< January 24 | January 26 > |
---|
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as obvious copyvio - Lucky 6.9 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep after rewrite. – Alphax τ ε χ 04:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like just nonsense. -- Egil 00:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable academic. Article seems to exist just as a vandalism target. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
probable hoax Tom Harrison Talk 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
probable hoax Tom Harrison Talk 00:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
probable hoax Tom Harrison Talk 00:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. I've discounted those who've made arguments that no longer apply (dicdef, copyvio) after several users' excellent work cleaning up this article. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like a list of tests with a stub on top and a Wiktionary template at the bottom. Nowhere close to a good article. Delete. Georgia guy 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Transwiki useful info and Keep this, there's a citation about something that actually happened to them. This could be a very useful article with more research.
Grandmasterka 05:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
should be deleted because: (1) the title of the article is incorrectly spelled, and (2) the content of the article is contained in an article under the proper title CVVT. MadScientistVX 01:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
No page links to this one. Google shows only three hits for '"Juliet Kidd" Lunden' and about 38 for '"Juliet Kidd"'. If the article is kept, it needs to be made more neutral. Greebo | purr 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a random non-notable TV espisode, can't tell what show it is even, reads like a copyvio from somewhere also Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a game guide WP:NOT. This is a direct list taken from a popular MMORPG site, Allakhazam, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If it's not deleted, then it should be merged with World of Warcraft. If it is kept, then the name should be changed at least. This list is also likely to change with patches and updates to the game occuring all the time. Delete čĥàñľōŕď 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Self published writer who spammed to get the book an award. See [3] Greebo | purr 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was closing early as speedy delete. -- cj | talk 08:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
as Wikipedia isn't a slang guide, I got this one cleaning pointers to Hogging-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was alas, DELETE. Would that it were verifiable. Babajobu 17:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
another nn slang thing-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Article was speedy deleted, closing AfD. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep when combined with the merge votes, and you have to keep in order to merge. If anyone wants to merge, feel free. — Cleared as filed. 04:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is political bias, obviously created for last year's election LeftyG 02:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this article on non-notable webcomic which does not meet 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. If you're curious, the site has an Alexa rank of 611,060 [7] and its book on Amazon has a sales rank of "none." [8] -- Dragonfiend 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. No one is arguing that we should keep the content, and this isn't Votes for Redirecting. Anyone who thinks a redirect is appropriate here is entitled to create one. — Cleared as filed. 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Subject is not notable outside of this one incident, which is documented in Continental Airlines Dbchip 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 18:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert/spam for non-notable company Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 18:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for Firefox toolbar. 243 google hits and "over 4000 downloads" make me doubt its notability. Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment, However the community rules, I will stand behind. It may just mean I need to work on it a bit more. I love Wikipedia (been supporting with $$$ and time/effort since the begining!...I am not trying to sell anything...what is there to sell?!?!? Anyway, thank you for your consideration. -
Gabriel Kent 22:01, 24 January 2006 (PST)
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 04:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Automobile dealership in California; no claim to notability. Mikeblas 02:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, nn-bio. Madchester 06:57, 29 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}} . |
Seems to be NN internet site or even nn-bio. 1380 Google hits is too low for a "personal humor website" to be notable. Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 18:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page about a programmer writing games for old computers, 37 Google hits. His company has 49 hits. Delete Kusma (討論) 03:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable; vanity. - Ikkyu2 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Some application suite that I was unable to find via Google (maybe it is still in development?). Makes me think it should not be included. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Searching Google for "Christopher Scrimes" doesn't return any results. Alexa stats: Traffic Rank for toobis.com: 1,909,433; Other sites that link to this site: 2. Delete. utcursch | talk 03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Claims about a trademarked dietary supplement unapproved by the FDA that has 2 google hits (which might be unrelated). Suspect hoax. Delete Kusma (討論) 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I don't believe this artist meets the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Very hard to read (may or may not have been wrote by a native English speaker). — Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, per WP NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Madchester 07:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Essentially a catalog of selected allusions from hip hop music lyrics. Unencyclopedic, although Wikiquote "might could do somthin'" with this. FuriousFreddy 03:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Rumors about a secret service that protects Francophones and plans for a relocation of Israel. Looks like a hoax to me. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted -- Durin 22:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Typo. Duplicate content exists at Hull University Labour Club -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a place to store your essays on World of Warcraft. Delete. enochlau ( talk) 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Only 40 strips; Alexa 5,194,773; "syzigy.org" gets three hits on Google, including Wikipedia; "World War 100" gets more, but they're mostly irrelevant and the top page is again Wikipedia. Melchoir 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 06:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Could be speedyable for nonsense, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt - it is at least a bit decipherable. But not verifiable and probably not real. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:SPAM. No alexa traffic data for the site [11]. 3 google hits [12]. Interiot 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, not notable. Thue | talk 09:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web programmer -- NaconKantari e| t|| c| m 04:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Copyvio? OR? Either way, WP:NOT a guidance counselor. No edit history, nothing links to it, seems like a quick cut-n-paste job. High probability of copyvio rules out even a merge, so delete Turnstep 05:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I live in the Twin Cities, but haven't heard of them having "three boroughs", the best of them being Brooklyn Park. Actually I haven't heard of the Twin Cities having boroughs at all, but maybe that's because I spend too much time on Wikipedia. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 20:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band vanity. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2006-01-27 22:15 Z)
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article provides little context, is made up almost entirely of sentence fragments, and is very difficult to understand. Also it sites no refrences, and the info in the article doesn't seem right. I wouldn't be surprised if it was made up. Tobyk777 05:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Independent candidate who won less than 3 percent of the vote in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke electoral district. No assertion of notability besides being a candidate. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Sorry about deleting the deletion comment, I was filling the followup while the comment was added. Although he did not win that many votes, his performance greatly affected the number of votes that Don Linsay recieved, and thus had an impact on the final count. Most of this is what he said at all-candidates debates, I am currently filling in details about sources of the information
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable holiday, if not a hoax. No indication of its existence on Google. Wikipedia is NOT for something you made up in school one day. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as per CSD G1. Mushroom 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Just a bit of housekeeping. This page was a redirect to article David George Kendall, which was itself deleted for copyvio. Lockley 05:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
delete. this person's bio does not seem encyclopedic enough to warrant a page Mayumashu 05:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently they got an invite to come here and announce their new site.-- Perfecto 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Hybrid sport invented by some guy, unreferenced. Neglected article created by 67.171.36.202 ( talk · contribs). Not sure if this is notable. Weak Google hits (175 unomitted). krolf.dk hangs my browser. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 06:12 Z
The result of the debate was delete. This might be a valid topic, but the article as it stands does not cite a single credible source and only makes speculative claims. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Page is a pointless rant on a confused topic. We already have a transhumanism article AND a human evolution article. This has to go. Graft 16:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It was deleted in April as too new. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfectcompetition.net. But the game has not grown: it's forum shows 2,778 members; 673 topics; 2,710 messages. Not notable.
The result of the debate was delete per failure to assert notability. — Cleared as filed. 04:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A pointless page. The band is neither well known, nor well documented. The page consists of one line of the band advertising themselfs as two genres that dont exist. Doesnt meet Wikipedia's Policy for bands to be given articles, nor do they have any information on the band. Possibly Advertising. Leyasu 07:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a webforum claiming 5000 members. However, website is unreachable -- no DNS entries for www.cuus.cn, cuus.cn, etc. (for me at least). No Google hits for Chinese Undergraduate at the United States. Delete as unverifiable. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 07:33 Z
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Flash animation website; no assertion or evidence of notability. Traffic Rank for kollaps.ru: 3,187,900. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 07:43 Z
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like a (blatant?) advertisement for "OutSec" (www.outsec.co.uk). Article's creator and only editor was User:Richard Phillips, who signs his name at the bottom and gives his title as (surprise!) Operations Director, OutSec Limited. The article concept on its own does not seem like it could be expanded/changed to have its own (non-advert) article, thus, delete.-- P e ruvianLlama( spit) 07:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article was speedily deleted, closing AfD. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. Notability tag ha dbeen applied and ignored. Comes across as possible advertising. Normally would leave open for expansion, but after ignoring of the notablity tag (mostly due to non-notablity) the article should be deleted. Leyasu 07:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Even ignoring the POV title, this list is a hopeless stub. There are only 5 Communist states in the world right now, and the likelihood that The Revolution will suddenly erupt and create a hundred more is rather slim. There is no point in having a separate article for a list with only 5 entries and little or no chances of gaining any additional ones in the near future. Besides, it's redundant with material already present at Communist state. Delete. Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Userfied since it was created by the subject. Left a note about WP:AUTO on user page. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity, nothing but an advertisment. Lightdarkness 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 06:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
nn criminal Hirudo 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable car dealership owner. No claim to notability in article. Search gets about 2800 hitts. [16] Mikeblas 08:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable name for burping after fellatio. I couldn't verify it through casual Google search and didn't want to click on any search results. Delete; if verified would still be better to merge it. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 08:09 Z
- This is not slang. If I wrote an article called blow job, this is slang for fellatio. There is no proper term for a sperm burp. If you know of a proper term for sperm burp, please share it, and I will gladly rewrite. - In defense of neologism, I would point out there are lots of subjects and terms on Wikipedia that fall under this category. At what point do we judge the newness of a term to no longer be new? - Personal opinions about the character and suitability are not descriminating factors in deletion. There are many articles on Wikipedia that could be offensive to people. - I did consider merging this article into burp, but I felt it should be kept seperate because of its sexual nature.
My vote is *Keep. DigitalPimpette 6:51 pm 1.25.2006
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a code repository. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 08:17 Z
Note: I bundled SdlBasic:sample:colors at this point. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 11:03 Z
Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SdlBasic. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 11:04 Z
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable vanity biography of a bipedal mammal. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 08:20 Z
To clarify, I believe this is an article about a real person, and am nominating to delete it as a non-notable biography; I don't think it is complete bollocks. The "bipedal mammal" statement is cute but informationless vanity. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-27 22:26 Z
The result of the debate was delete, other topics will have to be AfD'd separately. Babajobu 21:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pseudoscientific supposed-subbranch of cosmology. The Integral Cosmologists are "clairvoyant, visionary, channeller", etc. Scant Google hits for "integral cosmology". I have some background in Astrophysics, and have never heard of this. This article was previously created by the same user and deleted, but this is apparently not a repost according to MarkGallagher. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 08:24 Z
The result of the debate was 'delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable DJ. About 500 hits [20]. I can't seem to verify the "most popular DJ in Russia" claim. Mikeblas 08:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unverifiable advertisng vanity Dakota ~ ε 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. No googles, unverifiable, advertising, vanity.-- Dakota ~ ε 08:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD G1 (nonsense). Mushroom 08:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Every single edit in this page is total nonsense with no encyclopaedic content. Ben W Bell 08:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wiki. No Alexa rank or google rank for website. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 08:40 Z
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Babajobu 07:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Band member. But worthy of article of his own? Vanity+non-notable imho. Oscarthecat 08:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Senior artist at a studio, but notable? Oscarthecat 08:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web game -- Longhair 08:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Result : Speedy Deletion (non-notable)
Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Not notable. -- Longhair 08:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fan fiction. No Google hits. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 09:07 Z
The result of the debate was no consensus. I haven't counted the "votes", so I don't know what a strict numerical result would be, but my gut says "don't delete". fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about a particular pub crawl. The author has designated about a third of it as "trivia" but in the context of an encyclopedia, I think that is rather low. Not verifiable from mainstream published sources. Delete. Bhoeble 09:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable unverifiable slang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this isn't suitable for a dictionary anyway. Created by Face (slang) ( talk · contribs) (!). Wikipedia is not for thigns created in one school day. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 09:23 Z
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Supposedly a Scandinavian god that steals babies and goats. Unverifiable, possible hoax. (This doesn't seem to bear any relation to the Egyptian god Kuk.) Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 09:29 Z
The result of the debate was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jural Society. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Fictional place in a game with no information and no claim to notability or encyclopedic value. No content worth merging into the main game article, and unlikely choice for a redirect. Night Gyr 09:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm actually going to list a bunch of Orbitercruft here... someone's gone to the trouble of making an article for every ship and place in the game, even the ones that exist in real life, and those for which there's really nothing encyclopedia-worthy to be said beyond inclusion in a list in the main article. We can't have articles for every fictional thing, so I'm going to be listing most of
Category:Orbiter_(sim) and redirecting them all to a single main entry for orbiter stuff.
Night Gyr 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web portal. No Alexa traffic rank. No Google rank. I think it just started. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 09:45 Z
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Obvious hoax. Searches cannot verify any aspect of this article. Ncsaint 17:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. — Cleared as filed. 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Lots and lots of articles about every fictional place or thing in the game Orbiter (sim). I've listed a dozen or so here:
There's a bunch more that need to be tagged and linked here in Category:Orbiter (sim), nearly every article in there, as well as several associated templates and a few dozen associated images. Someone's put a lot of work into something that's thoroughly unencyclopedic and has no potential to be so. Wikipedia is not paper, but it's not gamefaqs.com. Night Gyr 10:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Here's the second set:
A handful of these have extensive content, but they're still not encyclopedia worthy. I tagged three as speedy (those aren't here) because they were only external links, but the two API articles are just a couple of sentences each. It's kind of sad to see that someone put so much work into these, but this info just belongs in the manual or on a site specific to the game. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Night Gyr 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable BASIC implementation. Not sure why it even needs to be a new language: SDL is a library, not a language feature. Few sourceforge downloads, weak forum presence, etc. Wikipedia article advocates creating subpages with code examples (a whole section titled "Code Download (Hosted on Wikipedia)"); see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SdlBasic:code:painting. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 11:00 Z
The result of the debate was speedy keep. — FireFox • T • 17:08, 25 January 2006
Not a proper celebrity, started by Willy on Wheels sockpuppet, obscene article Gaveldoom 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article was speedily deleted, closing AfD. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
NN band, can't find anything on all music, page was created by user:Crippletrev, who seems to be lead vocalist and guitarist. smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 11:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. Sumple 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unverifiability, POV, racist overtones; elaboration below Sumple 12:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Member of notable band. But warranting own article, while article is as sketchy as this? Suggest a merge with Orbital (band) -- Oscarthecat 12:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. -- Durin 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete nn band with only one EP. Nothing links to it. -- Bruce1ee 12:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 23:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be of pretty limited notability. Not quite speediable, but I would still suggest delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Shanel 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Person is utterly nonnotable. Has a job, for which he apparently has done nothing noteworthy. Wrote some amateur reviews for a TV show. After the notability tag was on article for a while and a discussion about it was attempted on the talk page, still nothing. Someone who wrote most of this article created the vanity article Kurt Beyer Films, which was a recreation of the Kurt beyer films article that was deleted as vanity a while back, I believe the newer one was speedied. This just looks like vanity, and the major contributor says he's a friend of the guy... Perhaps if it's up for deletion somebody can try to come up with real justification for keeping it instead of removing the notability tag as "vandalism". If not, then it should be deleted. DreamGuy 13:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as redundant subpage. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Person who created this article used it like sandbox for Amberlife article ManiacK 14:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Shanel 05:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above comments were from me Pipeface84 02:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. It broke my heart, but User:Rebelguys2's argument, combined with weight of numbers, just about does it. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Some assertion of notability, but not enough. Esprit15d 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Original research. Article has no verifiable content. It survived VfD in October 2004, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxenfez (old). Vote was: one delete, one unexplained "keep," and one "keep" on the grounds that "regardless of its name, other users have reported having heard of this game, albeit perhaps in a different form." However, Wikipedia users do not qualify as verifiable sources. No improvements in article since October 2004; no edits at all other than vandalism ("Goose is gay" and "Goose is twelve") and categorization. No response to my request for citations a week ago. Hundreds of Google hits, but all apparently copies of the Wikipedia article. Are we serious about verifiability? If so, this article should go. An article on Oxenfez with verifiable source citations can, of course, be re-created at any time without prejudice. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable annual school 10 mile race.delete Melaen 14:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete - non-ntable. -- RHaworth 16:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
By its own content, this subject is non-notable. Possibly a practical joke -- M @ r ē ino 15:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Webcomic loosely based on Captain N. Doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. Optichan 15:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable group with limited geographical scope. *drew 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
possilbe hoax: see the talk page. Melaen 15:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. Or non-notable personal essay. Either way, needs deleting. -- maru (talk) Contribs 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect. Rob 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article's title is spelt incorrectly, and a fuller article, correctly entitled, already exists here. The author was no doubt confused by Alleyn's School which is part of the same foundation. Neil Woodward 18:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. -- D e ath phoenix 13:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not encylopaedic. It says itself that it 'is not be regarded as an article in it self, rather as an extension to several existing biographical articles'. (sic), and that it's 'important to note that the following event is neither intended not should it be viewed as a factual statement'. If this belongs anywhere, it would be wikibooks, not here, but I'm just going to suggest delete. It is indeed not encyclopaedic, may impinge on WP:NOR, and is ass ugly. Also note Events with the Sahaba 1, which is more of the same. Proto t c 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was a cast-iron keep. Particularly persuasive is the nominator changing his mind (kids! Remember that trick!). fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
unsubstantiated stub. Only one self referencing citation offered. Blueboar 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
see references:
I think the article should be rewritten and renamed to Maestri comacini or Magistri comacini. -- Melaen 16:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article. Possible hoax/original research Hurricane111 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It may well be a 'delightful practice', but it's unreferenced, fails WP:V, has virtually no google hits of relevance, and has been created by the same 'zany' hoaxster who created Sperm Burp (see the AfD for that on this page also). Not encyclopaedic, burn it with fire. Delete. Proto t c 15:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was please use speedy tags for non-controversial deletes. -- RHaworth 16:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dupli of its main page. Stifle 15:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A South Welsh sparkling wine with a strong aroma of hoax. No evidence for its existence apart from Wiki mirrors Flapdragon 15:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparent Vanity. No demonstration of actual notability, and name only gets 405 hits on google. Article includes bizarre details such as his banter with a particular fan. -- DDG 15:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a how-to guide describing a pre- GCSE level science experiment that doesn't even work! It has been tagged for cleanup since July (and hasn't received much attention). Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. If the experiment worked then I think it would fit well in a science textbook (which AIUI is Wikibooks' raison d'être) and I'd be proposing a transwiki to there, but as it is I don't see the point. Thryduulf 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge with playground. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. - Liberatore( T) 16:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician, head of non-notable label. Maz Lunden is not on Allmusic, his label does not appear to exist yet (there is a label by the same name, but not his), there is no evidence of his music being released on any major label or having charted. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 16:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Zhen Luo. I'm not deleting the article before redirect because there might be something useful in the article history to merge; though I didn't find anything, someone else might. -- D e ath phoenix 13:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
At the risk of looking like someone who didn't do his homework -- I wrote Zhen Luo after this article already existed, and they refer to the same person. Why I think this article should be deleted (rather than merged) is because it contains inaccurate information, being overly based on fiction rather than historical accounts; further, there is not a single historical account that I see that refers to her as Zhen Ji -- there were many other ways that she's referred to other than Zhen Luo, but there was none that used this particular title. It was also poorly linked from other articles (a major reason why I missed in the first place when I wrote the "competing" article). I would not be completely opposed to a merge, but I don't think there's much, if anything, to be saved from this article. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep I did a google search and there is a lot of information on it. Perhaps a verify tag can be put on the article. I think that Zhen Lou Luo [not mispelled in the actual google search, just here] should be nominated for deletion or a redirect to this article because there are no relevant hits on it besides the existing wiki article--
Adam
(
talk) 17:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. I'll take User:Pak21's apparently expert opinion on this one. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Page created by the same editor as Madonna Mark Two (current afd), Not notable, google search for "jonathan smith + companyname" gives ~300 results — This user has left wikipedia 16:50 2006-01-25
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like a spamvertisement that's slipped through the crack for 8 months. Low-traffic web-site, alexa ranking of 1,749,518. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 17:00, Jan. 25, 2006
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Link spam/editorial. Needs to be deleted and redirected somewhere. Nothing to merge, really. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 17:05, Jan. 25, 2006
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article does not meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. Zsinj 17:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Wknight94 as nn-band, but it claims the band has a number of albums. Speedy tag was removed by User:Physchim62 but it seems to be a hoax. No Google hits for the band or any of its members and its MySpace page was created on January 16, the same day as the article. howch e ng { chat} 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be a notable brand [51]. NicM 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable surfshop - we ought to be allowed to speedy these. -- RHaworth 17:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Jdcooper as nn-bio but it claims he's an actor. IMDB confirms it but he only has one movie credit, thus failing WP:BIO. howch e ng { chat} 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete: copyvio -- Durin 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a copy and paste from a linked-to .pdf of original research. Zsinj 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism with few (around 230) Google hits, few of which are unique. Furthermore this is a well-known concept and is surely covered better elsewhere. Punkmorten 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Delete Fightindaman 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. DS 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not worthy of an article- nn Adam ( talk) 17:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism and inside joke -- M @ r ē ino 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Page advertising website by author who has had personal vanity page deleted from Wikipedia three times. No evidence of notability. Uucp 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh boy, a Britney Spears AfD. This claims to be an upcoming album but I can't find any verification of that... [52] and not on AMG. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- W.marsh 18:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. I'm going to ignore the nastiness going on lower down here (ooh, didn't that sound interesting?) fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, unencyclopedic. Nothing in this article establishes why she needs one. Delete Ardenn 18:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. The argument for keeping, both here and on the talk page, the references list, and the raw numbers (for all I know) indicate that this is not an article for laying down and avoiding. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A very nice site, but notability is nonexistant and fails WP:WEB on all three counts. Sorry, WP:NOT a repository of links. Delete. RasputinAXP talk contribs 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense (or vanity page)... external link has 248 page views (one of which are mine). This could even be speedied. Also, article content is a copy of webpage content. Kareeser| Talk! 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
NN, fancruft. The associated Bright Shield Rune and Black Sword Rune should also be deleted. (Also Rune of Change and Blue Moon Rune. All created by User:Blue minstrel on Jan 21.) F a ng Aili 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
fictiona character . delete no reference found and no context provided. Melaen 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
David Cohen thinks Wikipedia is a great place to announce his new project. Sorry, David, I have to ask you to come back when you're verifiable. -- Perfecto 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
fans say that this character will appear in a future episode of Sonic X. wikipedia is not a cristal ball. delete. Melaen 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreleased musical; unverifiable [55]; Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. - Liberatore( T) 19:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Józef Makary Potocki. -- D e ath phoenix 14:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet
notibility guidelines for deceased people. Are "noble" people inherently notable? I am open to ideas. Delete unless someone has an objection. I like the merge and redirect idea per Uppland. (
126 Google hits)
F
a
ng Aili 19:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. -- D e ath phoenix 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
original research I suppose delete. Melaen 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I would have tagged this db-nonsense, but am unsure if this is the correct course of action. Zsinj 19:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
hoax, see www.museumofhoaxes.com Melaen 19:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, keep. Punkmorten 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
NN internet only radio station, 140 Ghits MNewnham 19:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia isn't the place to just paste your CV. Completely unsuitable for WP, as it stands. Oscarthecat 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant vanity/advert Oscarthecat 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. The term is a neologism coined by the article's original author. Googling for the term reveals that it is used almost exclusively by said author, usually as a penname or in reference to himself. Even if the term were widespread, there's not much to say about it except that it means 'biodivisity preservationist'. The article is linked to from a list of environmental topics, but nothing else. Deh 20:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the club of local party members at a university. I'd tag it nn-club, as happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hull Universtiy Labour Club, but there's been a little bit of work on a history section for this one, so I'm bringing it up here. Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable author. I searched Amazon and Google and couldn't find any listing for the book or the author. Probably a vanity page for a self-published author. Delete Atrian 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - this is nonsense Fikus 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Clear advertising Mariano( t/ c) 20:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the club of local party members at a university. I had tagged it nn-club, per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hull Universtiy Labour Club, but an admin declared it wasn't a speedy candidate, so I am listing it here. Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 20:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Oxford have five MPs listed, Hull have four and one former listed. Oxford and Cambridge are up for deletion, Hull's is being reviewed. As the creator of the Hull entry, I'm happy as long as we all go or we all stay. M20tgd
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Another user has already noted the lack of IMDB and Google results; to this I can add that it is not linked from the biographies of the stars and director (unusual for a film that was said to be "probably one of the top 5 greatest films ever made"). A game with this title exists, but there's no point in keeping this fraud around until the proper article is written. — Charles P._ (Mirv) 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
These are all possible hoax pages made by the same user, who has also been adding fake Italian "birth names" to random articles. He does not cite any sources and Google turns up nothing. Ashibaka tock 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
DO NOT DELETE, this article is 100 percent true, if you cannot find the Sicilian History and culture book, Look at the book "Sicilian Twilight," which is available in America.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as patent nonsense. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 21:30, Jan. 25, 2006
Non-notable neologism, original research, almost patently absurd. Cyde Weys 20:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is Upper Midwestern North American dialectical speech. Relatively unknown outside of the US.
The result of the debate was Speedy. -- Shanel 22:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems unverifiable, I couldn't even find any information online supporting this person's existence. Most likely a hoax (as the tone of the article text gives away). Cyde Weys 21:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Violates
WP:VAIN and might have had a previous AfD
[62] with result delete.
Awolf002 21:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Shanel 06:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This was speedied as an 'nn club'. But it is certainly not a speedy - I've undeleted and sending here for completeness. University political societies are the breeding grounds for British politicians, and often mentioned in their bios. It is not just that famous people attended these, but that their political affliliations and often allegiences were formed in these places. They are at least as notable as schools and minor bands (which we keep). Hull itself boasts the current UK deputy Prime Minister, a deputy leader of the labour party (and previous Chancellor of the Exchequer) plus three other MP's (and that is just from the article). If that is not an assertion of notability what is?-- Doc ask? 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable sexual slang neologism. Does not seem to be a widespread term. Cyde Weys 21:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, could barely verify on Google, "Tim O'Connor" skater gets 900 hits. Does not meet WP:BIO threshhold. Cyde Weys 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article essentially consists of self-promotion. The "Geek Group" has not done anything particularly noteworthy, and the article strikes me as largely non-encyclopedic. Turboman 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable porn "entrepreneur". Reeks of porncruft. Cyde Weys 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album; only 795 Google hits (and most of those are the lyrics to "Molly Malone". OntarioQuizzer 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 09:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Claims notability, but analyzing the detailed autobiography brings up nothing wiki-worthy MNewnham 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Something Wikipedia is not, namely a memorial/list of indiscriminate information. While I agree that it's sad that these people died, I don't think we need an article listing each and every one of them. FCYTravis 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A supposedly toxic plant from British Columbia. I can't find any reference whatsoever to it online, including my university library, and a message on the author's page asking for references brought me only a (polite) "it's a real plant!" message on my user page. This AfD applies also to the redirect Vugi. Delete. bikeable (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was a bit tricky, but I'll try closing this now. (Closing the first AFD debate was much easier, when there was a clear keep consensus.) On raw vote count there is not a real consensus for outright deletion, and the main objection has been that Wikipedia is not a memorial. I believe that the objection is to the list of names in the article. However, the article has a lead section which describes the recovery of bodies and treatment of the wounded, material which is not really covered by the "memorial" argument. I will therefore call this a merge of the lead section only to the "casualties" section of 7 July 2005 London bombings, and redirect there. The list of names will be dropped, but I'll add the BBC News link to the main article as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a memorial. Lists of victims are unencyclopedic and not generally individually notable, as per the precedant of Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York (now on WP:DRV). The opening paragraphs should be merged into 7 July 2005 London bombings. The list of victims should be deleted. It is very sad that they died, and highly reprehensible that such an attack was made, but Wikipedia is not the proper place to memorialize them. DES (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives. does say that. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisment for a chiropractor. WP:NOT a propaganda machine. -- Aurochs ( Talk | Block)
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unremarkable subject, looking for advertisement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wencer ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, unencyclopedic and non-notable. From the previous db-reason:
This is true. I got 43 hits, but that doesn't change anything. The first result - a blog entry written by the article's creator - essentially confirms that this is something he made up. -- Aurochs ( Talk | Block)
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Parodist and accordionist whose notability assertion is appearance on syndicated radio show ( Dr. Demento Show). Not verifiable. Hurricane111 22:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unremarkable subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wencer ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
insignificant thus far. no accomplishments of merit Kingturtle 22:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Page reads like an advertisement for the band. Bad ideas 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a vanity page for a band "from an undisclosed country", delete as such. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 22:51, Jan. 25, 2006
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
None of this film studio's projects are listed on IMDB. This is a vanity article, written by one of the founders of this outfit. eae 08:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
What I had typed here first (I erased my pervious entry on this page) was a reason why this page shouldn't be deleted. I don't really care though. Just delete it if you want. I mean, it's pretty relevant, if these guys get any bigger then they'll be as important to Alvin as Nolan Ryan once was (he moved apparently). Also, just because they're not listed on IMDB doesn't mean they're not important or anything, just go watch Student Film: The Movie on video.google.com and you'll see.
OtakupunkX 14:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
When these guys (which includes OtakupunkX, who founded the studio and created the article) get any bigger, someone else will notice and write an article. As it stands, there is nothing about S3 Films that warrants a Wikipedia article. Also, IMDB is considered the basic way of checking whether a film is notable. eae 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
So, if somebody else wrote the article and something by S3 Films popped up on IMDB, would it be considered notable then? There are a lot of movies that aren't on IMDB, like, say, anything by X-Strike Studios. IMDB mainly just shows movies that got a commercial release somewhere. Nothing by S3 Films has gotten a commercial release because they release everything for free online via video.google.com, Google's video hosting service. OtakupunkX 15:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
When someone unaffiliated with the studio writes an article, that article will be notable by definition. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability. I believe the Definition section is relevant to the S3 Films article. eae 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
What's the difference whether someone affiliated with the studio or not writes the article? Chances are someone in the studio will have a hand in the article anyway to make sure the information's not totally bogus. OtakupunkX 14:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The difference is that articles written by the subject of that article himself do not conform to Wikipedia guidelines about notability or neutral point of view. eae 19:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Child pornography search terms. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result of the debate was speedy - this and its dup were copyvios. -- RHaworth 09:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Duplicate article ( Embassy Suites Lubbock Hotel), NPOV, among other things. Дрakюлa Talk 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (could be recreated if good conent stablishing notability is written). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason why the page should be deleted the quality is pitiful, plus the article should exist in the first place (local music band) Rdavout 23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy. Not worth a redirect especially since dest is also a copyvio. -- RHaworth 10:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Already exists as Kendall Hotel, NPOV, & spam, among others. Дрakюлa Talk 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Redirect to existing article. exolon 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete LBMixPro <Sp e ak|on|it!> 06:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It is perfectly verifiable, check any of the references given, and you will see full evidence. The person is well-noted, and is worthy of note in Wikipedia. Just because some people are unaware of notable Britons, does not mean they are not notable. Ukpcdaz 02:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Can you please put your username after comments, please Ukpcdaz 02:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Seaturtle.org will tell anyone that looks that Darren Grover is a registered sea turtle volunteer. The awards site does give historic winners, should you care to look. Additionally, a simple search on google will clear this matter further, since it was covered by national press. Moreover, My running a website for someone does not make me that person - otherwise, as a freelance web designer - I would be a LOT of people. Ukpcdaz 02:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Why do you wish so hard to remove a single page from the internet that causes you no harm? The page gives truthful statements about a noteable person, I don't see what is wrong with that. If everytime someone puts a new article on wikipedia, that a few people haven't heard of, so they try to delete it, there is NO point in wikipedia as it will be filled with only what a few people want/know, which will mean it will expand, but only in one direction. Ukpcdaz 02:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It makes the article no less true. Whilst you were on the site, did you care to note how many visitors it has had today? Last time I saw, it was 1007. 1007 visitors in one day, to a site of someone who is non-notable? Ukpcdaz 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Moreover, it does not say you can contact Darren Grover at that address. Ukpcdaz 03:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC) I can pass messages onto Darren Grover, that is all. reply
Who has lied? Is it not feasible that someone can know Darren but not everyone else that might have heard of him? I doubt any celebrity can recall by name everyone that knows them, and nor could their fans recall all other fans. Nobody has lied, except you, to yourself - you can't admit that as you don't know of someone, they might be important. Ukpcdaz 03:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Additionally, Helzagood said she knew Darren, that does not imply friendship, get your facts right, before ATTACKING other users. reply
I am far from angry, I am merely insulted by your frightful rudeness. Helza, is a girls name, that is how I know it is a female, think before you speak. Ukpcdaz 03:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Google is an American invention, do you genuinly expect to to encompass everything, including everything non-american? Good riddance, my-boy, people such as yourselves should not be made welcome on here, nor in society as a whole. Makemi, that is just one of Darren's many notable achievements. Ukpcdaz 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article fails to show notability. ThreeAnswers 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Complete contents of this page: "The 'crisis in the church' is the general name given to the period of upheaval and profound changes that occurred in the Catholic Church since the second vatican council." While possibly true, this is not verifiable as the only crisis in the Catholic church, nor is.... well, you get the idea. There's possible content here but I think it would belong in Second Vatican Council --23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Lockley
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
unencyclopedic, borders on vanity - could easily be accomplished by a category if necessary – ugen64 23:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete (vote is 6 to delete, 6 to keep, and one for BJAODN among established contributers). BD2412 T 17:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Regrettably I am nominating this for AfD, though I do find it to be hilarious. If this does end up getting deleted be sure to BJAODN it, okay? Cyde Weys 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unverifiable article about supposed Bentonville band - Google searches for any of the band members in conjunction with the band's name gives either irrelevant or very few hits. "Major Taylor" +allies, "Deepak Nanda" +allies, "Vignesh Rajan" +allies, Mercutio+allies+demo, "Spartacus: The Fall of 2071" + allies. A total of 492 hits on their page on purevolume, which I expect anyone with a decent amount of search engine hits could get up, and as purevolume is a site where people publish their own music, coverage there is hardly proof of external interest. Sam Vimes 23:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
< January 24 | January 26 > |
---|
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as obvious copyvio - Lucky 6.9 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep after rewrite. – Alphax τ ε χ 04:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like just nonsense. -- Egil 00:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable academic. Article seems to exist just as a vandalism target. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 00:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
probable hoax Tom Harrison Talk 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
probable hoax Tom Harrison Talk 00:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
probable hoax Tom Harrison Talk 00:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. I've discounted those who've made arguments that no longer apply (dicdef, copyvio) after several users' excellent work cleaning up this article. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like a list of tests with a stub on top and a Wiktionary template at the bottom. Nowhere close to a good article. Delete. Georgia guy 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Transwiki useful info and Keep this, there's a citation about something that actually happened to them. This could be a very useful article with more research.
Grandmasterka 05:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
should be deleted because: (1) the title of the article is incorrectly spelled, and (2) the content of the article is contained in an article under the proper title CVVT. MadScientistVX 01:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
No page links to this one. Google shows only three hits for '"Juliet Kidd" Lunden' and about 38 for '"Juliet Kidd"'. If the article is kept, it needs to be made more neutral. Greebo | purr 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a random non-notable TV espisode, can't tell what show it is even, reads like a copyvio from somewhere also Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a game guide WP:NOT. This is a direct list taken from a popular MMORPG site, Allakhazam, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If it's not deleted, then it should be merged with World of Warcraft. If it is kept, then the name should be changed at least. This list is also likely to change with patches and updates to the game occuring all the time. Delete čĥàñľōŕď 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Self published writer who spammed to get the book an award. See [3] Greebo | purr 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was closing early as speedy delete. -- cj | talk 08:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 17:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
as Wikipedia isn't a slang guide, I got this one cleaning pointers to Hogging-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was alas, DELETE. Would that it were verifiable. Babajobu 17:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
another nn slang thing-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Article was speedy deleted, closing AfD. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep when combined with the merge votes, and you have to keep in order to merge. If anyone wants to merge, feel free. — Cleared as filed. 04:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is political bias, obviously created for last year's election LeftyG 02:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this article on non-notable webcomic which does not meet 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. If you're curious, the site has an Alexa rank of 611,060 [7] and its book on Amazon has a sales rank of "none." [8] -- Dragonfiend 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. No one is arguing that we should keep the content, and this isn't Votes for Redirecting. Anyone who thinks a redirect is appropriate here is entitled to create one. — Cleared as filed. 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Subject is not notable outside of this one incident, which is documented in Continental Airlines Dbchip 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 18:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert/spam for non-notable company Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 18:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for Firefox toolbar. 243 google hits and "over 4000 downloads" make me doubt its notability. Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment, However the community rules, I will stand behind. It may just mean I need to work on it a bit more. I love Wikipedia (been supporting with $$$ and time/effort since the begining!...I am not trying to sell anything...what is there to sell?!?!? Anyway, thank you for your consideration. -
Gabriel Kent 22:01, 24 January 2006 (PST)
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 04:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Automobile dealership in California; no claim to notability. Mikeblas 02:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, nn-bio. Madchester 06:57, 29 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}} . |
Seems to be NN internet site or even nn-bio. 1380 Google hits is too low for a "personal humor website" to be notable. Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 18:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page about a programmer writing games for old computers, 37 Google hits. His company has 49 hits. Delete Kusma (討論) 03:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable; vanity. - Ikkyu2 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Some application suite that I was unable to find via Google (maybe it is still in development?). Makes me think it should not be included. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Searching Google for "Christopher Scrimes" doesn't return any results. Alexa stats: Traffic Rank for toobis.com: 1,909,433; Other sites that link to this site: 2. Delete. utcursch | talk 03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Claims about a trademarked dietary supplement unapproved by the FDA that has 2 google hits (which might be unrelated). Suspect hoax. Delete Kusma (討論) 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I don't believe this artist meets the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Very hard to read (may or may not have been wrote by a native English speaker). — Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, per WP NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Madchester 07:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Essentially a catalog of selected allusions from hip hop music lyrics. Unencyclopedic, although Wikiquote "might could do somthin'" with this. FuriousFreddy 03:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Rumors about a secret service that protects Francophones and plans for a relocation of Israel. Looks like a hoax to me. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted -- Durin 22:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Typo. Duplicate content exists at Hull University Labour Club -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a place to store your essays on World of Warcraft. Delete. enochlau ( talk) 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Only 40 strips; Alexa 5,194,773; "syzigy.org" gets three hits on Google, including Wikipedia; "World War 100" gets more, but they're mostly irrelevant and the top page is again Wikipedia. Melchoir 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 06:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Could be speedyable for nonsense, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt - it is at least a bit decipherable. But not verifiable and probably not real. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:SPAM. No alexa traffic data for the site [11]. 3 google hits [12]. Interiot 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, not notable. Thue | talk 09:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web programmer -- NaconKantari e| t|| c| m 04:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Copyvio? OR? Either way, WP:NOT a guidance counselor. No edit history, nothing links to it, seems like a quick cut-n-paste job. High probability of copyvio rules out even a merge, so delete Turnstep 05:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 19:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I live in the Twin Cities, but haven't heard of them having "three boroughs", the best of them being Brooklyn Park. Actually I haven't heard of the Twin Cities having boroughs at all, but maybe that's because I spend too much time on Wikipedia. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 20:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band vanity. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2006-01-27 22:15 Z)
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article provides little context, is made up almost entirely of sentence fragments, and is very difficult to understand. Also it sites no refrences, and the info in the article doesn't seem right. I wouldn't be surprised if it was made up. Tobyk777 05:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Independent candidate who won less than 3 percent of the vote in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke electoral district. No assertion of notability besides being a candidate. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Sorry about deleting the deletion comment, I was filling the followup while the comment was added. Although he did not win that many votes, his performance greatly affected the number of votes that Don Linsay recieved, and thus had an impact on the final count. Most of this is what he said at all-candidates debates, I am currently filling in details about sources of the information
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable holiday, if not a hoax. No indication of its existence on Google. Wikipedia is NOT for something you made up in school one day. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as per CSD G1. Mushroom 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Just a bit of housekeeping. This page was a redirect to article David George Kendall, which was itself deleted for copyvio. Lockley 05:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
delete. this person's bio does not seem encyclopedic enough to warrant a page Mayumashu 05:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently they got an invite to come here and announce their new site.-- Perfecto 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Hybrid sport invented by some guy, unreferenced. Neglected article created by 67.171.36.202 ( talk · contribs). Not sure if this is notable. Weak Google hits (175 unomitted). krolf.dk hangs my browser. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 06:12 Z
The result of the debate was delete. This might be a valid topic, but the article as it stands does not cite a single credible source and only makes speculative claims. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Page is a pointless rant on a confused topic. We already have a transhumanism article AND a human evolution article. This has to go. Graft 16:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It was deleted in April as too new. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfectcompetition.net. But the game has not grown: it's forum shows 2,778 members; 673 topics; 2,710 messages. Not notable.
The result of the debate was delete per failure to assert notability. — Cleared as filed. 04:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A pointless page. The band is neither well known, nor well documented. The page consists of one line of the band advertising themselfs as two genres that dont exist. Doesnt meet Wikipedia's Policy for bands to be given articles, nor do they have any information on the band. Possibly Advertising. Leyasu 07:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a webforum claiming 5000 members. However, website is unreachable -- no DNS entries for www.cuus.cn, cuus.cn, etc. (for me at least). No Google hits for Chinese Undergraduate at the United States. Delete as unverifiable. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 07:33 Z
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 20:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Flash animation website; no assertion or evidence of notability. Traffic Rank for kollaps.ru: 3,187,900. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 07:43 Z
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like a (blatant?) advertisement for "OutSec" (www.outsec.co.uk). Article's creator and only editor was User:Richard Phillips, who signs his name at the bottom and gives his title as (surprise!) Operations Director, OutSec Limited. The article concept on its own does not seem like it could be expanded/changed to have its own (non-advert) article, thus, delete.-- P e ruvianLlama( spit) 07:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article was speedily deleted, closing AfD. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. Notability tag ha dbeen applied and ignored. Comes across as possible advertising. Normally would leave open for expansion, but after ignoring of the notablity tag (mostly due to non-notablity) the article should be deleted. Leyasu 07:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Even ignoring the POV title, this list is a hopeless stub. There are only 5 Communist states in the world right now, and the likelihood that The Revolution will suddenly erupt and create a hundred more is rather slim. There is no point in having a separate article for a list with only 5 entries and little or no chances of gaining any additional ones in the near future. Besides, it's redundant with material already present at Communist state. Delete. Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Userfied since it was created by the subject. Left a note about WP:AUTO on user page. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity, nothing but an advertisment. Lightdarkness 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 06:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
nn criminal Hirudo 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable car dealership owner. No claim to notability in article. Search gets about 2800 hitts. [16] Mikeblas 08:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable name for burping after fellatio. I couldn't verify it through casual Google search and didn't want to click on any search results. Delete; if verified would still be better to merge it. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 08:09 Z
- This is not slang. If I wrote an article called blow job, this is slang for fellatio. There is no proper term for a sperm burp. If you know of a proper term for sperm burp, please share it, and I will gladly rewrite. - In defense of neologism, I would point out there are lots of subjects and terms on Wikipedia that fall under this category. At what point do we judge the newness of a term to no longer be new? - Personal opinions about the character and suitability are not descriminating factors in deletion. There are many articles on Wikipedia that could be offensive to people. - I did consider merging this article into burp, but I felt it should be kept seperate because of its sexual nature.
My vote is *Keep. DigitalPimpette 6:51 pm 1.25.2006
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a code repository. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 08:17 Z
Note: I bundled SdlBasic:sample:colors at this point. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 11:03 Z
Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SdlBasic. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 11:04 Z
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable vanity biography of a bipedal mammal. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 08:20 Z
To clarify, I believe this is an article about a real person, and am nominating to delete it as a non-notable biography; I don't think it is complete bollocks. The "bipedal mammal" statement is cute but informationless vanity. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-27 22:26 Z
The result of the debate was delete, other topics will have to be AfD'd separately. Babajobu 21:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pseudoscientific supposed-subbranch of cosmology. The Integral Cosmologists are "clairvoyant, visionary, channeller", etc. Scant Google hits for "integral cosmology". I have some background in Astrophysics, and have never heard of this. This article was previously created by the same user and deleted, but this is apparently not a repost according to MarkGallagher. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 08:24 Z
The result of the debate was 'delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable DJ. About 500 hits [20]. I can't seem to verify the "most popular DJ in Russia" claim. Mikeblas 08:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unverifiable advertisng vanity Dakota ~ ε 08:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. No googles, unverifiable, advertising, vanity.-- Dakota ~ ε 08:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD G1 (nonsense). Mushroom 08:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Every single edit in this page is total nonsense with no encyclopaedic content. Ben W Bell 08:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wiki. No Alexa rank or google rank for website. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 08:40 Z
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Babajobu 07:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Band member. But worthy of article of his own? Vanity+non-notable imho. Oscarthecat 08:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Senior artist at a studio, but notable? Oscarthecat 08:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web game -- Longhair 08:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Result : Speedy Deletion (non-notable)
Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Not notable. -- Longhair 08:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fan fiction. No Google hits. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 09:07 Z
The result of the debate was no consensus. I haven't counted the "votes", so I don't know what a strict numerical result would be, but my gut says "don't delete". fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about a particular pub crawl. The author has designated about a third of it as "trivia" but in the context of an encyclopedia, I think that is rather low. Not verifiable from mainstream published sources. Delete. Bhoeble 09:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable unverifiable slang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this isn't suitable for a dictionary anyway. Created by Face (slang) ( talk · contribs) (!). Wikipedia is not for thigns created in one school day. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 09:23 Z
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Supposedly a Scandinavian god that steals babies and goats. Unverifiable, possible hoax. (This doesn't seem to bear any relation to the Egyptian god Kuk.) Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 09:29 Z
The result of the debate was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jural Society. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Fictional place in a game with no information and no claim to notability or encyclopedic value. No content worth merging into the main game article, and unlikely choice for a redirect. Night Gyr 09:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm actually going to list a bunch of Orbitercruft here... someone's gone to the trouble of making an article for every ship and place in the game, even the ones that exist in real life, and those for which there's really nothing encyclopedia-worthy to be said beyond inclusion in a list in the main article. We can't have articles for every fictional thing, so I'm going to be listing most of
Category:Orbiter_(sim) and redirecting them all to a single main entry for orbiter stuff.
Night Gyr 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web portal. No Alexa traffic rank. No Google rank. I think it just started. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 09:45 Z
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 05:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Obvious hoax. Searches cannot verify any aspect of this article. Ncsaint 17:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. — Cleared as filed. 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Lots and lots of articles about every fictional place or thing in the game Orbiter (sim). I've listed a dozen or so here:
There's a bunch more that need to be tagged and linked here in Category:Orbiter (sim), nearly every article in there, as well as several associated templates and a few dozen associated images. Someone's put a lot of work into something that's thoroughly unencyclopedic and has no potential to be so. Wikipedia is not paper, but it's not gamefaqs.com. Night Gyr 10:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Here's the second set:
A handful of these have extensive content, but they're still not encyclopedia worthy. I tagged three as speedy (those aren't here) because they were only external links, but the two API articles are just a couple of sentences each. It's kind of sad to see that someone put so much work into these, but this info just belongs in the manual or on a site specific to the game. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Night Gyr 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable BASIC implementation. Not sure why it even needs to be a new language: SDL is a library, not a language feature. Few sourceforge downloads, weak forum presence, etc. Wikipedia article advocates creating subpages with code examples (a whole section titled "Code Download (Hosted on Wikipedia)"); see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SdlBasic:code:painting. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-25 11:00 Z
The result of the debate was speedy keep. — FireFox • T • 17:08, 25 January 2006
Not a proper celebrity, started by Willy on Wheels sockpuppet, obscene article Gaveldoom 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was article was speedily deleted, closing AfD. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
NN band, can't find anything on all music, page was created by user:Crippletrev, who seems to be lead vocalist and guitarist. smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 11:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. Sumple 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unverifiability, POV, racist overtones; elaboration below Sumple 12:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Member of notable band. But warranting own article, while article is as sketchy as this? Suggest a merge with Orbital (band) -- Oscarthecat 12:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. -- Durin 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete nn band with only one EP. Nothing links to it. -- Bruce1ee 12:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 23:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be of pretty limited notability. Not quite speediable, but I would still suggest delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Shanel 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Person is utterly nonnotable. Has a job, for which he apparently has done nothing noteworthy. Wrote some amateur reviews for a TV show. After the notability tag was on article for a while and a discussion about it was attempted on the talk page, still nothing. Someone who wrote most of this article created the vanity article Kurt Beyer Films, which was a recreation of the Kurt beyer films article that was deleted as vanity a while back, I believe the newer one was speedied. This just looks like vanity, and the major contributor says he's a friend of the guy... Perhaps if it's up for deletion somebody can try to come up with real justification for keeping it instead of removing the notability tag as "vandalism". If not, then it should be deleted. DreamGuy 13:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as redundant subpage. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Person who created this article used it like sandbox for Amberlife article ManiacK 14:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Shanel 05:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above comments were from me Pipeface84 02:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. It broke my heart, but User:Rebelguys2's argument, combined with weight of numbers, just about does it. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Some assertion of notability, but not enough. Esprit15d 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Original research. Article has no verifiable content. It survived VfD in October 2004, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxenfez (old). Vote was: one delete, one unexplained "keep," and one "keep" on the grounds that "regardless of its name, other users have reported having heard of this game, albeit perhaps in a different form." However, Wikipedia users do not qualify as verifiable sources. No improvements in article since October 2004; no edits at all other than vandalism ("Goose is gay" and "Goose is twelve") and categorization. No response to my request for citations a week ago. Hundreds of Google hits, but all apparently copies of the Wikipedia article. Are we serious about verifiability? If so, this article should go. An article on Oxenfez with verifiable source citations can, of course, be re-created at any time without prejudice. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable annual school 10 mile race.delete Melaen 14:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete - non-ntable. -- RHaworth 16:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
By its own content, this subject is non-notable. Possibly a practical joke -- M @ r ē ino 15:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Webcomic loosely based on Captain N. Doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. Optichan 15:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable group with limited geographical scope. *drew 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
possilbe hoax: see the talk page. Melaen 15:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. Or non-notable personal essay. Either way, needs deleting. -- maru (talk) Contribs 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect. Rob 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article's title is spelt incorrectly, and a fuller article, correctly entitled, already exists here. The author was no doubt confused by Alleyn's School which is part of the same foundation. Neil Woodward 18:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. -- D e ath phoenix 13:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not encylopaedic. It says itself that it 'is not be regarded as an article in it self, rather as an extension to several existing biographical articles'. (sic), and that it's 'important to note that the following event is neither intended not should it be viewed as a factual statement'. If this belongs anywhere, it would be wikibooks, not here, but I'm just going to suggest delete. It is indeed not encyclopaedic, may impinge on WP:NOR, and is ass ugly. Also note Events with the Sahaba 1, which is more of the same. Proto t c 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was a cast-iron keep. Particularly persuasive is the nominator changing his mind (kids! Remember that trick!). fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
unsubstantiated stub. Only one self referencing citation offered. Blueboar 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
see references:
I think the article should be rewritten and renamed to Maestri comacini or Magistri comacini. -- Melaen 16:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article. Possible hoax/original research Hurricane111 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It may well be a 'delightful practice', but it's unreferenced, fails WP:V, has virtually no google hits of relevance, and has been created by the same 'zany' hoaxster who created Sperm Burp (see the AfD for that on this page also). Not encyclopaedic, burn it with fire. Delete. Proto t c 15:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was please use speedy tags for non-controversial deletes. -- RHaworth 16:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dupli of its main page. Stifle 15:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A South Welsh sparkling wine with a strong aroma of hoax. No evidence for its existence apart from Wiki mirrors Flapdragon 15:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparent Vanity. No demonstration of actual notability, and name only gets 405 hits on google. Article includes bizarre details such as his banter with a particular fan. -- DDG 15:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a how-to guide describing a pre- GCSE level science experiment that doesn't even work! It has been tagged for cleanup since July (and hasn't received much attention). Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. If the experiment worked then I think it would fit well in a science textbook (which AIUI is Wikibooks' raison d'être) and I'd be proposing a transwiki to there, but as it is I don't see the point. Thryduulf 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge with playground. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. - Liberatore( T) 16:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician, head of non-notable label. Maz Lunden is not on Allmusic, his label does not appear to exist yet (there is a label by the same name, but not his), there is no evidence of his music being released on any major label or having charted. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 16:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Zhen Luo. I'm not deleting the article before redirect because there might be something useful in the article history to merge; though I didn't find anything, someone else might. -- D e ath phoenix 13:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
At the risk of looking like someone who didn't do his homework -- I wrote Zhen Luo after this article already existed, and they refer to the same person. Why I think this article should be deleted (rather than merged) is because it contains inaccurate information, being overly based on fiction rather than historical accounts; further, there is not a single historical account that I see that refers to her as Zhen Ji -- there were many other ways that she's referred to other than Zhen Luo, but there was none that used this particular title. It was also poorly linked from other articles (a major reason why I missed in the first place when I wrote the "competing" article). I would not be completely opposed to a merge, but I don't think there's much, if anything, to be saved from this article. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep I did a google search and there is a lot of information on it. Perhaps a verify tag can be put on the article. I think that Zhen Lou Luo [not mispelled in the actual google search, just here] should be nominated for deletion or a redirect to this article because there are no relevant hits on it besides the existing wiki article--
Adam
(
talk) 17:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. I'll take User:Pak21's apparently expert opinion on this one. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Page created by the same editor as Madonna Mark Two (current afd), Not notable, google search for "jonathan smith + companyname" gives ~300 results — This user has left wikipedia 16:50 2006-01-25
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like a spamvertisement that's slipped through the crack for 8 months. Low-traffic web-site, alexa ranking of 1,749,518. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 17:00, Jan. 25, 2006
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Link spam/editorial. Needs to be deleted and redirected somewhere. Nothing to merge, really. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 17:05, Jan. 25, 2006
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article does not meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. Zsinj 17:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Wknight94 as nn-band, but it claims the band has a number of albums. Speedy tag was removed by User:Physchim62 but it seems to be a hoax. No Google hits for the band or any of its members and its MySpace page was created on January 16, the same day as the article. howch e ng { chat} 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be a notable brand [51]. NicM 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable surfshop - we ought to be allowed to speedy these. -- RHaworth 17:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Jdcooper as nn-bio but it claims he's an actor. IMDB confirms it but he only has one movie credit, thus failing WP:BIO. howch e ng { chat} 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete: copyvio -- Durin 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a copy and paste from a linked-to .pdf of original research. Zsinj 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism with few (around 230) Google hits, few of which are unique. Furthermore this is a well-known concept and is surely covered better elsewhere. Punkmorten 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Delete Fightindaman 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. DS 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not worthy of an article- nn Adam ( talk) 17:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism and inside joke -- M @ r ē ino 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Page advertising website by author who has had personal vanity page deleted from Wikipedia three times. No evidence of notability. Uucp 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh boy, a Britney Spears AfD. This claims to be an upcoming album but I can't find any verification of that... [52] and not on AMG. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- W.marsh 18:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. I'm going to ignore the nastiness going on lower down here (ooh, didn't that sound interesting?) fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, unencyclopedic. Nothing in this article establishes why she needs one. Delete Ardenn 18:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. The argument for keeping, both here and on the talk page, the references list, and the raw numbers (for all I know) indicate that this is not an article for laying down and avoiding. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A very nice site, but notability is nonexistant and fails WP:WEB on all three counts. Sorry, WP:NOT a repository of links. Delete. RasputinAXP talk contribs 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense (or vanity page)... external link has 248 page views (one of which are mine). This could even be speedied. Also, article content is a copy of webpage content. Kareeser| Talk! 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
NN, fancruft. The associated Bright Shield Rune and Black Sword Rune should also be deleted. (Also Rune of Change and Blue Moon Rune. All created by User:Blue minstrel on Jan 21.) F a ng Aili 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
fictiona character . delete no reference found and no context provided. Melaen 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
David Cohen thinks Wikipedia is a great place to announce his new project. Sorry, David, I have to ask you to come back when you're verifiable. -- Perfecto 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
fans say that this character will appear in a future episode of Sonic X. wikipedia is not a cristal ball. delete. Melaen 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreleased musical; unverifiable [55]; Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. - Liberatore( T) 19:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Józef Makary Potocki. -- D e ath phoenix 14:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet
notibility guidelines for deceased people. Are "noble" people inherently notable? I am open to ideas. Delete unless someone has an objection. I like the merge and redirect idea per Uppland. (
126 Google hits)
F
a
ng Aili 19:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. -- D e ath phoenix 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
original research I suppose delete. Melaen 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I would have tagged this db-nonsense, but am unsure if this is the correct course of action. Zsinj 19:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
hoax, see www.museumofhoaxes.com Melaen 19:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, keep. Punkmorten 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
NN internet only radio station, 140 Ghits MNewnham 19:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia isn't the place to just paste your CV. Completely unsuitable for WP, as it stands. Oscarthecat 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant vanity/advert Oscarthecat 19:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. The term is a neologism coined by the article's original author. Googling for the term reveals that it is used almost exclusively by said author, usually as a penname or in reference to himself. Even if the term were widespread, there's not much to say about it except that it means 'biodivisity preservationist'. The article is linked to from a list of environmental topics, but nothing else. Deh 20:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the club of local party members at a university. I'd tag it nn-club, as happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hull Universtiy Labour Club, but there's been a little bit of work on a history section for this one, so I'm bringing it up here. Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable author. I searched Amazon and Google and couldn't find any listing for the book or the author. Probably a vanity page for a self-published author. Delete Atrian 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - this is nonsense Fikus 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Clear advertising Mariano( t/ c) 20:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the club of local party members at a university. I had tagged it nn-club, per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hull Universtiy Labour Club, but an admin declared it wasn't a speedy candidate, so I am listing it here. Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 20:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Oxford have five MPs listed, Hull have four and one former listed. Oxford and Cambridge are up for deletion, Hull's is being reviewed. As the creator of the Hull entry, I'm happy as long as we all go or we all stay. M20tgd
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Another user has already noted the lack of IMDB and Google results; to this I can add that it is not linked from the biographies of the stars and director (unusual for a film that was said to be "probably one of the top 5 greatest films ever made"). A game with this title exists, but there's no point in keeping this fraud around until the proper article is written. — Charles P._ (Mirv) 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
These are all possible hoax pages made by the same user, who has also been adding fake Italian "birth names" to random articles. He does not cite any sources and Google turns up nothing. Ashibaka tock 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
DO NOT DELETE, this article is 100 percent true, if you cannot find the Sicilian History and culture book, Look at the book "Sicilian Twilight," which is available in America.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as patent nonsense. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 21:30, Jan. 25, 2006
Non-notable neologism, original research, almost patently absurd. Cyde Weys 20:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is Upper Midwestern North American dialectical speech. Relatively unknown outside of the US.
The result of the debate was Speedy. -- Shanel 22:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems unverifiable, I couldn't even find any information online supporting this person's existence. Most likely a hoax (as the tone of the article text gives away). Cyde Weys 21:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Violates
WP:VAIN and might have had a previous AfD
[62] with result delete.
Awolf002 21:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Shanel 06:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This was speedied as an 'nn club'. But it is certainly not a speedy - I've undeleted and sending here for completeness. University political societies are the breeding grounds for British politicians, and often mentioned in their bios. It is not just that famous people attended these, but that their political affliliations and often allegiences were formed in these places. They are at least as notable as schools and minor bands (which we keep). Hull itself boasts the current UK deputy Prime Minister, a deputy leader of the labour party (and previous Chancellor of the Exchequer) plus three other MP's (and that is just from the article). If that is not an assertion of notability what is?-- Doc ask? 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable sexual slang neologism. Does not seem to be a widespread term. Cyde Weys 21:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, could barely verify on Google, "Tim O'Connor" skater gets 900 hits. Does not meet WP:BIO threshhold. Cyde Weys 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article essentially consists of self-promotion. The "Geek Group" has not done anything particularly noteworthy, and the article strikes me as largely non-encyclopedic. Turboman 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable porn "entrepreneur". Reeks of porncruft. Cyde Weys 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 08:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album; only 795 Google hits (and most of those are the lyrics to "Molly Malone". OntarioQuizzer 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 09:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Claims notability, but analyzing the detailed autobiography brings up nothing wiki-worthy MNewnham 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Joann e B 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Something Wikipedia is not, namely a memorial/list of indiscriminate information. While I agree that it's sad that these people died, I don't think we need an article listing each and every one of them. FCYTravis 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A supposedly toxic plant from British Columbia. I can't find any reference whatsoever to it online, including my university library, and a message on the author's page asking for references brought me only a (polite) "it's a real plant!" message on my user page. This AfD applies also to the redirect Vugi. Delete. bikeable (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was a bit tricky, but I'll try closing this now. (Closing the first AFD debate was much easier, when there was a clear keep consensus.) On raw vote count there is not a real consensus for outright deletion, and the main objection has been that Wikipedia is not a memorial. I believe that the objection is to the list of names in the article. However, the article has a lead section which describes the recovery of bodies and treatment of the wounded, material which is not really covered by the "memorial" argument. I will therefore call this a merge of the lead section only to the "casualties" section of 7 July 2005 London bombings, and redirect there. The list of names will be dropped, but I'll add the BBC News link to the main article as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a memorial. Lists of victims are unencyclopedic and not generally individually notable, as per the precedant of Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York (now on WP:DRV). The opening paragraphs should be merged into 7 July 2005 London bombings. The list of victims should be deleted. It is very sad that they died, and highly reprehensible that such an attack was made, but Wikipedia is not the proper place to memorialize them. DES (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives. does say that. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisment for a chiropractor. WP:NOT a propaganda machine. -- Aurochs ( Talk | Block)
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unremarkable subject, looking for advertisement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wencer ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, unencyclopedic and non-notable. From the previous db-reason:
This is true. I got 43 hits, but that doesn't change anything. The first result - a blog entry written by the article's creator - essentially confirms that this is something he made up. -- Aurochs ( Talk | Block)
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Parodist and accordionist whose notability assertion is appearance on syndicated radio show ( Dr. Demento Show). Not verifiable. Hurricane111 22:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete unremarkable subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wencer ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
insignificant thus far. no accomplishments of merit Kingturtle 22:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Page reads like an advertisement for the band. Bad ideas 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a vanity page for a band "from an undisclosed country", delete as such. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 22:51, Jan. 25, 2006
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
None of this film studio's projects are listed on IMDB. This is a vanity article, written by one of the founders of this outfit. eae 08:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
What I had typed here first (I erased my pervious entry on this page) was a reason why this page shouldn't be deleted. I don't really care though. Just delete it if you want. I mean, it's pretty relevant, if these guys get any bigger then they'll be as important to Alvin as Nolan Ryan once was (he moved apparently). Also, just because they're not listed on IMDB doesn't mean they're not important or anything, just go watch Student Film: The Movie on video.google.com and you'll see.
OtakupunkX 14:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
When these guys (which includes OtakupunkX, who founded the studio and created the article) get any bigger, someone else will notice and write an article. As it stands, there is nothing about S3 Films that warrants a Wikipedia article. Also, IMDB is considered the basic way of checking whether a film is notable. eae 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
So, if somebody else wrote the article and something by S3 Films popped up on IMDB, would it be considered notable then? There are a lot of movies that aren't on IMDB, like, say, anything by X-Strike Studios. IMDB mainly just shows movies that got a commercial release somewhere. Nothing by S3 Films has gotten a commercial release because they release everything for free online via video.google.com, Google's video hosting service. OtakupunkX 15:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
When someone unaffiliated with the studio writes an article, that article will be notable by definition. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability. I believe the Definition section is relevant to the S3 Films article. eae 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
What's the difference whether someone affiliated with the studio or not writes the article? Chances are someone in the studio will have a hand in the article anyway to make sure the information's not totally bogus. OtakupunkX 14:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The difference is that articles written by the subject of that article himself do not conform to Wikipedia guidelines about notability or neutral point of view. eae 19:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Child pornography search terms. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result of the debate was speedy - this and its dup were copyvios. -- RHaworth 09:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Duplicate article ( Embassy Suites Lubbock Hotel), NPOV, among other things. Дрakюлa Talk 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (could be recreated if good conent stablishing notability is written). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason why the page should be deleted the quality is pitiful, plus the article should exist in the first place (local music band) Rdavout 23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy. Not worth a redirect especially since dest is also a copyvio. -- RHaworth 10:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Already exists as Kendall Hotel, NPOV, & spam, among others. Дрakюлa Talk 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Redirect to existing article. exolon 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete LBMixPro <Sp e ak|on|it!> 06:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It is perfectly verifiable, check any of the references given, and you will see full evidence. The person is well-noted, and is worthy of note in Wikipedia. Just because some people are unaware of notable Britons, does not mean they are not notable. Ukpcdaz 02:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Can you please put your username after comments, please Ukpcdaz 02:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Seaturtle.org will tell anyone that looks that Darren Grover is a registered sea turtle volunteer. The awards site does give historic winners, should you care to look. Additionally, a simple search on google will clear this matter further, since it was covered by national press. Moreover, My running a website for someone does not make me that person - otherwise, as a freelance web designer - I would be a LOT of people. Ukpcdaz 02:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Why do you wish so hard to remove a single page from the internet that causes you no harm? The page gives truthful statements about a noteable person, I don't see what is wrong with that. If everytime someone puts a new article on wikipedia, that a few people haven't heard of, so they try to delete it, there is NO point in wikipedia as it will be filled with only what a few people want/know, which will mean it will expand, but only in one direction. Ukpcdaz 02:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It makes the article no less true. Whilst you were on the site, did you care to note how many visitors it has had today? Last time I saw, it was 1007. 1007 visitors in one day, to a site of someone who is non-notable? Ukpcdaz 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Moreover, it does not say you can contact Darren Grover at that address. Ukpcdaz 03:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC) I can pass messages onto Darren Grover, that is all. reply
Who has lied? Is it not feasible that someone can know Darren but not everyone else that might have heard of him? I doubt any celebrity can recall by name everyone that knows them, and nor could their fans recall all other fans. Nobody has lied, except you, to yourself - you can't admit that as you don't know of someone, they might be important. Ukpcdaz 03:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Additionally, Helzagood said she knew Darren, that does not imply friendship, get your facts right, before ATTACKING other users. reply
I am far from angry, I am merely insulted by your frightful rudeness. Helza, is a girls name, that is how I know it is a female, think before you speak. Ukpcdaz 03:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Google is an American invention, do you genuinly expect to to encompass everything, including everything non-american? Good riddance, my-boy, people such as yourselves should not be made welcome on here, nor in society as a whole. Makemi, that is just one of Darren's many notable achievements. Ukpcdaz 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article fails to show notability. ThreeAnswers 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Complete contents of this page: "The 'crisis in the church' is the general name given to the period of upheaval and profound changes that occurred in the Catholic Church since the second vatican council." While possibly true, this is not verifiable as the only crisis in the Catholic church, nor is.... well, you get the idea. There's possible content here but I think it would belong in Second Vatican Council --23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Lockley
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
unencyclopedic, borders on vanity - could easily be accomplished by a category if necessary – ugen64 23:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete (vote is 6 to delete, 6 to keep, and one for BJAODN among established contributers). BD2412 T 17:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Regrettably I am nominating this for AfD, though I do find it to be hilarious. If this does end up getting deleted be sure to BJAODN it, okay? Cyde Weys 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unverifiable article about supposed Bentonville band - Google searches for any of the band members in conjunction with the band's name gives either irrelevant or very few hits. "Major Taylor" +allies, "Deepak Nanda" +allies, "Vignesh Rajan" +allies, Mercutio+allies+demo, "Spartacus: The Fall of 2071" + allies. A total of 492 hits on their page on purevolume, which I expect anyone with a decent amount of search engine hits could get up, and as purevolume is a site where people publish their own music, coverage there is hardly proof of external interest. Sam Vimes 23:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply