< January 27 | January 29 > |
---|
The result of the debate was KEEP.-- God of War 19:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability at all. Are we going to list every street in America? I actually found this page because it was put on a forum as an example of how wikipedia expansion will never stop. Enough said. God of War 23:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Hanson (band). fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article info identical to Hanson (band) article. Talked with Xanadu (the only person to edit it within the last 2 months) and he is ok if it is deleted or a redirect is put into place. PS2pcGAMER ( talk) 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:MUSIC, although I'm aware there may be cultural bias here. Always open to new information. Note that there are a few other articles hanging off this one. brenneman (t) (c) 00:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 12:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
It doesn't seem that there needs to be an entire article just for this extremely specific subject. No other airlines have it, and it seems to go against WP:NOT. Dbinder 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not enough notability as a saint for an entire article. Either deserves a space in another article, or should not be mentioned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Last Avenue ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm AFDing this mainly because I'm sure someone will speedy it as patent nonsense if I don't. It gets quite a few google hits [2] so it does appear to be a meaningful concept. Kappa 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A "magical organization" founded by two artists and two musicians, with no assertion or evidence of notability/importance. Neglected article created by 207.244.146.201 ( talk · contribs). Unverifiable: no Google hits for "Clear Infinite Universe". Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-28 00:37 Z
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 12:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
slang, altought mentioned(?) in one book. delete. Melaen 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge into Zanzibar and editorialise. First up, the nomination was just a vote, not a nomination at all. Secondly, that vote was one for merging. Now, AfD is not the place to go if you want an article to be merged. You can do that yourself. Maybe we should have a Wikipedia:Request for merge page for those who want a merge but don't know how? But we've already got those purdy tags ... fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge into Zanzibar as there isn't enough information even on the linked site to warrant an entire article. Iamvered 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Although the cause may be good, this page is just an advertisement for a non-notable (Alexa rank 718,815) web site. It should be deleted until they have some achievements under their belt. Kevin 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep the rewrite. D e ath phoenix 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
If I understood correctly tihis is a music/multimedia project done with a capable computer and access to a CD-writer. non notable.delete.
Melaen 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
online RPG in a in an extremely limited beta phase. delete. Melaen 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web forum; neglected article created by 213.40.131.65 ( talk · contribs). Traffic Rank for designermakers.org.uk: 2,706,659. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A History of Designer Makers. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-28 00:51 Z
The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable actor, delete. Melaen 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as article on vanity subject. SYCTHOS talk 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about Star Wars spoof made by two people, which has not yet been released. No relevant Google hits. - squibix 00:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem notable, a Google search reveals a lot of general stuff but not much in particular to this "movement". The website is ranked an astonishingly low 626,801 on Alexa and seems mainly to be a vehicle for making money off of CafePress sales. In other words, this whole site is just a non-notable commercial enterprise and this encyclopedia article seems to exist solely to assist those commercial endeavours. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Pure dicdef, and Wiktionary already has an article [4]. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-28 01:05 Z
The result of the debate was Speedy. -- Shanel 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
DON'T DELETE: While the diet described may sound ridiculous to some, it is of interest to those who want to know more about the different diets that exist, and the guidelines for each. As a nutritionist, I found this article fascinating, not because I agree with the guidelines put forth in the Primal Diet, but of rhte diet's unique approach to health and human history. The article could be re-written to make it easier for readers to understand.
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable diet fad. "Primal Diet" only gets 6,000 search results on Google, and the creator is similarly doomed to obscurity with only 16,000 hits. If this article is deleted (which I hope it is), I propose this article be re-made with the topic being what "cavemen" ate, not some silly diet. Cyde Weys 01:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Is the number of hits the determining factor we'd like to set for entries? Is a fad a bad thing? I sought out information on this topic and found this entry. The excuses given to pull this post seem unbeleivable, and certainly not reasons the Wikipedia community wants to give credence to.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism with zero Google hits and no sources cited in the article. Basically a "theory" saying 'a lot of people in a room at once will talk loudly'. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable idiom, google returns zero hits. Weregerbil 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Franz piombino. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was keep. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as fancruft. SYCTHOS talk 01:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect. SYCTHOS talk 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as fancruft. I can't seem to find a main article.
SYCTHOS
talk 01:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. D e ath phoenix 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Lack of notability. Google search turned up only 30 pages or so, with Wikipedia ranked second. Bcasterline 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band containing non-notable members. One album was released but the band isn't around anymore, there's a link to a myspace page for a different band containing one of the former members. No articles link to this article, except a category and a disambig. goatasaur 02:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Ifnord 14:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable- not worthy of inclusion
*merge with
Cornell University if that article exists.
Jcuk 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Neologism, no relevant Google results, made up in school one day. Brendan 02:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete messy article about a generic learning institute. Mind matrix 17:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps I was somewhat negligent in the summary I provided, though it appears a few users noticed anyway. This article is about a "school" within Kalinga Institute for Industrial Training. This Institute is not a higher-level education provider, and does not confer degrees to its graduates, but rather is a typical technical institute. See listing of programs offered at KIIT Moreover, the article is inappropriately titled. As far as I see, these are the options:
As stated in my summary, I believe the latter option makes the most sense. Mind matrix 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. -- maru (talk) contribs 03:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Attack page. I have recived an email from someone who claims to be the target of the attack asking for it to be removed. << These are lies Geni 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The so called "attack" is not fake and is truth. He is enjoying it.
You did not receive an email from him, cuz he is posting in forums that he enjoys it.
[16 Minutes Ago 03:09 AM] Couch: I find it very hilarious
"O RLY, YA RLY, NO WAI!" = "Oh really? Quite really. I dare say no!" says:
I find it very hilarious
Well that isn't really fair now is it...Besides Couch++ is a real programming language! Just buy his book from Amazon.com!
The result of the debate was speedy delete, already on Wiktionary. Mushroom 13:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is a dictdif that already has an entry on Wiktionary. It is unlikely that this subject could be expanded to an encyclopedia article. James084 03:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't find anything in wp:csd that fits, but there should be. Original research, vanity, advertising, take your pick. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Is wikipedia a repository for passing on human knowledge? surely something which is primarily written to help us communicate within our many languages is of use. -- Blackest knight 04:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
[12] Is the basis for this article. however I have simplified it to the essentials- however would it be better placed within this article Windows_XP_CustomizationIf so I will gladly move it.
Delete it please the essential idea's in it are better suited elsewhere thanks for looking at it. it has been interesting. -- Blackest knight 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to ptosis. Babajobu 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This page already has been tagged as Move to Wiktionary but it already has an entry on Wiktionary. James084 03:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Redirect seems like a good idea. I am going to tag the article to redirect as suggested. Can we please close this AFD? James084 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Userfied to User:Taxman/Biodiesel outline. -- Cyde Weys 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not an article; it is an outline. There is already an article for Biodiesel. What is the purpose of this page? James084 03:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as short article with little or no context (cat. A1). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Single-entry disambig page with no blue links; only inbound link is from a page that is itself a stub. Someone meant wellz, I guess. Daniel Case 03:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:NUM says we should list numbers up to 200. I see no compelling reason to keep a nearly empty article on what appears to be a relatively uninteresting number. I would have speedily deleted this, but I'm not sure it fits into any of the listed criteria. Fropuff 04:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep. Notable number. Important for keeping 592 and 594 from bumping into each other. Good rewrite by Ruby saves the article. Wikipedia is not paper, so why delete a perfectly good article? Herostratus 08:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. SYCTHOS talk 20:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Google searches show this to be a very likely hoax.
1
2
3
Vslashg 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
How do you determine what is notable? FrankGianni 05:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Extremely minor figure in JKF assassination (LBJ's driver that day), if article is true (I'm not sure ... was LBJ in Dallas at the time of the assassination, as this seems to suggest? I somehow recall that he flew there that night to pick up JFK's body). Doesn't seem notable. Daniel Case 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Coffee 05:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Per article, a word made up by the guy who wrote the article. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. I don't think this word could ever be verified. -- W.marsh 04:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete "Mizta-Nui" does not exist, not even in the fictional world of Bionicle. In short, it's a hoax. Drakhan 04:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Usual song and dance... article about a webcomic, doesn't assert meeting WP:WEB, seems to be created by someone closely connected to the webcomic, Wikipieda is not self promotion. -- W.marsh 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, patent nonsense. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete This non-notable nonsense has been posted again. See the first AfD. Vslashg 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The story here is the same as with Inspiration for handhelds which is on its way to get deleted as spam/nn. Created by the same user who works at the producers marketing office. Producers website has alexa rank of about 65,000.
The result of the debate was delete. Even the article screams its non-notability. Johnleemk | Talk 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about non-notable social worker. I think the assertion of notability is weak enough to support a speedy delete, but I also think it's close enough to the line not to speedy it unilaterally. — Cleared as filed. 05:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as attack and nonsense. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Article is largely nonsense VooDooChild 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since December 28. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 ( talk/ contribs) 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Author, book or ISBN pulls no Amazon or Google result. No context either. -- Perfecto 05:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
ISBN number is valid, book is in production. -- Gravical 06:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, it is written, the book is being manufacturered -- are you telling me that it can only be posted if it is listed on amazon.com? -- Gravical 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay -- so when it is ready for sale, then it can be listed? That is fair enough, except that someone may just as easily flag and call it "self-promotion" -- Gravical 06:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since January 14. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 ( talk/ contribs) 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted Attack page/nonsense (and consensus here) Sherool (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:BALLS. Vslashg 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate collection of data, advertising, unencyclopedic. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Note that the author of the articles has moved List of fonts by Michael Hagemann to Michael Hagemann, and Font Mesa to FontMesa, and stripped off the AfD tags. I have restored them and admonished. User:Zoe| (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. SYCTHOS talk 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Spelled incorrectly, also title is incorrect tiZom (the man) 06:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
1 album with only three sales. Sorry, guys, come back when you're more notable. ... Scott 5114 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete for the third time. -- RHaworth 08:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Made up/obscure religion. I would have speedied but the author and "another person" (meatpuppet?) attested to the article's veracity on the talk page. Seems very silly. Broken S 06:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. — Cleared as filed. 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Centralized repository for team nicknames, which would be better off in the articles for each team. Plus, has American football POV even as it claims to serve Canadian football (there are no references to Canadian football in the article at time of nomination). kelvSYC 06:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Punkmorten 11:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I created this category, but then realized there was already a category called "school accreditors" that better suits the group. Arbustoo 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pro-bulimia "community"/forum, take your pick. We don't need this nonsense on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 06:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Ad-copy for non-notable website (ranks 61K on Alexa). Cyde Weys 06:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect; too inconsequential to merge, although anyone who disagrees is free to merge it anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable
Kerowyn 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete Non-notable
Kerowyn 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep, so please don't cite it to support or oppose a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete Non-notable
Kerowyn 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing an unfinished nomination (I am not the nominator). Personally, I'd see this as a candidate for merger with Empire Earth. If kept, it will need recapitalising. Grutness... wha? 07:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Arguments for delete outweigh 2 keep votes that didn't really defend this subjects notability, and one that only weakly did. — Cleared as filed. 04:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete her only notable claim is writing her autobiography which is only gets 230 total hits on a (American) yahoo search Mayumashu 07:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as lacking context. Plus the numerous tags were many times the size of the article. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 21:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be nonsense. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 07:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
AquaRO was a small Ragnarok Online website that only existed for four months. -- Kjkolb 08:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it to support/oppose a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A bunch of deleted articles have been recreated in this space, which sort of makes a mockery of the term "deletion". I think, in the 200+ years that it's been a state, more than these hanbdful of insignificant fellows have run for representative of Ohio's second district. Some of them may have even been nominated. Not these guys though. - R. fiend 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like a vanity piece. 23 yr old who has worked as a congressman's intern, as an unsuccessful campaign manager for a defeated candidate (who does not have a page) and intends to run as a candidate for a county election this year -- Porturology 08:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article does not establish importance of this individual. Delete. — Brim 09:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as non-notable bioggraphy - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Biography does not establish the person's importance. Delete. — Brim 09:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Author calls himself Beardedmonk but he is probably too young to have much of a beard. OK, kid you're pulling my beard - give us some references otherwise we will delete these as hoax - but keep them yourself for your creative writing classes at Pacific Collegiate School. -- RHaworth 09:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete
Moved from speedy, could be real, but unable to verify TimPope 10:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy as potentially could be verified TimPope 10:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep due to evidence presented indicating sufficient notability. Somebody go cleanup the article and add all those sources to it. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy; radio personality seems to be beyond speedy criteria. Potentially verifiable TimPope 10:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I think wikipedia needs to rethink how it treats radio personality bios for commercial am/fm/satellite and internet radio. It took me 10 minutes to find this information, which should be included in the article. There is way too much "I haven't heard of it so it must not be notable" garbage associated with these topics. -- Randomgenius 22:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted after userfying. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. None of the items here satisfy WP:MUSIC or are otherwise of encyclopedic significance.
The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Page describes an individual card in a card game, with no apparent wider notability. (Also includes an attempted disambiguation for a Christian Rock Band with the same name, but no Wikipedia page exists for them.) -- McGeddon 08:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a piece of fiction, no speedy criterion covers it though TimPope 10:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it as a reason to support/oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy as possibly non-notable member of the aristocracy TimPope 11:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This acting troupe doesn't seem very notable, verifiable, or important ( 41 - 41 of about 194). Nothing links to this page, and none of the names linked from this page point to actual articles, except for "Aaron Stern" which appears to be a coincidence. Smells of vanity, no place to merge it, so we should delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 11:11, Jan. 28, 2006
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy. Radio personality whose importance (or lack of) can be probably be verified TimPope 11:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Listed as a speedy by an anon, reported on ANI after the tag was repeatedly removed. I can't see that it is a speedy, but given that it has been tagged as a potential hoax, and there is at least some support for deletion, I'm listing it here. No vote. Essjay Talk • Contact 11:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web forum, fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites), promotion. Only 26 google results for "TheBestTrek". Delete Petros471 12:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect. The real stub for the subject is at Philosophy of social science (uncapitalised title). The two articles were created at about the same time (May 2005), but the one proposed for deletion is irrelevant to the title, in violation of NPOV, "totally disputed" and the subject of various suggestions for radical surgery. Caravaca 13:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect, methinks. Johnleemk | Talk 16:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Not notable (very few google hits). Advertising. Sleepyhead 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax [16], created by a new editor who also vandalized other pages. - Liberatore( T) 13:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP withdrawn by nominator -- TimPope 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a very short article with only one piece of information. This information is already contained in the
Minnesota Public Radio article.
James084 13:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I am withdrawing my nomination and/or changing my vote based on the work performed by
Grutness. This article is much more useful now.
James084 16:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax [17] created by a new user who also vandalized other pages. - Liberatore( T) 13:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This article looks like an advertisement. No internal links. No claim to notability other than it exists and has customers. James084 13:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite this to oppose/support a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I’m not really qualified to judge if this is some kind of special telephone, but it looks close to an ad to me. Twthmoses 13:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about an interesting subject, but no citations and only five Google hits for the term mean that it qualifies as original research. - squibix 14:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Interestingly the term "Christo-paganism" already has some hits. [18] Not enough to justify keeping it under that name, but maybe the idea will latch on to some term. I'm not sure how you'd mix Christianity with paganism though as Christianity is monotheistic. (Whereas Buddhism was agnostic or just non-specific on Gods)-- T. Anthony 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN. delete Jwissick (t) (c) 14:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Term not established. 250 google hits. Sleepyhead 14:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a non-notable comic strip character created by User:GhostBoy66. - squibix 15:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy which was tagged with the following description:
"No real assertion of notability, mostly unverifiable content (IMDb certainly credit the actor as sill alive http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0411436/). I was willing to rewrite it but cannot find anything biographical or notable, only lists of credits"
TimPope 11:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete; practically everything in WWN is a hoax, so why is this one special? Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, article is a hoax, basically. It's nonsense based on an article from the Weekly World News, a goofy fiction rag with headlines like "space aliens ate clinton's brain" and so on. Yahoo News carries some of the weekly world news' articles without labelling them as fiction, which led to this confusion Xyzzyplugh 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete nom is right but fanficgurl also. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
As tragic as Mr. Izquierdo's death was, along with his daughter's, he isn't really notable enough (or not notable at all, for that matter). Just because he was Eliza's father, doesn't mean he's notable. (UTC)
The result of the debate was Copyvio - sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Stifle 14:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be a silly article - perhaps a prank - anyway it would be an indirect report on original research if the included link worked - but it does not. Carrionluggage 07:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I am a resident of "West" Morgan Park, which actually shares the zip code, 60643, with Beverly. It is true that there are Irish Pubs on Western Avenue; in fact, I practically live across the street from one. However, no one, and I repeat, NO ONE has ever called the following neighborhoods of Mount Greenwood, Morgan Park, or Beverly "Irishtown." I was born and raised in the Southside of Chicago, and I have never heard anyone ever refer to the area in question by the name "Irishtown." It is likely that someone will punch someone else out for referring to the neighborhoods as "Irishtown." Delete Voice of Reason 04:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was unverifiable. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was let the talk hash it out. This doesn't appear to be original research to me; a merge has been proposed, and I think someone better acquainted with the topic should figure this out. If it doesn't pan out, it can be redirected or brought back to AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Essay based on single, non-expert, source. Delete as Original research. This material is handled at population bottleneck Zeimusu | Talk page 15:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable band, released it's first album this month, "Fuzzy Oswald" gets a grand total of 35 google hits, most of which are unrelated Aim Here 15:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. (Turns out the content is sufficiently covered at the main article; if there's anything really worth merging, feel free to do so.)
Johnleemk |
Talk 15:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep. Mushroom 16:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as patent nonsense/vandalism
Delete. Hoax. Copied from Wikicomedy [26], no Google hits except Wikicomedy. Brendan 15:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Political propaganda JoJan 16:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete Non notable. I'm very sorry if this harsh sounding phrase sounds like a critique of the subject or the author. This is not intended. Though the exact rule on notability is difficult, there are clear guidelines to help, and a lot of precident. Then we check for consensus. I understand he is Vicar forane. The question is what other grounds for notability exist? Is he an author or often quoted in newspapers?
Obina 22:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not-notable Urban Hip-Hop clothing label.
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Standard disclaimer: This defaults to keep. Do not cite this alone as a reason to support/oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This nomination accompanies the Singapore Airlines flight numbers nomination. The fleet is not noteworthy enough in itself to need its own article. Most of the article is a list of statistics on the fleet anyway. I would support moving some of the data to WikiSource, however. Dbinder 16:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable file hosting website Melaen 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a copy/paste job, but can't speedy under copyvio because I can't find the original text. The article seems unrecoverable for a non-subject matter expert. Removed db-empty for obvious reasons. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 17:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Neologism, made up in school one day, non-notable. Brendan 17:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Nuclear weapons delivery. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
does this album even exists?.delete. Melaen 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. (Mind you might cause incorrect thoughts, governmental objections is a strong argument for publishing anything - but not on Wikipedia.) -- RHaworth 20:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Where to begin.. the title needs work, since it's just about the U.S. but the title doesn't explain that. It's based entirely on an op-ed piece published today, and as written is rather POV, since it's really just restating some guy's POV on the matter. W.marsh 17:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep; I don't see the copyvio problem. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable character , may be from [29]. delete. Melaen 17:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
only a citation Melaen 17:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
"Article about a future non notable movie. No references cited. Article reads like a review. *Delete. When the movie is released, if someone wants to write a better article about it, let them. TheRingess 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason why the page should be deleted
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was nominated for deletion about 8 months ago and was deleted. Someone recreated it. Delete with extreme prejudice. TheRingess 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
the article is not about Giovas Vlachiotis. Melaen 18:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a vanity, unencyclopedic article. Delete at best, merge with Carleton University at worst. Ardenn 18:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I simply can't find any verification of this place- the World Book mentions Oeno Island, but not Sandy Island; googles of the stuff about Sirius radio show nothing, searches for the company supposdely maintaing it come up dry, &etc. And the anon on Helpdesk who brought this issue to my attention says:
The result of the debate was delete; undocumented = unverifiable, anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm putting this up for deletion on the request of Anne Mareck, who wrote most of the article. She says: "I would like to have the whole thing deleted because, while I think the phenonema of the women's colonies of the 60s & 70s bear documentation, I feel that I am violating people's rights to privacy by posting. I didn't think it through well enough when I started it, I'm sorry I did it all wrong, I'll never do it again ((I promise)). Could you please delete the whole mess??" -- maru (talk) contribs 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is based on a community I lived in in the 70s. The material cannot be 'cited' because no one has ever published on the occurence. I had thought it was important to document one of these women's colonies--it seems like a shame for examples of cooperative ((NOT communal))communities to fade into the undocumented past. Yet I feel my attempt--and I wrote ALL of the article--is very difficult to complete without talking about the individuals involved. And that seems like an invasion of privacy. And yes, I had attempted to delete the articles about individuals which I started, but apparantly I do not have enough understanding of the format to do so successfully. At the very least, I would like to request the individual links be deleted.~afmareck
hmmm...well I could continue the general article as a basis for investigation of the phenonema. I may be able to find information on other 'colonies' that existed around the same time and work to create some kind of cohesive whole. Yes, if the individual entries could be deleted that would be good. ~afmareck
The result of the debate was keep; the article now states that the firm is a century old. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN Seattle business, article has been on dead-end pages since november, article submission is authors only contribution. MNewnham 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Typo in title, not worthy of redirect to Creation (1931 film). Please also check the Creation (1931 film), as I believe this qualifies for AFD as well MNewnham 19:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, an article about a 'band' that I have great difficulty verifying via either Allmusic.com or Google. I did find an empty allmusic.com page for a band with a similar name, but that's no verification. With their debut due in June this year, and a more-than-middling chance the band doesn't actually exist ("the band members are midgets"), this should go. - Splash talk 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete with extreme prejudice and dump in a river. DS 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't believe this is verifiable. Kappa 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a list of Cricket Blogs MNewnham 19:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Pure crap. 11 hits on Yahoo. Not notable. Belongs on Uncyclopedia. Shoehorn 19:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete if you like, though as a joke religion it is necessarily nonsense. They really did publish their own bible which was distributed through (at least) Rip Off Press and (I think) Loompanics with copies sometimes turning up on Abebooks. Also, it did have an introduction by one of the founders of the Church of the SubGenius. These things make it somewhat more notable than many other solely internet-based joke religions, I think. There are older citations online on usenet (e.g. alt.slack and alt.discordia) going back to 1993. It could be mentioned as a trivia item on the SubGenius &/or Discordian pages. Schizombie 06:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
<500 Google hits, many fewer unique, and many of those seem to be, well, self-promotion would be a bit harsh, but the subject's blog and the like. So little context that it's hard to see what he's supposed to be notable for. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be an essay about some sort of DNA evidence or something. I really can't tell, I have an aversion to science journal articles. If anyone can manage to read through it, please decide whether some of the information is worth keeping around on some other page. As it stands, this is unreadable and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. JHMM13 ( T | C) 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Another article about a last name with limited use. Punkmorten 19:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Licketyship). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Not notable. Self promoting. Sleepyhead 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Written by subject himself. Claims to have been suppressed by mainstream scientists, has been banned in the past for sock puppetry and personal attacks (relating to pages Bengalia and Bengaliidae). Notability is doubtful, except that there have been dismissive reviews of his self-published work on the family Bengaliidae that he has proposed. Shyamal ( talk) 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like a notable claim, but external link is empty (one line of HTML code). Article itself is orphaned, and the "claim" itself reads like vanity. Kareeser| Talk! 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Sounds like a NN car manufacturer. Article claims "over 100 employees", but is that notable? Kareeser| Talk! 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to University of Exeter Halls of Residence. I also took the liberty of merging the other Hall articles there. (Please note that this AfD is by definition no consensus to delete; it only resulted in a merge because most people suggested doing so.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a student hall of reidence of no great significance; unencyclopædic. Delete. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, nothing notable ever happened on this "very short major road" Kareeser| Talk! 20:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep per the rambling and entertaining conversation below. — Cleared as filed. 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable road, in my opinion. Orphaned page. Kareeser| Talk! 20:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy move. Sarge Baldy 23:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a news story, not an encyclopædia article; the title is a news headline. There may be a place for the material, and if there is then I'd support a nmerge, but otherwise, delete. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The page could be moved to a new title eg. 2006 Katowice trade hall roof collpase. I created the page from following a lonk on the Current Events page. The article will expand once more details are released and the cause is established. -- Jorvik 20:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
To Wikinews, I think. Michał P. 21:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
So, what about Bad Reichenhall ice rink roof collapse. Unfortunately both accidents were terrible, and both shoul be described. Don't delete, help develop the story. -- 62.111.227.194 21:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN band, a group of DJ's Draeco 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Doc ask? 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is essentially soapboxing and a general attack on Catholic belief. The article carries no real encyclopedaic purpose; it would be better for the reader to be given neutral information about the topic and allowed to form his or her own opinions. Some guy 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 10:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Thoroughly unencyclopedic article, consists entirely of (literal?) excerpts from a single book, might raise copyright issues too. Basically a POV fork of Islamic conquest of South Asia. It's linked to from a single page, Rajput, the site of one of the worst recent POV disputes, whose link text makes it clear it's intended as POV pushing: "There is a big misconception that India was conquered very easily by Muslims. Facts are very different and are discussed on the page pointed to by the heading of this section or click here". Lukas (T.| @) 21:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 10:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nn bio, being the child of someone notable does not mean you are notable Delete Makemi 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article fails to show notability. Doesn't seem notable and does not list any references. James084 21:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to me like a NN Half-life modification. Delete Kareeser| Talk! 21:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising
The result of the debate was speedy deleted and protected as recreation of previously (multiply) deleted content. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 12:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Disputed subject, possible hoax, unverified. Glenzierfoot 21:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
commercial Ixtlan12 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN studio with tripod website MNewnham 22:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. Googling "Metroid XXX Beach Volleyball" yeilds no hits. -- Bobdoe ( Talk) 22:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Patent non-notable webforum/IRC channel. Forum has 96 registered users; IRC channel has 20 regulars. Wish this were speediable. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-28 22:32 Z
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is quite a speedy candidate. It could be expanded into an article, perhaps. For right now, I recomend deletion as unencylopedic. brenneman (t) (c) 22:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I was thinking the idea of Wikipedia (please, correct me if I am wrong) is that if one member goes to the trouble of writing about something he/she deems as important and adds that information to Wikipedia in Good Faith, then it is worth having until proven other wise. Since this is a real political movement, which has the ability of becoming an elected representative of the people, it is of great importance to many people to know about this party and that it is actively looking for members from the general public.
The point that I would like to make in defense of the article is that, thankfully, "unencyclopedic" is not an official policy and therefore not a valid argument for deletion. It is an argument for discussion, which I am more then happy to do. Xwire 21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
All I can say is that myself and other members are the only reliable sources on this topic. We are hoping that you would consider us to be the most important source in the event of vandals. Feel free to contact us if you need further evidence. . Xwire 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
At what point does a political party become old enough? You don't know how many members the party has because you are not a member. Xwire 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks, er... The best to you as well. Xwire 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete because there is no official Journalist hall of shame; this page will never be NPOV John Broughton 22:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Totally non-notable web site that fails WP:WEB in that it has not been the subject of any other published work. Actually claims low patronage for their forum. Kevin 22:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Narrowly passed its deletion review, largely on the basis of Google hits. My own vote is delete unless someone cares to cite some non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, as required by WP:CORP. — Cryptic (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article created in error - should have read Julian the Hospitaller. Contents move, can be deleted. Maltesedog 23:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was lack of consensus to delete. Ifnord 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I found this article with a "db-nonsense" tag. It isn't patent nonsense, but I have moved it on to AfD. From the article's talk page:
Nominator abstains. — TheKMan talk 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. Entry already exists in Wiktionary. — ERcheck @ 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A patent application. Submitted by User:BrDanIzzo. Vanity, source text, nonencyclopedic. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
< January 27 | January 29 > |
---|
The result of the debate was KEEP.-- God of War 19:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability at all. Are we going to list every street in America? I actually found this page because it was put on a forum as an example of how wikipedia expansion will never stop. Enough said. God of War 23:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Hanson (band). fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article info identical to Hanson (band) article. Talked with Xanadu (the only person to edit it within the last 2 months) and he is ok if it is deleted or a redirect is put into place. PS2pcGAMER ( talk) 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:MUSIC, although I'm aware there may be cultural bias here. Always open to new information. Note that there are a few other articles hanging off this one. brenneman (t) (c) 00:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 12:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
It doesn't seem that there needs to be an entire article just for this extremely specific subject. No other airlines have it, and it seems to go against WP:NOT. Dbinder 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not enough notability as a saint for an entire article. Either deserves a space in another article, or should not be mentioned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Last Avenue ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm AFDing this mainly because I'm sure someone will speedy it as patent nonsense if I don't. It gets quite a few google hits [2] so it does appear to be a meaningful concept. Kappa 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
A "magical organization" founded by two artists and two musicians, with no assertion or evidence of notability/importance. Neglected article created by 207.244.146.201 ( talk · contribs). Unverifiable: no Google hits for "Clear Infinite Universe". Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-28 00:37 Z
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 12:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
slang, altought mentioned(?) in one book. delete. Melaen 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge into Zanzibar and editorialise. First up, the nomination was just a vote, not a nomination at all. Secondly, that vote was one for merging. Now, AfD is not the place to go if you want an article to be merged. You can do that yourself. Maybe we should have a Wikipedia:Request for merge page for those who want a merge but don't know how? But we've already got those purdy tags ... fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge into Zanzibar as there isn't enough information even on the linked site to warrant an entire article. Iamvered 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Although the cause may be good, this page is just an advertisement for a non-notable (Alexa rank 718,815) web site. It should be deleted until they have some achievements under their belt. Kevin 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep the rewrite. D e ath phoenix 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
If I understood correctly tihis is a music/multimedia project done with a capable computer and access to a CD-writer. non notable.delete.
Melaen 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
online RPG in a in an extremely limited beta phase. delete. Melaen 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web forum; neglected article created by 213.40.131.65 ( talk · contribs). Traffic Rank for designermakers.org.uk: 2,706,659. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A History of Designer Makers. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-28 00:51 Z
The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable actor, delete. Melaen 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as article on vanity subject. SYCTHOS talk 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about Star Wars spoof made by two people, which has not yet been released. No relevant Google hits. - squibix 00:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem notable, a Google search reveals a lot of general stuff but not much in particular to this "movement". The website is ranked an astonishingly low 626,801 on Alexa and seems mainly to be a vehicle for making money off of CafePress sales. In other words, this whole site is just a non-notable commercial enterprise and this encyclopedia article seems to exist solely to assist those commercial endeavours. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Pure dicdef, and Wiktionary already has an article [4]. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-28 01:05 Z
The result of the debate was Speedy. -- Shanel 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
DON'T DELETE: While the diet described may sound ridiculous to some, it is of interest to those who want to know more about the different diets that exist, and the guidelines for each. As a nutritionist, I found this article fascinating, not because I agree with the guidelines put forth in the Primal Diet, but of rhte diet's unique approach to health and human history. The article could be re-written to make it easier for readers to understand.
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable diet fad. "Primal Diet" only gets 6,000 search results on Google, and the creator is similarly doomed to obscurity with only 16,000 hits. If this article is deleted (which I hope it is), I propose this article be re-made with the topic being what "cavemen" ate, not some silly diet. Cyde Weys 01:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Is the number of hits the determining factor we'd like to set for entries? Is a fad a bad thing? I sought out information on this topic and found this entry. The excuses given to pull this post seem unbeleivable, and certainly not reasons the Wikipedia community wants to give credence to.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism with zero Google hits and no sources cited in the article. Basically a "theory" saying 'a lot of people in a room at once will talk loudly'. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable idiom, google returns zero hits. Weregerbil 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Franz piombino. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was keep. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as fancruft. SYCTHOS talk 01:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect. SYCTHOS talk 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as fancruft. I can't seem to find a main article.
SYCTHOS
talk 01:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. D e ath phoenix 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Lack of notability. Google search turned up only 30 pages or so, with Wikipedia ranked second. Bcasterline 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band containing non-notable members. One album was released but the band isn't around anymore, there's a link to a myspace page for a different band containing one of the former members. No articles link to this article, except a category and a disambig. goatasaur 02:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Ifnord 14:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable- not worthy of inclusion
*merge with
Cornell University if that article exists.
Jcuk 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Neologism, no relevant Google results, made up in school one day. Brendan 02:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete messy article about a generic learning institute. Mind matrix 17:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps I was somewhat negligent in the summary I provided, though it appears a few users noticed anyway. This article is about a "school" within Kalinga Institute for Industrial Training. This Institute is not a higher-level education provider, and does not confer degrees to its graduates, but rather is a typical technical institute. See listing of programs offered at KIIT Moreover, the article is inappropriately titled. As far as I see, these are the options:
As stated in my summary, I believe the latter option makes the most sense. Mind matrix 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. -- maru (talk) contribs 03:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Attack page. I have recived an email from someone who claims to be the target of the attack asking for it to be removed. << These are lies Geni 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The so called "attack" is not fake and is truth. He is enjoying it.
You did not receive an email from him, cuz he is posting in forums that he enjoys it.
[16 Minutes Ago 03:09 AM] Couch: I find it very hilarious
"O RLY, YA RLY, NO WAI!" = "Oh really? Quite really. I dare say no!" says:
I find it very hilarious
Well that isn't really fair now is it...Besides Couch++ is a real programming language! Just buy his book from Amazon.com!
The result of the debate was speedy delete, already on Wiktionary. Mushroom 13:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is a dictdif that already has an entry on Wiktionary. It is unlikely that this subject could be expanded to an encyclopedia article. James084 03:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't find anything in wp:csd that fits, but there should be. Original research, vanity, advertising, take your pick. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Is wikipedia a repository for passing on human knowledge? surely something which is primarily written to help us communicate within our many languages is of use. -- Blackest knight 04:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
[12] Is the basis for this article. however I have simplified it to the essentials- however would it be better placed within this article Windows_XP_CustomizationIf so I will gladly move it.
Delete it please the essential idea's in it are better suited elsewhere thanks for looking at it. it has been interesting. -- Blackest knight 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to ptosis. Babajobu 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This page already has been tagged as Move to Wiktionary but it already has an entry on Wiktionary. James084 03:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Redirect seems like a good idea. I am going to tag the article to redirect as suggested. Can we please close this AFD? James084 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Userfied to User:Taxman/Biodiesel outline. -- Cyde Weys 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not an article; it is an outline. There is already an article for Biodiesel. What is the purpose of this page? James084 03:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as short article with little or no context (cat. A1). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Single-entry disambig page with no blue links; only inbound link is from a page that is itself a stub. Someone meant wellz, I guess. Daniel Case 03:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:NUM says we should list numbers up to 200. I see no compelling reason to keep a nearly empty article on what appears to be a relatively uninteresting number. I would have speedily deleted this, but I'm not sure it fits into any of the listed criteria. Fropuff 04:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep. Notable number. Important for keeping 592 and 594 from bumping into each other. Good rewrite by Ruby saves the article. Wikipedia is not paper, so why delete a perfectly good article? Herostratus 08:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. SYCTHOS talk 20:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Google searches show this to be a very likely hoax.
1
2
3
Vslashg 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
How do you determine what is notable? FrankGianni 05:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Extremely minor figure in JKF assassination (LBJ's driver that day), if article is true (I'm not sure ... was LBJ in Dallas at the time of the assassination, as this seems to suggest? I somehow recall that he flew there that night to pick up JFK's body). Doesn't seem notable. Daniel Case 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Coffee 05:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Per article, a word made up by the guy who wrote the article. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. I don't think this word could ever be verified. -- W.marsh 04:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete "Mizta-Nui" does not exist, not even in the fictional world of Bionicle. In short, it's a hoax. Drakhan 04:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Usual song and dance... article about a webcomic, doesn't assert meeting WP:WEB, seems to be created by someone closely connected to the webcomic, Wikipieda is not self promotion. -- W.marsh 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, patent nonsense. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete This non-notable nonsense has been posted again. See the first AfD. Vslashg 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The story here is the same as with Inspiration for handhelds which is on its way to get deleted as spam/nn. Created by the same user who works at the producers marketing office. Producers website has alexa rank of about 65,000.
The result of the debate was delete. Even the article screams its non-notability. Johnleemk | Talk 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about non-notable social worker. I think the assertion of notability is weak enough to support a speedy delete, but I also think it's close enough to the line not to speedy it unilaterally. — Cleared as filed. 05:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as attack and nonsense. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Article is largely nonsense VooDooChild 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since December 28. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 ( talk/ contribs) 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Author, book or ISBN pulls no Amazon or Google result. No context either. -- Perfecto 05:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
ISBN number is valid, book is in production. -- Gravical 06:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, it is written, the book is being manufacturered -- are you telling me that it can only be posted if it is listed on amazon.com? -- Gravical 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay -- so when it is ready for sale, then it can be listed? That is fair enough, except that someone may just as easily flag and call it "self-promotion" -- Gravical 06:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
From WP:PNT, been there since January 14. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 ( talk/ contribs) 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted Attack page/nonsense (and consensus here) Sherool (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:BALLS. Vslashg 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate collection of data, advertising, unencyclopedic. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Note that the author of the articles has moved List of fonts by Michael Hagemann to Michael Hagemann, and Font Mesa to FontMesa, and stripped off the AfD tags. I have restored them and admonished. User:Zoe| (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. SYCTHOS talk 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Spelled incorrectly, also title is incorrect tiZom (the man) 06:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
1 album with only three sales. Sorry, guys, come back when you're more notable. ... Scott 5114 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete for the third time. -- RHaworth 08:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Made up/obscure religion. I would have speedied but the author and "another person" (meatpuppet?) attested to the article's veracity on the talk page. Seems very silly. Broken S 06:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. — Cleared as filed. 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Centralized repository for team nicknames, which would be better off in the articles for each team. Plus, has American football POV even as it claims to serve Canadian football (there are no references to Canadian football in the article at time of nomination). kelvSYC 06:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Punkmorten 11:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I created this category, but then realized there was already a category called "school accreditors" that better suits the group. Arbustoo 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pro-bulimia "community"/forum, take your pick. We don't need this nonsense on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 06:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Ad-copy for non-notable website (ranks 61K on Alexa). Cyde Weys 06:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect; too inconsequential to merge, although anyone who disagrees is free to merge it anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable
Kerowyn 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete Non-notable
Kerowyn 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep, so please don't cite it to support or oppose a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete Non-notable
Kerowyn 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing an unfinished nomination (I am not the nominator). Personally, I'd see this as a candidate for merger with Empire Earth. If kept, it will need recapitalising. Grutness... wha? 07:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Arguments for delete outweigh 2 keep votes that didn't really defend this subjects notability, and one that only weakly did. — Cleared as filed. 04:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
delete her only notable claim is writing her autobiography which is only gets 230 total hits on a (American) yahoo search Mayumashu 07:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as lacking context. Plus the numerous tags were many times the size of the article. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 21:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be nonsense. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 07:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
AquaRO was a small Ragnarok Online website that only existed for four months. -- Kjkolb 08:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it to support/oppose a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A bunch of deleted articles have been recreated in this space, which sort of makes a mockery of the term "deletion". I think, in the 200+ years that it's been a state, more than these hanbdful of insignificant fellows have run for representative of Ohio's second district. Some of them may have even been nominated. Not these guys though. - R. fiend 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like a vanity piece. 23 yr old who has worked as a congressman's intern, as an unsuccessful campaign manager for a defeated candidate (who does not have a page) and intends to run as a candidate for a county election this year -- Porturology 08:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article does not establish importance of this individual. Delete. — Brim 09:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted as non-notable bioggraphy - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Biography does not establish the person's importance. Delete. — Brim 09:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Author calls himself Beardedmonk but he is probably too young to have much of a beard. OK, kid you're pulling my beard - give us some references otherwise we will delete these as hoax - but keep them yourself for your creative writing classes at Pacific Collegiate School. -- RHaworth 09:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete
Moved from speedy, could be real, but unable to verify TimPope 10:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy as potentially could be verified TimPope 10:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep due to evidence presented indicating sufficient notability. Somebody go cleanup the article and add all those sources to it. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy; radio personality seems to be beyond speedy criteria. Potentially verifiable TimPope 10:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I think wikipedia needs to rethink how it treats radio personality bios for commercial am/fm/satellite and internet radio. It took me 10 minutes to find this information, which should be included in the article. There is way too much "I haven't heard of it so it must not be notable" garbage associated with these topics. -- Randomgenius 22:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted after userfying. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. None of the items here satisfy WP:MUSIC or are otherwise of encyclopedic significance.
The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Page describes an individual card in a card game, with no apparent wider notability. (Also includes an attempted disambiguation for a Christian Rock Band with the same name, but no Wikipedia page exists for them.) -- McGeddon 08:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a piece of fiction, no speedy criterion covers it though TimPope 10:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it as a reason to support/oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy as possibly non-notable member of the aristocracy TimPope 11:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This acting troupe doesn't seem very notable, verifiable, or important ( 41 - 41 of about 194). Nothing links to this page, and none of the names linked from this page point to actual articles, except for "Aaron Stern" which appears to be a coincidence. Smells of vanity, no place to merge it, so we should delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 11:11, Jan. 28, 2006
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy. Radio personality whose importance (or lack of) can be probably be verified TimPope 11:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Listed as a speedy by an anon, reported on ANI after the tag was repeatedly removed. I can't see that it is a speedy, but given that it has been tagged as a potential hoax, and there is at least some support for deletion, I'm listing it here. No vote. Essjay Talk • Contact 11:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web forum, fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites), promotion. Only 26 google results for "TheBestTrek". Delete Petros471 12:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect. The real stub for the subject is at Philosophy of social science (uncapitalised title). The two articles were created at about the same time (May 2005), but the one proposed for deletion is irrelevant to the title, in violation of NPOV, "totally disputed" and the subject of various suggestions for radical surgery. Caravaca 13:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy redirect, methinks. Johnleemk | Talk 16:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Not notable (very few google hits). Advertising. Sleepyhead 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax [16], created by a new editor who also vandalized other pages. - Liberatore( T) 13:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP withdrawn by nominator -- TimPope 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a very short article with only one piece of information. This information is already contained in the
Minnesota Public Radio article.
James084 13:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I am withdrawing my nomination and/or changing my vote based on the work performed by
Grutness. This article is much more useful now.
James084 16:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax [17] created by a new user who also vandalized other pages. - Liberatore( T) 13:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This article looks like an advertisement. No internal links. No claim to notability other than it exists and has customers. James084 13:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite this to oppose/support a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I’m not really qualified to judge if this is some kind of special telephone, but it looks close to an ad to me. Twthmoses 13:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about an interesting subject, but no citations and only five Google hits for the term mean that it qualifies as original research. - squibix 14:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Interestingly the term "Christo-paganism" already has some hits. [18] Not enough to justify keeping it under that name, but maybe the idea will latch on to some term. I'm not sure how you'd mix Christianity with paganism though as Christianity is monotheistic. (Whereas Buddhism was agnostic or just non-specific on Gods)-- T. Anthony 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN. delete Jwissick (t) (c) 14:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Term not established. 250 google hits. Sleepyhead 14:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a non-notable comic strip character created by User:GhostBoy66. - squibix 15:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Moved from speedy which was tagged with the following description:
"No real assertion of notability, mostly unverifiable content (IMDb certainly credit the actor as sill alive http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0411436/). I was willing to rewrite it but cannot find anything biographical or notable, only lists of credits"
TimPope 11:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete; practically everything in WWN is a hoax, so why is this one special? Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, article is a hoax, basically. It's nonsense based on an article from the Weekly World News, a goofy fiction rag with headlines like "space aliens ate clinton's brain" and so on. Yahoo News carries some of the weekly world news' articles without labelling them as fiction, which led to this confusion Xyzzyplugh 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete nom is right but fanficgurl also. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
As tragic as Mr. Izquierdo's death was, along with his daughter's, he isn't really notable enough (or not notable at all, for that matter). Just because he was Eliza's father, doesn't mean he's notable. (UTC)
The result of the debate was Copyvio - sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Stifle 14:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be a silly article - perhaps a prank - anyway it would be an indirect report on original research if the included link worked - but it does not. Carrionluggage 07:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 05:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I am a resident of "West" Morgan Park, which actually shares the zip code, 60643, with Beverly. It is true that there are Irish Pubs on Western Avenue; in fact, I practically live across the street from one. However, no one, and I repeat, NO ONE has ever called the following neighborhoods of Mount Greenwood, Morgan Park, or Beverly "Irishtown." I was born and raised in the Southside of Chicago, and I have never heard anyone ever refer to the area in question by the name "Irishtown." It is likely that someone will punch someone else out for referring to the neighborhoods as "Irishtown." Delete Voice of Reason 04:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was unverifiable. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was let the talk hash it out. This doesn't appear to be original research to me; a merge has been proposed, and I think someone better acquainted with the topic should figure this out. If it doesn't pan out, it can be redirected or brought back to AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Essay based on single, non-expert, source. Delete as Original research. This material is handled at population bottleneck Zeimusu | Talk page 15:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable band, released it's first album this month, "Fuzzy Oswald" gets a grand total of 35 google hits, most of which are unrelated Aim Here 15:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. (Turns out the content is sufficiently covered at the main article; if there's anything really worth merging, feel free to do so.)
Johnleemk |
Talk 15:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep. Mushroom 16:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as patent nonsense/vandalism
Delete. Hoax. Copied from Wikicomedy [26], no Google hits except Wikicomedy. Brendan 15:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Political propaganda JoJan 16:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete Non notable. I'm very sorry if this harsh sounding phrase sounds like a critique of the subject or the author. This is not intended. Though the exact rule on notability is difficult, there are clear guidelines to help, and a lot of precident. Then we check for consensus. I understand he is Vicar forane. The question is what other grounds for notability exist? Is he an author or often quoted in newspapers?
Obina 22:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Not-notable Urban Hip-Hop clothing label.
The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Standard disclaimer: This defaults to keep. Do not cite this alone as a reason to support/oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This nomination accompanies the Singapore Airlines flight numbers nomination. The fleet is not noteworthy enough in itself to need its own article. Most of the article is a list of statistics on the fleet anyway. I would support moving some of the data to WikiSource, however. Dbinder 16:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable file hosting website Melaen 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a copy/paste job, but can't speedy under copyvio because I can't find the original text. The article seems unrecoverable for a non-subject matter expert. Removed db-empty for obvious reasons. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 17:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Neologism, made up in school one day, non-notable. Brendan 17:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Nuclear weapons delivery. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
does this album even exists?.delete. Melaen 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. (Mind you might cause incorrect thoughts, governmental objections is a strong argument for publishing anything - but not on Wikipedia.) -- RHaworth 20:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Where to begin.. the title needs work, since it's just about the U.S. but the title doesn't explain that. It's based entirely on an op-ed piece published today, and as written is rather POV, since it's really just restating some guy's POV on the matter. W.marsh 17:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep; I don't see the copyvio problem. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable character , may be from [29]. delete. Melaen 17:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
only a citation Melaen 17:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
"Article about a future non notable movie. No references cited. Article reads like a review. *Delete. When the movie is released, if someone wants to write a better article about it, let them. TheRingess 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason why the page should be deleted
The result of the debate was keep. — Cleared as filed. 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was nominated for deletion about 8 months ago and was deleted. Someone recreated it. Delete with extreme prejudice. TheRingess 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
the article is not about Giovas Vlachiotis. Melaen 18:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a vanity, unencyclopedic article. Delete at best, merge with Carleton University at worst. Ardenn 18:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I simply can't find any verification of this place- the World Book mentions Oeno Island, but not Sandy Island; googles of the stuff about Sirius radio show nothing, searches for the company supposdely maintaing it come up dry, &etc. And the anon on Helpdesk who brought this issue to my attention says:
The result of the debate was delete; undocumented = unverifiable, anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm putting this up for deletion on the request of Anne Mareck, who wrote most of the article. She says: "I would like to have the whole thing deleted because, while I think the phenonema of the women's colonies of the 60s & 70s bear documentation, I feel that I am violating people's rights to privacy by posting. I didn't think it through well enough when I started it, I'm sorry I did it all wrong, I'll never do it again ((I promise)). Could you please delete the whole mess??" -- maru (talk) contribs 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is based on a community I lived in in the 70s. The material cannot be 'cited' because no one has ever published on the occurence. I had thought it was important to document one of these women's colonies--it seems like a shame for examples of cooperative ((NOT communal))communities to fade into the undocumented past. Yet I feel my attempt--and I wrote ALL of the article--is very difficult to complete without talking about the individuals involved. And that seems like an invasion of privacy. And yes, I had attempted to delete the articles about individuals which I started, but apparantly I do not have enough understanding of the format to do so successfully. At the very least, I would like to request the individual links be deleted.~afmareck
hmmm...well I could continue the general article as a basis for investigation of the phenonema. I may be able to find information on other 'colonies' that existed around the same time and work to create some kind of cohesive whole. Yes, if the individual entries could be deleted that would be good. ~afmareck
The result of the debate was keep; the article now states that the firm is a century old. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN Seattle business, article has been on dead-end pages since november, article submission is authors only contribution. MNewnham 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Typo in title, not worthy of redirect to Creation (1931 film). Please also check the Creation (1931 film), as I believe this qualifies for AFD as well MNewnham 19:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Friday (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, an article about a 'band' that I have great difficulty verifying via either Allmusic.com or Google. I did find an empty allmusic.com page for a band with a similar name, but that's no verification. With their debut due in June this year, and a more-than-middling chance the band doesn't actually exist ("the band members are midgets"), this should go. - Splash talk 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete with extreme prejudice and dump in a river. DS 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't believe this is verifiable. Kappa 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a list of Cricket Blogs MNewnham 19:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Pure crap. 11 hits on Yahoo. Not notable. Belongs on Uncyclopedia. Shoehorn 19:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete if you like, though as a joke religion it is necessarily nonsense. They really did publish their own bible which was distributed through (at least) Rip Off Press and (I think) Loompanics with copies sometimes turning up on Abebooks. Also, it did have an introduction by one of the founders of the Church of the SubGenius. These things make it somewhat more notable than many other solely internet-based joke religions, I think. There are older citations online on usenet (e.g. alt.slack and alt.discordia) going back to 1993. It could be mentioned as a trivia item on the SubGenius &/or Discordian pages. Schizombie 06:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
<500 Google hits, many fewer unique, and many of those seem to be, well, self-promotion would be a bit harsh, but the subject's blog and the like. So little context that it's hard to see what he's supposed to be notable for. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be an essay about some sort of DNA evidence or something. I really can't tell, I have an aversion to science journal articles. If anyone can manage to read through it, please decide whether some of the information is worth keeping around on some other page. As it stands, this is unreadable and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. JHMM13 ( T | C) 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Another article about a last name with limited use. Punkmorten 19:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Licketyship). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Not notable. Self promoting. Sleepyhead 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Written by subject himself. Claims to have been suppressed by mainstream scientists, has been banned in the past for sock puppetry and personal attacks (relating to pages Bengalia and Bengaliidae). Notability is doubtful, except that there have been dismissive reviews of his self-published work on the family Bengaliidae that he has proposed. Shyamal ( talk) 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like a notable claim, but external link is empty (one line of HTML code). Article itself is orphaned, and the "claim" itself reads like vanity. Kareeser| Talk! 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Sounds like a NN car manufacturer. Article claims "over 100 employees", but is that notable? Kareeser| Talk! 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to University of Exeter Halls of Residence. I also took the liberty of merging the other Hall articles there. (Please note that this AfD is by definition no consensus to delete; it only resulted in a merge because most people suggested doing so.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a student hall of reidence of no great significance; unencyclopædic. Delete. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, nothing notable ever happened on this "very short major road" Kareeser| Talk! 20:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep per the rambling and entertaining conversation below. — Cleared as filed. 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable road, in my opinion. Orphaned page. Kareeser| Talk! 20:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy move. Sarge Baldy 23:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a news story, not an encyclopædia article; the title is a news headline. There may be a place for the material, and if there is then I'd support a nmerge, but otherwise, delete. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The page could be moved to a new title eg. 2006 Katowice trade hall roof collpase. I created the page from following a lonk on the Current Events page. The article will expand once more details are released and the cause is established. -- Jorvik 20:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
To Wikinews, I think. Michał P. 21:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
So, what about Bad Reichenhall ice rink roof collapse. Unfortunately both accidents were terrible, and both shoul be described. Don't delete, help develop the story. -- 62.111.227.194 21:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN band, a group of DJ's Draeco 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Doc ask? 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is essentially soapboxing and a general attack on Catholic belief. The article carries no real encyclopedaic purpose; it would be better for the reader to be given neutral information about the topic and allowed to form his or her own opinions. Some guy 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 10:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Thoroughly unencyclopedic article, consists entirely of (literal?) excerpts from a single book, might raise copyright issues too. Basically a POV fork of Islamic conquest of South Asia. It's linked to from a single page, Rajput, the site of one of the worst recent POV disputes, whose link text makes it clear it's intended as POV pushing: "There is a big misconception that India was conquered very easily by Muslims. Facts are very different and are discussed on the page pointed to by the heading of this section or click here". Lukas (T.| @) 21:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 10:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
nn bio, being the child of someone notable does not mean you are notable Delete Makemi 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article fails to show notability. Doesn't seem notable and does not list any references. James084 21:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to me like a NN Half-life modification. Delete Kareeser| Talk! 21:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising
The result of the debate was speedy deleted and protected as recreation of previously (multiply) deleted content. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 12:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Disputed subject, possible hoax, unverified. Glenzierfoot 21:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
commercial Ixtlan12 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
NN studio with tripod website MNewnham 22:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. Googling "Metroid XXX Beach Volleyball" yeilds no hits. -- Bobdoe ( Talk) 22:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Patent non-notable webforum/IRC channel. Forum has 96 registered users; IRC channel has 20 regulars. Wish this were speediable. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-28 22:32 Z
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is quite a speedy candidate. It could be expanded into an article, perhaps. For right now, I recomend deletion as unencylopedic. brenneman (t) (c) 22:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I was thinking the idea of Wikipedia (please, correct me if I am wrong) is that if one member goes to the trouble of writing about something he/she deems as important and adds that information to Wikipedia in Good Faith, then it is worth having until proven other wise. Since this is a real political movement, which has the ability of becoming an elected representative of the people, it is of great importance to many people to know about this party and that it is actively looking for members from the general public.
The point that I would like to make in defense of the article is that, thankfully, "unencyclopedic" is not an official policy and therefore not a valid argument for deletion. It is an argument for discussion, which I am more then happy to do. Xwire 21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
All I can say is that myself and other members are the only reliable sources on this topic. We are hoping that you would consider us to be the most important source in the event of vandals. Feel free to contact us if you need further evidence. . Xwire 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
At what point does a political party become old enough? You don't know how many members the party has because you are not a member. Xwire 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks, er... The best to you as well. Xwire 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete because there is no official Journalist hall of shame; this page will never be NPOV John Broughton 22:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Totally non-notable web site that fails WP:WEB in that it has not been the subject of any other published work. Actually claims low patronage for their forum. Kevin 22:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Narrowly passed its deletion review, largely on the basis of Google hits. My own vote is delete unless someone cares to cite some non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, as required by WP:CORP. — Cryptic (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Doc ask? 10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article created in error - should have read Julian the Hospitaller. Contents move, can be deleted. Maltesedog 23:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was lack of consensus to delete. Ifnord 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
I found this article with a "db-nonsense" tag. It isn't patent nonsense, but I have moved it on to AfD. From the article's talk page:
Nominator abstains. — TheKMan talk 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. Entry already exists in Wiktionary. — ERcheck @ 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Cleared as filed. 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
A patent application. Submitted by User:BrDanIzzo. Vanity, source text, nonencyclopedic. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply