was originally AFD'd mid december, but the tag was removed. There is no information about reasons for tagging apart from info below. While this young person is cleary a good role model, the hindsight of the 8 weeks since the story appeared gives a clearer view on him. The claim that the story received national attention is clear hyperbole, it appeared briefly on NBC, did the blogs for a week and was then forgotten. The man is now one of many who serve his country, and he may have a bright political future ahead of him, and if so deserves a wiki spot, but at the moment, he is simply an student leader who signed up. MNewnham 17:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep, withdrawn by the nominator. -- D e ath phoenix 03:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The page itself is clearly an ad. The subject company are vigorously linkspamming on wikipedia (See
here). Voting delete but will in principle change that vote if someone can establish that the company fits
WP:CORP or
WP:WEB.
AndyJones 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Keep. -- D e ath phoenix 03:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is about a MUD based on Forgotten Realms. While the latter is definitely notable, I'm not so sure this one is, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. -- D e ath phoenix 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. ThreeAnswers 18:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Merge into
Multinational force in Iraq which already redirects from
Coalition forces.
Crunch 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mackensen (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense and/or completely non-notable. It was created with a {{ hangon}} tag on it, so I suspect it may be a re-creation of deleted material, but I couldn't find it in the deletion log. — David Johnson [ T| C] 18:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This poets proper name gets no hits on Google related to writing or poetry, but there are a very small number returned for the pseudonym "Charley Sierra". This subject might be notable, but I just can't find anything which would indicate that so I'm bringing it here for discussion on whether or not this article should be deleted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dlyons493 Talk 19:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A different revision of this article, on a non-notable website with a current Alexa ranking of 335,134, was deleted last year. This article doesn't qualify for WP:CSD since it is not a reposting of deleted content. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altsounds for the previous nomination, which closed with unanimous consensus to delete. Idont Havaname ( Talk) 18:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect; nothing to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 08:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as subject is not notable. The only somewhat notable fact is winning the "Name the Mars Rovers" contest and this is already covered on the Mars Rover page Rillian 18:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, vanity Nv8200p talk 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it as a reason to support or oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 08:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. See Dispatching (logistics), and also take note of Ems dispatch (something completely different). -- Smack ( talk) 19:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nn band. Not in discogs, not in allmusic. Fails WP:MUSIC. The {notability} tag had given em enough time.-- Perfecto 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- D e ath phoenix 03:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant with 3 Teens Kill 4 Nv8200p talk 20:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable record company. Lord ViD 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
unexpandable dicdef; shrimp pasta is pasta with shrimp... ( ESkog)( Talk) 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as repost per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.B.O.S.P.. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 22:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable internet forum, already was deleted in December Wyoskier 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Ed g2s — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-24 06:33 Z
Article is about a band, but it fails to assert any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria -- Pak21 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a non-notable college radio program which broadcasts on a station (KTSW) which itself does not have an entry. If Hillbilly at Harvard doesn't have an article, the bar for college radio shows must be high indeed. - squibix 21:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Attack page on not particularly noteworthy website. Lukas 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I've been editing it some more... I've removed all attacks on the site and instead placed links. I've also added more information about the site itself. Electricbassguy
The result of the debate was delete both. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This SargeK article by SargeK himself seems to be a vanity piece about a non-notable individual Oscarthecat 21:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I added Debtism to this afd bikeable (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
From SargeK, Do a search on the following titles on: MSN
Debtism #1 of 76 http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Debtism+&FORM=QBHP Social Security Articles Directory – Result: Debtism.com places 3 and 4 among 817,833 entries. http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Social+Security+Articles+Directory+&FORM=QBHP
Strategy for Tax and Welfare Reform – #1 of 423,572 entries http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Strategy+for+Tax+and+Welfare+Reform+&FORM=QBHP
The Legacy of Perpetual Debt http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=The+Legacy+of+Perpetual+Debt+&FORM=QBRE
Social Security Tax Reform OR Perpetual Debt #17 of 2,271,576 http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Social+Security+Tax+Reform+OR+Perpetual+Debt+&first=11&FORM=PORE
US Economy Articles Directory - #1 of 268,006 http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=US+Economy+Articles+Directory+&FORM=QBRE
Google: Debtism #1 of 813 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Debtism+&btnG=Search Yahoo:
Debtism #1 of 115 http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Debtism+&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt
Social Security Tax Reform OR Perpetual Debt #1 of 11,200,000 http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=Social%20Security%20Tax%20Reform%20OR%20Perpetual%20Debt
The Legacy of Perpetual Debt #2 of 184,000 http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=The+Legacy+of+Perpetual+Debt&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt
Comment: The above is a sampling of articles on my debtism.com website. Tens of thousands of have read my articles since I started last year. No advertisements, Just an attempt to get to the truth about tax and welfare programs and sharing it with the widest audience possible. Since all I get is “delete” response from wikipedia, I’ll not waste any more of your time NOR mine. I'm neither notable, not do I care to be. I am doing my best to bring attention to significant Social Security, tax and welfare problems that have little effect on me; but may impact my sons and grand-son in a manner they cannot yet conceive. Sorry about posting here. I should have done more research before wasting a lot of time. Thanks anyway SargeK
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. It is not notable, having <1000 members, and not mentioned in any media. It has also been deleted before under the title The Source (forum) 66.82.9.41 22:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and a blatant advertisement. Delete. – Sommers (Talk) 21:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Ed g2s, who forgot to close — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-24 06:37 Z
Non notable vanity. Band does not appear to have released any albums/singles. Oscarthecat 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable album from a band, 20 Fingers, that fails WP:MUSIC (which I've already tagged for speedy deletion). Note that the article only says that the album was "released" but never necessarily published. – Sommers (Talk) 22:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. Mushroom 07:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article has no sense. No references found anywhere else for Miquel Serra. John C PI 22:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable character from an EQOA guild. Jogloran 22:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Avi 22:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
page revised per standards to include broader scope.
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
"A hoax. Neither book nor author show up on Amazon. 5 hits on Google, all referencing this article.Delete TheRingess 22:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable costume designer with 30 Google hits, "reviewed favorably in local newspapers and Pointe magazine" is used as assertion of notability. Delete Kusma (討論) 22:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect all; merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL. Johnleemk | Talk 08:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Also proposed for merge and delete, +5 other related articles: Cutting a shoelace, Passing under blackberry, Showing to the moon, Tying someone, Worship of trees.
Although I don't doubt that this and the 5 other related articles above are genuine-enough traditions in Pontic/Turkish folklore (original creator has used the same reference work for each), having them as individual articles under generic phrases doesn't make much sense. Several of these entries are rather confusingly written, and what's more appear to be direct translations of the cited Turkish reference work. Any encyclopaedic material which can be salvaged from these ought to be merged into the Turkish folklore article (currently only a list of these articles), and the articles deleted. The reason I'm not simply carrying out the merge myself is that I don't really see any value in maintaining the article titles as redirects. cjllw | TALK 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreal tournament clan, 5 members MNewnham 23:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not quite speediable, I think. Band with 300 relevant Ghits, self-published albums MNewnham
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Listcruft/spam Take your pick Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 23:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nn-bio. Mushroom 12:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Biographical details of a family that owns a couple of coffee shops. Good content for a genealogy website, but not for Wikipedia. Delete. Kusma (討論) 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A movie theater MNewnham 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable - need more proof of notability. Avi 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Being related to someone notable does not confer notability. This is the grandson of someone famous, who does not have any apparent notability himself. D e nni ☯ 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
As per administrator AllistairMcMillan's admonishments on the Akira talk page, I hereby nominate the Akira Class Starship for deletion because the article is entirely original research. Neocapitalist 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 28 January 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}} . |
Bio of co-captain of Harvard fencing team. 188 Google hits. Was first tagged as {{ db-attack}}, but on the talk page, the author says the attack was done by his roommates. Still vanity failing to meet WP:BIO. Delete. Kusma (討論) 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Non-notable. Tokakeke 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:Vain, nn, about 240 googs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Hash out the preferred article title on the talk. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
unremarkable unwikied list. just not needed. delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
< January 21 | January 23 > |
---|
The result of the debate was KEEP Babajobu 18:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable Al Capone brother Melaen 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
dicdef Melaen 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
An article on this topic was originally created at Remixography of Mariah Carey, and was subsequently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remixography of Mariah Carey). The content of this new article is different enough from the earlier article that it does not qualify for speedy deletion, but the reasons for why it was deleted still stand. All of the articles on Carey's singles contain information about their most notable remixes and alternative versions. This article, however, fails to establish the notability of any of these remixes or if they were officially commissioned by Carey's record label. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. FCYTravis 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure I even can decipher what the page says, but it seems to be about a non-notable musical group. See WP:Music Liamdaly620 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this article on a non-notable webcomic which fails
WP:WEB. There is no claim to notability in the article and my attempts to find any verifiable reliable sources (through google, nexis, etc.) for this article have all failed. Has no Alexa rank and a forum with only 20 members. --
Dragonfiend 00:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete per above
Liamdaly620 00:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:WEB, per article it is a place for 'people who are bored' to come and 'hang out'. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as per CSD G4: repost. -- M @ th wiz 2020 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted, and remade. Tokakeke 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Totally Non-notable web page. A small webpage, with less hits and members than PinkPT, which got deleted for non-Notability MatthewF 00:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
dicdef Melaen 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
band un-notability Melaen 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
]
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
DELETE - No record of album having ever been bought or sold- JM Band does not actually exist. Unverifiable. Lostcruft. — TheKMan talk 00:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Worthy of maybe a passing mention in the Lost episode summary, if that, not of its own page. ddevlin
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non encyclopedic algorithm Melaen 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable camp Melaen 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as patent nonsense by Curps. — TheKMan talk 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsensical ramblings about a non-existant personage. Have listed for speedy delete twice but original (and only) contributer keeps removing tag. He has also now removed the afd tag twice and vandalised my user page. Liamdaly620 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
not encyclopedic, may-be worth for wikitravel. Melaen 00:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
google returns way to many results to check for relevance, although filmmaking style is not in the first 100 results, "2 second movie" returns no relevant hits, delete as neologism MNewnham 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Rebuttle
2sec films - are a ligitimate style of filming, and has and is growing in various areas of the Southern United States of America, such as LSU Baton Rouge, University of Birmingham and the University of Alabama. There is also a film festival located in Shreveport, Louisiana that supports and encourages the 2 second film style. [MovieSauce.org] (Which has recieved entries from the entire world, and other festivals such as Slamdance, which is held in Park City, Utah during the Sundance Film Festival.) Also, the term 2 second Movie is not ligitimate because there are no "movies" that are 2 second style - only shorts.
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article. Content (e.g. Members list) mostly nonsense. Zen611 01:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not nonsense, but no context to explain what it is or what its for. Even following the link provides no help MNewnham 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – AB C D e ✉ 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason why the page should be deleted Dangherous 01:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) erythuria have only played one show, and haven't released any songs yet. This, for me, warrants deletion. -- Dangherous 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. ( ESkog)( Talk) 03:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Originally created as autobiography, woefully misses the benchmarks of WP:BIO. ( ESkog)( Talk) 01:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Goth singer,pin-up < 250 relevant google hits, discography not on major label, not on amazon MNewnham 01:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a useful page about an interesting person. The authors are mainly noted for efforts to present poorly reasoned attacks on vaccination in a wide and inappropriate variety of articles. The Quackwatch commentary linked from the page is informative.-- Midgley 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef and unsourced slang term. Andrew Levine 01:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company/wedding videos, etc. Advertisement. — ERcheck @ 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef slang. Andrew Levine 01:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Very few Google hits and this is not him. Curiously, scrape sites Answers.com and freedictionary.com have the same text. Is this something that was once here but deleted? No old AfD comes up. Daniel Case 02:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Karm a fist 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax. Has enough information that if true this is a notable person, but a series of web searches failed to find any hits for things such as his appointment to the Congressional Committees Business Advisory Council. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the information in this article. -- Allen3 talk 02:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It is not right that you attack the credibility of Mr. Smith. We have removed the article and will be working on a version that includes whatever the reliable resources require as by way of info or formatting. Mr. Smith did not put this article up but it was put up by employees. There are numerous articles written in Newspapers including USA Today as well as his appearing on CNN, MSNBC and Dateline NBC and as well as a number of books that outline his family and his life available at bookstores as well as Walmart. Also his appointment as Chairman of the Business Advisory Counsel and as Republican of the Year for Virginia in 2001 (awarded in march of 2002) was announced by the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committe) in a Press Release in March of 2002. We will prep the required reliable source list as soon as that is prepared and then put it back up again. Wikistatman 12:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable event, with about the import of a company picnic. Link points to ESPN. Google indicates there are many veggiefests for all kinds of small towns. Ruby 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Deleate: This has no substance, Appears to be an advertisment rather than a real article. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
No relevant Google hits, doesn't seem like it's notable even if there were any. At the very least, articles about things that might have been, several different times, are not encyclopedic. Daniel Case 02:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. FCYTravis 04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
nn student group, no content Savidan 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as creator has withdrawn support, so article will not be expanded (changing the one weak keep to a delete). = Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 22:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
nn vanity. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
DELEATE this article is an ad, No infomation is told about it. Eagle ( talk) ( desk) 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- D e ath phoenix 01:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable business. Daniel Case 02:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect; enough content in the AFL article to not warrant a merge. Johnleemk | Talk 08:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be original research/advertising/vanity/linkspamming for the poorly designed and completely unreferenced website http://www.gnostics.com, which has an Alexa ranking of 1,379,820. Pretty much all other references to the "Gnostic Pagan Tradition" on the web appear to be links to this page. Article created by Jason Farrow, whose only other Contributions to Wikipedia are links to gnostics.com added to various unrelated articles (like Wicca). It should be noted that Jason Farrow is also the webmaster of gnostics.com ( [12] - see page footer). The "pagan school" this website advertises is a $120 online course. AdelaMae ( talk - contribs) 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was speedily userfied. FCYTravis 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
May be speedyable for nn-bio, but the claim of being a college athlete (though at a non-D1 institution) is probably enough of a claim of notability to list it here. ( ESkog)( Talk) 03:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. -- D e ath phoenix 01:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable distance education program offered by a school. LearnNet yields many google hits, but only a handful of them refer to the program offered by Argyll Centre in Edmonton. Ezeu 03:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Individual guitar pickups are probably not noteworthy unless they're otherwise famous (e.g. Gibson's P-90). This is not one of those pickups, though the SH-4 might be (world's best selling pickup, as I recall) - the creator of this page appears to be confusing this with its more famous cousin. -- Grun t 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Farrell Till simply isn't notable. He was an editor of a publication with a very small audience. He has written a few articles and debated a few people. These things certainly don't make him notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. -- Jason Gastrich 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Karm a fist 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Reggie Finley simply is very notable. he's an internet radio host.
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Mark Bilbo simply isn't notable. There are a total of 4 sentences about him in this entry. Amazon.com shows his books to be very infrequently purchased. Furthermore, Bilbo's only notability comes from the way he swears and curses at Christians on Usenet, while mocking God and Jesus (see Talk:Mark K. Bilbo#Controversy for more) -- Jason Gastrich 03:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete I know this guy on alt.atheism, it would just break my heart to see his Wiki bio go bye bye.
Ruby 03:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) As much as it pains me, I am changing my vote to Keep because it was nominated in bad faith as retaliation for a series of AfDs against Christian leader bios yesterday.
Ruby 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Berliner simply isn't notable. Unless there is far more information about him, being on the board of an organization and someone who compiles information, like he does, isn't worthy of an entry. -- Jason Gastrich 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Strong delete. Per nom. --
Jason Gastrich 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Speedy Keep and expand. Grandmasterka 10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
There is nothing notable in this entry. Binswanger is an editor and compiles information; certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Jason Gastrich 04:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Karm a fist 06:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Besides being the leader of an organization, which, in and of itself isn't necessarily notable, there is nothing else even remotely notable about Brook. -- Jason Gastrich 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Karm a fist 06:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Caplan is an associate professor, who wrote a few articles, and has a number of opinions. He certainly isn't notable. -- Jason Gastrich 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Karm a fist 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Rao doesn't have any books listed on Amazon.com. The name brings only 218 hits on Google.com [19]. He simply isn't notable. -- Jason Gastrich 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Bad faith nom.-- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:43, 25 January 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}} . |
Besides being the leader of an organization, which, in and of itself doesn't make someone notable, she isn't notable at all. -- Jason Gastrich 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Even as an author, Lewis isn't notable. Zero books on Amazon.com. -- Jason Gastrich 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep, president of a country (nothing borderline about this and no reason to waste people's time on this anymore). u p p l a n d 11:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neto simply isn't notable. Nothing in the entry stands out as encyclopedic. -- Jason Gastrich 04:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Prescott isn't notable. Nothing in this entry is remarkable or encyclopedic. -- Jason Gastrich 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Reisman is a professor and wrote a book, but this certainly doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's notability requirements. -- Jason Gastrich 04:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a website/webcomic, makes no assertion of meeting WP:WEB. W.marsh 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
'restating'lemme restate everything to make more sense, its a place for Webcomic artists to show off their work and get good creative input. Over the past year it has grown more popular amoung the webcomic community. However if it isn't good enough to be put on Wikipedia then delete. User: NicholasTreat
The result of the debate was redirect to Yoshi. – Rob e rt 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Yoshee means beautiful one born in the summer time in Japanese. It's a rare name and very nice. There are only so many with that name. 1% of the world, maybe not even. "Yo, she is cool." That is a common sentence for hippy people, that's what some people reffer to. There's a game, "Yoshi and Mario." Complete nomination for original nominator TheRingess 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Rovics isn't notable. He's a singer with free music on the web. Plus, this entry reads like an advertisement. -- Jason Gastrich 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Zoe by CSD:A7. Stifle 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I would've speedied but article claims notability. Even if this is a real person, the claims seem so outrageous as to be a hoax, plus no references cited. Delete TheRingess 05:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy deleted, nn-bio User:Zoe| (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Instructions to do a nn
neologism Wikipedia is
WP:NOT an instruction manual.
Unverifiable term from a nn website that has
stayed too long as a link in the article
Pray.--
Perfecto 05:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Schwartz isn't notable. He's a journalist and on a board and those things certainly aren't worthy of a Wikipedia entry. -- Jason Gastrich 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. -- D e ath phoenix 01:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seaborg isn't notable in the slightest. Not sure why this article was ever created. There are tens of thousands of biologists and activists and nothing makes this one stand out or worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. -- Jason Gastrich 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep, this nomination is too soon after the last one. -- D e ath phoenix 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Sinjin isn't notable. He has only 428 Google hits [28]. He's the author of one book and certainly not notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. -- Jason Gastrich 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
She isn't notable. Nothing here stands out. It's a vanity piece. -- Jason Gastrich 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. I am redirecting there because the content from this article was merged into Calvin and Hobbes. It needs to be redirected there to preserve GFDL (well, that's what I think, anyway). -- D e ath phoenix 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It was agreed to merge the information on this page with the Cardboard Boxes section of the Calvin and Hobbes page. The information on the page is now redundant and since the strip is no longer active, there is no potential for expansion. Delete. — simpatico hi 05:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. Mailer Diablo 06:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be hoax. Part of a series by Sassaffraz ( talk · contribs), also including Maya Bankovic. Fan1967 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The last time anyone actually added something to this page was on September 30, 2005. Almost two months have passed. The fact of the matter is, no one uses this page, either by viewing it since you'd have to click on various links to ever arrive here, or editing it. Any current events in China should simply be added to the world current events page. KI 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was last edited on November 30, 2005. November 30. Thats over two months ago! No one edits nor views this page. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese current events. KI 05:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harr o 5 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography. Nonsense article. Zero Google hits. Zen611 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. Harr o 5 05:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
As we know, Wikipedia is not a memorial. While his death is sad, this guy isn't notable enough for a bio entry. Harr o 5 05:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
While the guy has a PhD, this is original research, and we don't accept that. It's really just to plug the website down the bottom. Sorry. Harr o 5 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. No useful content beyond the definition of the term. Not viable other than as a dictionary definition. Srleffler 05:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject is a defunct snowboard/skateboard shop in Illinois that gets 16 hits on google. No claim to notability in sophomoric text of article. I also checked the notability of the proprietor, thinking she could be a famous skate/snow boarder, with her name in quotes and skateboard, zero google hits; same with snowboard. Delete as non-notable. Fuhghettaboutit 05:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to The Virgin Suicides (film). There is nohing extra to merge to that article. -- D e ath phoenix 02:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actress. Has appeared in only one movie "The Virgin Suicides" in 1999 and nothing since then. Delete Atrian 06:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to General aviation. – Rob e rt 00:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is pointless, it has the same meaning as General Aviation Change1211 06:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. -- D e ath phoenix 02:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
proposed delete: Total and utter gamecruft. I love Homeworld, but no one coming here would ever want (or need) to see this level of detail on the game's spacecraft. True, the previous host of this information, the Homeworld Shipyards, has temporarily closed, but (to quote Peter Parker and with full knowledge of what it cost him), "I missed the part where that's my problem." Marblespire 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
DON'T BURN THE LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA ON PURPOSE. NEB
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep (and list for cleanup). -- D e ath phoenix 02:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Very poorly written advertisement. No way to verify that list of celebrities actually frequent the bar.Delete TheRingess 07:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)} reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This appears to be the biography from the back of a theatre programme for a minor actor. 1 clear hit on Google that's not Wikipedia. JGF Wilks 07:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was created on June 9 04, and was marked as disambiguation from the start. The second, and only other edit was made on december 30th of 2005, and was only edited to sort the disambig as a geographical one. Neither of the items listed on the disambig page have articles. -- Lightdarkness 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online "game" run from LiveJournal, actually seems to be a web forum with approx 100 members. Article was tagged as disputed, but tag was removed by one of the main editors of the page. There is a real Alexandria High School here. Canley 07:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, as a vanity page probably created by the person herself. JGF Wilks 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. -- D e ath phoenix 02:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks and reads like a travel guide for a nn-road, not a article Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 07:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not verifible, no Google hits nor hits from Google book search, and even if verifiable NN. This looks completely fabricated to me. Lockley 08:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Jogloran 08:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced, google isn't very helpful, has inadequate context. Kappa 09:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like musician vanity. The text seems to be a direct copy of one of the external links provided but as this seems to be written by Karri Ojanen himself I don't think it's a copyvio. Delete. JIP | Talk 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Commodore 64 software. Johnleemk | Talk 08:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable tool with little use and little notoriety. Soothing R 11:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep (and cleanup). I am giving this article a chance to be cleaned up, but I have no objections to this article being AfDed at a later date if it doesn't get a better assertion of notability. -- D e ath phoenix 02:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible vanity. Very little mention of notability. So he interviewed a few famous people? Almost every link from other articles consists of "Interview at Brian M. Palmer", in the external links, which makes it smell even more like vanity. Drat ( Talk) 11:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable vanity spam for a bootleg album which hasn't been released yet, and which nets zero Google hits. chocolateboy 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Likely a vanity article for his project. Project website has no Alexa ranking. [40]
delete
Lotsofissues 12:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously kept here, but since then some addtional information has been garnered, to wit: the full list of SWIFT codes is between 17,000 and 20,000 entries; the active list (those available for electronic transfers) is over 7,500 and the balance are still valid, they just require a manual completion of the process by the parties involved; assuming these codes listed are all on the "active" list, this is about 4.5% of the total codes. The comment "this list is incomplete, you can help by expanding it" looks, in that context, like a rather lame joke. The December and January updates are both pdfs of over 20 pages, indicating that the list is highly dynamic. Under the circumstances I really cannot see any value in mainatianing a partial mirror of an arbitrary subset of codes when a free web-based authoritative lookup tool is available. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 12:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a terribly written page, but the content just strikes me as unencyclopedic. There are, however, claims to notability, so its not CSD7. -- jfg284 you were saying? 12:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
"the first community poetry program that embraces the creative art of spoken word/slam poetry in Waterloo, Iowa" = not notable. 79 Google hits. Punkmorten 12:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
bio/ad for nn artist, "Is millennium mainstream ready for the first openly gay, black male pop artist?", IDK but wikipedia isn't Savidan 13:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. This is a non-notable vanity page if I ever saw one. JIP | Talk 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete; Vanity page Tinus 14:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The article fails to establish the notability of the subject. It appears to me that he is a con artist like many others. Google only returns ~1200 hits for "Mark Sabia". Dismas| (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 04:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
"With an estimated 3 followers, Comcast is arguably the smallest religion with more than one follower in the world." It was also (by the article's claims) created yesterday. Delete as vanity/hoax. Kusma (討論) 15:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete This is a creative hoax. Lots of wang grease went into this one.
Ruby 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Re-voting after vandalism by User:207.200.116.70
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as attack page. ( ESkog)( Talk) 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's rationale was " not notable, but even the information given is unlikely." Neutral. — Cryptic (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Not verifiable Tschild 15:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Bucky -- D e ath phoenix 02:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't find a reference to this term outside Wikipedia. I'm not certain it exists - Rorschach567
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Exiles (comics). -- D e ath phoenix 02:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
THis article is complete gobbledegook. Not worth the diskspace its written in
The result of the debate was Speedy Redirect, Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 23:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has a really screwed up history. I say either Cleanup or Delete to wipe history and recreate majorly. Most of the edits to this article are just vandalism and reversion, and when I went to revert some vandalism, I was unable to find a useful version to revert to. As it stands, the article consists of one sentence. And somebody needs to give this some major cleanup Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 02:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. -- D e ath phoenix 02:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be the ingredient list / explanation for some fruit-based anti-constipation product. I did find 226 English Google hits for PhytoFruit, but couldn't find anything that was not advertising. Delete. Kusma (討論) 15:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an alternative food that helps on the functioning of the intestine. Is an invention, an inovation and an insdustrial possibility not available in Europe, USA, Africa, Asia or Latin America - just in 2 States of Brazil - but must of all is a alternative for many peolpe that can not take medicine and that could have the oportunity of knowing this solution. It is not a medicine, it should be eaten like a "compote" or a sauce. The use of fruits is a knowledge of public dominium, the inovation is that was found a mixture that has this value. The other alternatives, the medicines, natural or not, might bring many problems for the ones who takes them. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sandrahans ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It must be understood of the point of view of science. There are many articles written about it in Brazil. The only one written out of Brazil was written in Austria where it was classified as an invention. The article that we are discussing about in Wikipedia can help many people, but as any invention is associated to an inventor and to a company. It has to be decided if the article related to an invention, that can bring health, not using medicine, using fruits, is important enough or not. Tinus doesn't need to think that the name of the inventor is a secret, because it is not. It is just not the foccus of the subject. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sandrahans ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fan fiction website. Less than 700 search engine hits [42], Alexa ranking in the 200,000's [43]. No claim of notability (or any other details, for that matter) in the article. Mikeblas 15:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- D e ath phoenix 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible non-notable band. Not a speedy delete candidate because article asserts notability, but a Google search for "God Ate My Homework" band only produces 376 hits. Nothing at Allmusic. Page hasn't been modified since June 2004. -- MisterHand 16:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Dimensional lumber. – Rob e rt 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
slang Melaen 16:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
neologism? non -notable term Melaen 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Claims that the word was "officially" introduced into the English language, but this is unverifiable... and I don't believe there exists any officiating body who could do such a thing. Delete. – Sommers (Talk) 17:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
nn website, does not meet web notability criteria Savidan 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this page because: the artickle won't be kept up to date and is about a Swedish NGO, for which the Swedish article will suffice. Also it won't be written in a manner that correctly explains Catahya, when written in English. Wille Raab 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
::Addendum to above: My position should be taken as Abstain because while the nominator gave reasons that, as I explained, are not good reasons for deletion, it does not necessarily follow that it should be kept as a demonstration of notability has not been made.
Daniel Case 20:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete, discounting IPs and anons. -- D e ath phoenix 03:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This was originally AFD'd mid december, but the tag was removed. There is no information about reasons for tagging apart from info below. While this young person is cleary a good role model, the hindsight of the 8 weeks since the story appeared gives a clearer view on him. The claim that the story received national attention is clear hyperbole, it appeared briefly on NBC, did the blogs for a week and was then forgotten. The man is now one of many who serve his country, and he may have a bright political future ahead of him, and if so deserves a wiki spot, but at the moment, he is simply an student leader who signed up. MNewnham 17:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep, withdrawn by the nominator. -- D e ath phoenix 03:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The page itself is clearly an ad. The subject company are vigorously linkspamming on wikipedia (See
here). Voting delete but will in principle change that vote if someone can establish that the company fits
WP:CORP or
WP:WEB.
AndyJones 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Keep. -- D e ath phoenix 03:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is about a MUD based on Forgotten Realms. While the latter is definitely notable, I'm not so sure this one is, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. -- D e ath phoenix 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. ThreeAnswers 18:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Merge into
Multinational force in Iraq which already redirects from
Coalition forces.
Crunch 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mackensen (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense and/or completely non-notable. It was created with a {{ hangon}} tag on it, so I suspect it may be a re-creation of deleted material, but I couldn't find it in the deletion log. — David Johnson [ T| C] 18:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This poets proper name gets no hits on Google related to writing or poetry, but there are a very small number returned for the pseudonym "Charley Sierra". This subject might be notable, but I just can't find anything which would indicate that so I'm bringing it here for discussion on whether or not this article should be deleted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dlyons493 Talk 19:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A different revision of this article, on a non-notable website with a current Alexa ranking of 335,134, was deleted last year. This article doesn't qualify for WP:CSD since it is not a reposting of deleted content. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altsounds for the previous nomination, which closed with unanimous consensus to delete. Idont Havaname ( Talk) 18:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect; nothing to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 08:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as subject is not notable. The only somewhat notable fact is winning the "Name the Mars Rovers" contest and this is already covered on the Mars Rover page Rillian 18:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, vanity Nv8200p talk 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it as a reason to support or oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 08:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. See Dispatching (logistics), and also take note of Ems dispatch (something completely different). -- Smack ( talk) 19:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nn band. Not in discogs, not in allmusic. Fails WP:MUSIC. The {notability} tag had given em enough time.-- Perfecto 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- D e ath phoenix 03:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant with 3 Teens Kill 4 Nv8200p talk 20:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable record company. Lord ViD 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
unexpandable dicdef; shrimp pasta is pasta with shrimp... ( ESkog)( Talk) 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as repost per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.B.O.S.P.. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 22:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable internet forum, already was deleted in December Wyoskier 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Ed g2s — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-24 06:33 Z
Article is about a band, but it fails to assert any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria -- Pak21 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a non-notable college radio program which broadcasts on a station (KTSW) which itself does not have an entry. If Hillbilly at Harvard doesn't have an article, the bar for college radio shows must be high indeed. - squibix 21:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Attack page on not particularly noteworthy website. Lukas 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I've been editing it some more... I've removed all attacks on the site and instead placed links. I've also added more information about the site itself. Electricbassguy
The result of the debate was delete both. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This SargeK article by SargeK himself seems to be a vanity piece about a non-notable individual Oscarthecat 21:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I added Debtism to this afd bikeable (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
From SargeK, Do a search on the following titles on: MSN
Debtism #1 of 76 http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Debtism+&FORM=QBHP Social Security Articles Directory – Result: Debtism.com places 3 and 4 among 817,833 entries. http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Social+Security+Articles+Directory+&FORM=QBHP
Strategy for Tax and Welfare Reform – #1 of 423,572 entries http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Strategy+for+Tax+and+Welfare+Reform+&FORM=QBHP
The Legacy of Perpetual Debt http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=The+Legacy+of+Perpetual+Debt+&FORM=QBRE
Social Security Tax Reform OR Perpetual Debt #17 of 2,271,576 http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Social+Security+Tax+Reform+OR+Perpetual+Debt+&first=11&FORM=PORE
US Economy Articles Directory - #1 of 268,006 http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=US+Economy+Articles+Directory+&FORM=QBRE
Google: Debtism #1 of 813 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Debtism+&btnG=Search Yahoo:
Debtism #1 of 115 http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Debtism+&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt
Social Security Tax Reform OR Perpetual Debt #1 of 11,200,000 http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=Social%20Security%20Tax%20Reform%20OR%20Perpetual%20Debt
The Legacy of Perpetual Debt #2 of 184,000 http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=The+Legacy+of+Perpetual+Debt&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt
Comment: The above is a sampling of articles on my debtism.com website. Tens of thousands of have read my articles since I started last year. No advertisements, Just an attempt to get to the truth about tax and welfare programs and sharing it with the widest audience possible. Since all I get is “delete” response from wikipedia, I’ll not waste any more of your time NOR mine. I'm neither notable, not do I care to be. I am doing my best to bring attention to significant Social Security, tax and welfare problems that have little effect on me; but may impact my sons and grand-son in a manner they cannot yet conceive. Sorry about posting here. I should have done more research before wasting a lot of time. Thanks anyway SargeK
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. It is not notable, having <1000 members, and not mentioned in any media. It has also been deleted before under the title The Source (forum) 66.82.9.41 22:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and a blatant advertisement. Delete. – Sommers (Talk) 21:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Ed g2s, who forgot to close — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-24 06:37 Z
Non notable vanity. Band does not appear to have released any albums/singles. Oscarthecat 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable album from a band, 20 Fingers, that fails WP:MUSIC (which I've already tagged for speedy deletion). Note that the article only says that the album was "released" but never necessarily published. – Sommers (Talk) 22:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. Mushroom 07:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article has no sense. No references found anywhere else for Miquel Serra. John C PI 22:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable character from an EQOA guild. Jogloran 22:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Avi 22:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
page revised per standards to include broader scope.
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
"A hoax. Neither book nor author show up on Amazon. 5 hits on Google, all referencing this article.Delete TheRingess 22:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable costume designer with 30 Google hits, "reviewed favorably in local newspapers and Pointe magazine" is used as assertion of notability. Delete Kusma (討論) 22:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect all; merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL. Johnleemk | Talk 08:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Also proposed for merge and delete, +5 other related articles: Cutting a shoelace, Passing under blackberry, Showing to the moon, Tying someone, Worship of trees.
Although I don't doubt that this and the 5 other related articles above are genuine-enough traditions in Pontic/Turkish folklore (original creator has used the same reference work for each), having them as individual articles under generic phrases doesn't make much sense. Several of these entries are rather confusingly written, and what's more appear to be direct translations of the cited Turkish reference work. Any encyclopaedic material which can be salvaged from these ought to be merged into the Turkish folklore article (currently only a list of these articles), and the articles deleted. The reason I'm not simply carrying out the merge myself is that I don't really see any value in maintaining the article titles as redirects. cjllw | TALK 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreal tournament clan, 5 members MNewnham 23:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 01:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not quite speediable, I think. Band with 300 relevant Ghits, self-published albums MNewnham
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Listcruft/spam Take your pick Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 23:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nn-bio. Mushroom 12:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Biographical details of a family that owns a couple of coffee shops. Good content for a genealogy website, but not for Wikipedia. Delete. Kusma (討論) 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A movie theater MNewnham 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable - need more proof of notability. Avi 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rob e rt 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Being related to someone notable does not confer notability. This is the grandson of someone famous, who does not have any apparent notability himself. D e nni ☯ 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
As per administrator AllistairMcMillan's admonishments on the Akira talk page, I hereby nominate the Akira Class Starship for deletion because the article is entirely original research. Neocapitalist 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 28 January 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}} . |
Bio of co-captain of Harvard fencing team. 188 Google hits. Was first tagged as {{ db-attack}}, but on the talk page, the author says the attack was done by his roommates. Still vanity failing to meet WP:BIO. Delete. Kusma (討論) 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Non-notable. Tokakeke 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:Vain, nn, about 240 googs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Hash out the preferred article title on the talk. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
unremarkable unwikied list. just not needed. delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply