The result of the debate was delete NSL E ( T+ C) 08:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Argument for Delete: An article about a legal case which has barely begun, and about which there is no evidence any newspaper or journal has written, concerning a matter which itself does not appear to be notable or significant. Ordinarilly I'd be reluctant to nominate an article only a day old for AfD, but the submitter's other contributions (particularly those on Unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange) strongly suggest he intends to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to publicise his ongoing lawsuit. That's not a fit purpose to which Wikipedia should be put. Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Argument to Keep: True v USAA was commenced (filed) 10 Feb 2004 (Docket # 04 L 79, St. Clare County, IL). Thus, this is hardly a new case: in fact it is almost two years old. True is singularly the most challenging law suit and easily the most significant event presently bearing on USAA's finances. It demands the immediate return of all unallocated surplus surplus. If Col True is granted class action status, and if Col True prevails, USAA will tautologically become insolvent and will then be disolved by the Texas Department of Insurance.
USAA's April 6, 2005 24-page response to interrogatories, in which USAA's lawyers essentially argue that the "members" own nothing, is one of the most revealing documents in USAA's history. This document will soon be available on a server located in Ulan Bator, with simultaneous mirror-service out of Vilnius and Yekatarinburg, and Irkutsk.
True v. USAA focuses on the fundamental issue that USAA lacks any capital structure. USAA exists off of money "borrowed" and then perhaps not faithfully returned to the subscribers. This law suit demands that USAA repatriate money questionably deposited in the Arran Master Trust - and that this money be returned to the subscribers who own it.
If there is some argument which dignifies the improper retention of these funds
(Author note as to argument to keep: I have absolutely no financial interest in how True v. USAA turns out. Will every signatory below please declare his/her "independence" in this matter.)
Critics: listen to this and listen carefully. " . . . and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." John Donne 1623. St. Paul's Cathedral, London. USAA's days are numbered. Look at all of you laid out below, as if you were tree huggers lying in front of a bull-dozer. You'all make a sad sight.
The result of the debate was delete NSL E ( T+ C) 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable blog. No claims to notability. Ifnord 00:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete NSL E ( T+ C) 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-admitted neologism that is only used on one forum message board. howch e ng { chat} 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
im at a bit of a loss here. its unencyclopedic, but what it is is wierd. BL kiss the lizard 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Uncle! Uncle! howch e ng { chat} 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about an advertising icon. Well-known in the US, but I don't really think it's particularly encyclopedic. ( Kool-Aid Man is a different story, though.) howch e ng { chat} 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
There's still no guidlines that say it has to have had some sort of major, groundbreaking impact and cure world hunger. It's a well known mascot. I'm gonna have to call foul on this one and say afd was a bad call. Sorry. -- TaeKwonTimmy 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete NSL E ( T+ C) 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, original research. As far as I can see, this term is only seen in Wikipedia and its mirrors. See also retiary organization. Delete -- Karada 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Neologism, original research. As far as I can see, this term is only seen in Wikipedia and its mirrors. See also enumerative organization. Delete -- Karada 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Those keeps that rest on the fact of marriage don't appear to have any basis for that claim, and the reference to wikitabloid very appropriate. An encyclopeda is not a gossip magazine. - Splash talk 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
nn dancer, article fails to allege notability. I was tempted to speedy it as nn-bio, but decided to bring it here. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Am I confused or are you guys? Nowhere does it say that he is married to Britney Spears! User:Zoe| (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nominator votes delete, because this group is too non-notable ( only 293 Googles). King of Hearts | (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep - brenneman (t) (c) 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page about achievements of alumni, mostly NOT about the Institute itself. Looking back through the history, it is apparent that someone at the Institute repeatedly changes article to biased information about the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.75.197 ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Local business in Corpus Christi, Texas. Does not meet WP:CORP. howch e ng { chat} 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is certainly verifiable, but it's just listcruft. Do we care what the top N songs of YYYY were as declared by some radio station? Not I, said the fly. howch e ng { chat} 01:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to taur. enochlau ( talk) 15:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable: an apparent internet neologism with only 854 google hits, referenced only by other "taur" articles. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 01:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to The Register. Note that addition to the register is entirely original writing and does not demand a redirect, however, a mention of it in that article does make a good case for the redirect. - Splash talk 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Page contains nothing but non-encyclopedic and/or false information. Otto Z Stern is a columnist for The Register and is borderline notable, if that Aim Here 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a single file created by a program. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of cruft. - Bobet 02:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as spam. - Lucky 6.9 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Corporate spammityspamspan from spamland about a company founded a few weeks ago, with a website on geocities. - Splash talk 02:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The supposed artist got his page deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pádraig. If the artist's not notable, how can an album due to be released in 6 months be either? - Bobet 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was created for personal advertising. 86.2.136.146 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Album from a musical group with no article ( Evince actually leads to a document viewer). Producer got his article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pádraig. 0 google hits beyond wikipedia for "Debut Days"+Evince. - Bobet 02:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was created for personal advertising. 86.2.136.146 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nn website. No incoming wikilinks. No "link:" results. Nn alexa rank. Vanity article made last August by Closo who never returned. So unpopular that it was blank for a month and no one fixed it. -- Perfecto 02:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP is not a crystal ball, article proposes that the game will be a game, but not yet J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 02:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau ( talk) 15:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary disambiguation page. Same can be accomplished with link and text I have placed at the top of Staten Island. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied as nonsense. r3m0t talk 04:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article makes no verifiable statements and externally links to blog J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nn encyclopedia site. No incoming wikilinks. No "link:" results. No media coverage. Long edit history, though, but fails WP:WEB -- Perfecto 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The Astor Place Cosmonauts are admitted by the article to be fictional. That's not the problem. The problem is that nowhere is it indicated what fiction it is from, and if that fiction is notable. The fact that APC's four Google hits are all from Wikipedia or mirrors suggests no. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. It's hard to work out what to make of Aeropagitca's comment, since it demands a judgement from me, the closer, on whether it can be cleaned up or not. Seeing as it hasn't been edited at all since the AfD tag, I suppose it's more of a deletey comment than a keepy one. - Splash talk 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Basically an add for a non-notable webiste. None of the info is independently verifiable, it all comes from their website. This was a lot worse. I had to delete a lot of second person (""They have six unique ways to search their database for a church near you." But, I decided that it still deserves deletion because the info can't be verified (except for the lead) which is non-notable without the non-verifiable data Savidan 03:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 06:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a notable company by the guidelines at WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 03:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable political candidate written in POV style Drdisque 04:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete.
Jamyskis
Whisper,
Contribs
11:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete non-notable, possible hoax "contest" Drdisque 04:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
...so why is it still here? Ah screw you all, I'll do it myself.-- Radioshed 10:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be incoherent nonsense. Delete Unless author can be more specific and explain the article. TaeKwonTimmy 04:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, since the final comment reveals it has already been 'transwikied'. - Splash talk 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This belongs at Wikisource if it isn't a copyvio, which it probably is. Cookiecaper 05:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete DS 00:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Commercial/Vanity Crid 05:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was marked for speedy deletion (A7), and while it does not assert significance, it is also not about a real person, so this tag didn't apply. Article is bio of nn "infamous Gamefaqs joke account". Does not deserve BJAODN. jnothman talk 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The keepers execute a reasonable justification of the article. - Splash talk 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Alexa rank is 959,041. I don't see how this site is notable by WP:WEB; text of article sounds primarily promotional. Daniel Case 06:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
(above vote by article creator)
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 06:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a notable company, based on WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 06:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Fixing corrupted nomination (attempt at second nom at the first nom's page). Below is the nominator's provided reasons for deletion, (cut from the previous debate before I restored it.)...
I've revived the deletion request for the following reasons:
1.) The article is largely POV that violates not only the NPOV policy but also the no original research policy and, to top it off, the talk page makes it clear that it is a vanity page for the original author. Essentially, the author is attempting to create a genre to promote his band.
2.) Subsequently, it has since become nothing but a magnet for vandalism. The valadity of the article is clearly disputed all over the relevant talk page. This seems to be pretty clear to most people who approach the subject who are familiar with the genres that are cited here as reference material. :bloodofox: 06:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The previous debate (
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothcore), was declared a keep on 8 April 2005. Fixing corrupted nomination/no vote. --
Saberwyn -
07:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
GeorgeStepanek,
The identification of 'A Fire Inside' as gothcore that you indicated occurs on what looks to me like a blog. According to A Fire Inside's wikiarticle, they are hardcore punk, an editor consensus established sometime around July-August 2005, after a series of edit wars (based on a comment on the talk page and a very brief browse of the edits in that timeframe.
A Google for "A Fire Inside" gothcore comes up with 29 unique out of 54 hits. Of these, we have two hots for the 'blog entry', a large series of Wiki-mirrors and Wiki-copyers, a scattering of other blogs, and a couple of forum postings where the poster appears to be unsure of the validity of the term gothcore. Googlesearching the http://www.afireinside.net/ domain for use of the word 'gothcore' came up nada for me.
Based on this, I believe that AFI, while notable, is not gothcore, and my previous comments still stand. Saberwyn - 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
discussion resumes
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Originally I had some cleanup tags on it, but the more I think about it the more an article written like this about a guy who's put three albums out on his own label doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Daniel Case 06:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I am Joseph's publicist and at this point spokesperson in constant contact with his attorney,,Joseph has written many songs that have been performed by many non-mainstream artists,,also he has performed on radio stations and has been mentioned on television and in sub-culture publications,,,,He has been writing lyrics and arranged melody and compositions as long as some as his mathematician detractors or self proclaimed editors of the arts,,,He is also on the path to graduate with a juris doctor,,specializing in tech and entertainment law,,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.92.205 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Google turns up nothing on this Lindström chap. Therefore, no historical interest and non-notable. Daniel Case 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)]] reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Alexa ranks this one a whopping 2,176,739th out of all the world's websites. Surely a reason it deserves its own highly promotional Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, in addition to the totally unacceptable way it's written, we have the fact that its Alexa rank is 765,572. Put this one out of its misery. Daniel Case 06:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Figuring out what mistake got this published here might be worthy of a genuinely notable article. Daniel Case 07:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Very few Google hits; text sounds promotional. Daniel Case 07:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
An obvious hoax that has been sitting in the back of wikipedia for a few months. If it had the slightest chance of being true then it would have been front page news on every gaming website. I can't even find a good rumor site to back it up (full disclosure: I only briefly scanned the google search I did.) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like a load of crap but
http://www.engadget.com/2004/05/20/details-on-the-game-boy-evolution-and-gamecube-next/
That may be of any use?
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD : speculation article; potentially libellous if about a real person. The subject does not hit in google with Microsoft --
(aeropagitica)
07:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable band. No hits on www.allmusic.com --
(aeropagitica)
07:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
One of the members is in a multi platnium band (the deftones) this is a side proiject that may intrest fans of his original band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (aeropagitica) ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 January 2006
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy for being a nn-band, but claims that one member Mike Sweeney is a broadcaster on Piccadilly Magic 1152 radio and they had a hit song in 1980. Perhaps some of our Brits can weigh in on whether this meets WP:MUSIC or not. howch e ng { chat} 07:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The page is about an artist in a California underground prog rock band. A refined Google search yields 113 hits, which are either about California underground band information or are unrelated to the subject of the article. The article also appears to have been created by the person himself (see article history) and seems to be a vanity biography. Bumm13 07:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page, together with Daimnation! (already nominated for deletion) Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity band article; only links via Google are information on underground California rock bands; article was started by a member of the band (who also started Hart Hancock. None of their albums/songs appear to have charted on any major chart. Bumm13 08:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
keep. You can't go around deleting every indy artist your itchy fingers find. If they're non-verifiable and/or are some local band, fine. These guys appear to be semi-professional, have been around awhile and have released several albums. While the article may be written by a band member, I'm sure we can rectify the neutrality issue by cleaning it up. Not being signed to columbia or atlantic is not criteria for exclusion. -- TaeKwonTimmy 08:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
comment Also, they're on clearchannel and appear to tour worldwide. floater (band) is a wikipedia staple and they're just as notable. -- TaeKwonTimmy 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - Definitely notable, and their music is excellent as well. They have been popular since at least 2002. To aeropagitica: Allmusic.com has more errors than accuracy in their content, and too many holes where good (and notable) bands should have far more information available than is usually found. Allmusic.com is about as useful as religioustolerance.org in terms of comprehensive coverage of content. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be about a local politician (conservative opposition leader) in a council for a municipality of 40 000 people. I am OK with having articles about mayors in municipalities of that size, but there are an awful lot of local council members in the world, and the vast majority of them are unlikely to pass WP:BIO. Article is also a substub, almost devoid of any real content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 08:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 08:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
not appropriate for Wikipedia — J3ff 08:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
not appropriate for Wikipedia. — J3ff 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 04:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 08:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
fixing incomplete afd nomination, page seems to be already deleted, no vote. -- MisterHand 15:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep -- Ichiro 22:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 08:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete --
Longhair 10:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Delete doubly quick? (No vote from me)
pfctdayelise
15:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was gone. DS 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. No assertion of notability; I'd have speedied this article if it were new. Melchoir 08:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 23:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable: article for a video game that never existed. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 09:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Pac-Man. - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 09:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable one-off TV show. Robin Johnson 09:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic as repost (CSD G4). — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-04 11:13 Z
This article was deleted a month ago Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HEXUS, it's back with a new name variation HackJandy 09:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-04 13:24 Z
non-notable —
J3ff
09:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Longhair as nn bio. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-04 11:10 Z
non-notable — J3ff 09:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I'm not persuaded to declare this a 'redirect' outcome since it would be on the knuckle only if I treat Bearcat as a redirect. - Splash talk 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 09:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Bodcast, porncast, podnography... is there no limit to the number of neologisms used to describe the inherently obvious extension of podcasting to pornmongery? For consistency with the others, which seem to achieve consensus delete pretty fast, I nominate this. Perhaps it would be best to describe all the newly-coined terms in Podcast, redirect and have done with it. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep it. I would not delete the term just yet. This is an early term, yes, but a very potent one that could and by the looks of how the media has picked up on it, will be very popular. Also, it definitely has meaning. I have heard the term tossed around in daily speech between several different people.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Simply put, this is trivia, failing WP:IINFO. It also lacks sources and verification, potentially failing WP:NOR. (There was no consensus in a nomination two months ago, here) >Radiant< 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP, with a subst: into the article. - Splash talk 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Game guide - fancruft. Orphaned page, not really used. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm not interested in comments like Marcin147's. - Splash talk 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOR. Appears to be a personal essay about how case studies are used in Universities. Delete, or Merge into Case study Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 10:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or rewrite. Corporate Vanity - reads like an ad brochure. No claim to notability Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 11:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Cannot find evidence that it meets WP:MUSIC. -- Whouk ( talk) 11:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak [6]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 20:19, Jan. 4, 2006
An unsigned band, with no mention of albums released. Fails Geogre's law. Could probably technically be speedy deleted on a good day, but it's more than one paragraph and has an infobox, so I'll let others decide. Abstain. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 11:21, Jan. 4, 2006abst
The result of the debate was DELETE. Although the creator cannot (and does not) demand deletion, he can participate like anyone else can, in the same way as for a more usual 'keep'. Stifle's observation seems quite well rebutted by PJM, and although not policy, WP:MUSIC does ask for two albums, so those who cite it do have grounds. We touch two-thirds here, and that's enough in this case (especially noting the "if" in Kappa's comment). - Splash talk 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails notability test in WP:MUSIC. -- Whouk ( talk) 11:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
another non notable online gaming club. Note: Over30Club, Over30club, OverThirtyClub and Over Thirty Club all redirect to Over 30 Club. User:Jsmp01 created all of them as the same article. I made them redirects. If the vote is for delete, ALL will be deleted. Woohookitty (cat scratches) 11:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
As for original research I'm not making any claims based on any research, unless you would like to redefine what the word research means, so thats hardly a reason for delete. Again we come back to the vanity but it states (as quoted above) not writing about yourself, well I'm not. -- Jsmp01 12:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Only 950 Google Results. NN? Compu ter Jo e 12:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
As with Bishop Althon ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Althon) this is tough to verify if at all possible. The article does have one reference, "Copenhagen Cathedral Guidebook, 2003" but I cannot verify the existence of such a guidebook either. Unless someone can convince me that Halderson existed, delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable, does not appear in All Music Guide, all references in other Wiki articles created by article's primary author, only Google hit is article. Cigarette 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting to get more consensus New votes below this line, please--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
KEEP IT
previous AfD
Not encyclopedic. Fails
WP:WEB,
200K google but nothing substantial (and drops to
600 when we include the main character's name to eliminate some false positives.)
One unrelated news hit, Alexa just shy of
40,000. Delete unless evedence of notabilty produced.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like it's machine translated. There's nothing here that's worth merging with depreciation. Rhobite 14:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep -- Ichiro 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
advertising a mod for Half Life 2; non-notable and possibly a copyvio ( ESkog)( Talk) 10:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
* Thanks, JJay. - Kizza
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. If I lump merge/deletes with deletes, I suppose there's numerical consensus to merge+redirect, but I'm not happy doing so under such circumstances in a well-populated debate. If there were a rough consensus, it should be fairly easy to spot with this much participation. Alternatively, I could lump the merges with keeps and look at it that way; then it becomes an editorial decision not a deletion one. - Splash talk 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Biblecruft. There is nothing specifically notable about this verse. It comes part of the way through a large genealogy, which is notable as a whole but not in fractions. The division of the bible into chapters and verses is a somewhat mediaeval invention and so there is nothing significant, religiously, about this verse in particular.
The only content of the article is two translations of the verse, a few sentences repeating who is listed in it (as if you couldn't tell from either of the preceeding two translations), and a brief comment that Rahab is spelt as Rachab, and is in an odd position - a comment that would much better fit in an article on the genealogy as a whole.
This is all it is ever likely to contain. --User talk:FDuffy 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
P.s. This article was apparantly put up for AFD before. The result was 18 Merge, 12 Keep, 7 Delete, 2 Keep or Merge, 1 Transwiki, 2 votes by new users, and 1 anonymous vote. This was declared to be without consensus.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 00:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I tagged this for cleanup ages ago, but the anon author removed the tag (and I diodn't notice). The systems appears to exist, but with <600 Google hits, mostly appearing to be from sites pushing the barrow rather than
reliable sources. The creators are redlinked and the external links are to something "still in its infancy" - this looks like an attempt at promotion rather than documnetation of a genuine and encyclopaedic topic.
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD?
14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. ( ESkog)( Talk) 20:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Prashanthns 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I am sorry to hear of this young lady's death. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and "subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives". There is no wider or profound significance to this apparent murder. Therefore, delete. Sliggy 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I originally speedied this a week ago as a NN Band, then withdrew it when the page author claimed notability in the 'outside the mass media' category of music. Since then, the page author has failed to provide any verification for notability in this category and so I'm moving it over here to get it off my watchlist MNewnham 15:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
![]() | This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Ham Ham Rivals appears to be a Hamtaro forum, fan-created video game, and possible fan created anime. Google returns 78 hits on "Ham Ham Rivals". The article itself is turning into a bit of a discussion forum. Was speedily deleted by the wub yesterday, but I think it may have progressed enough to warrant an AfD. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 14:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
POV advertisement for Hoosac Wind, largely copied from http://www.hoosacwind.com/views_bakke.html Econrad 15:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
From the article's talk page, this would seem to be some kind of school project, and a lot of work would appear to have gone into it. Unfortunately, however, this probably makes the article original research. Delete CLW 16:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Another one where it's far from clear from the debate whether it should stand alone, be merged or hacked about a bit. Certainly no consensus to delete, and I'm not happy declaring an 'editorial' outcome in the face of so much disagreement. - Splash talk 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Biblecruft. Content is
This is all it is ever going to say. --User talk:FDuffy 14:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was DELETE. I was slightly surprised by this on reading the article (although certainly much of it is of tangential relevance at best), but it is essentially unchanged from its state prior to the AfD nomination, and so it seems very clear that people are not persuaded by the material that is included. - Splash talk 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article itself states that it's only a collection of unproven rumors. In fact, these rumors are not only unproven, but unprovable. Is there any point to having article in an encyclopedia that consists of such content as "I think such and such is gay, but I have no proof?". -- Jbamb 14:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Ichiro 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
n.n. Bible cruft. Content is
The verse is "And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel". I really don't see how this constitutes notability.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Esoteric slang for video gamers doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Maybe it goes to Wictionary, but it seems doubtful for that project, too. Mikeblas 20:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Has already been pre-trans-userfied. - Splash talk 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is not an encyclopaedia entry and the contents should be moved to the creator's talk page before deletion of the article. (aeropagitica) 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 05:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
fiction, unverifiable Prashanthns 14:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. From the discussion, this sounds like something that needs working out on talk pages. - Splash talk 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article discusses solely the implications of a theory presented in another article peak oil or Hubbert peak. The implications of the theory should be discussed in the article itself. -- Jbamb 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
List which can never realistically be complete, POV on famous, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Being relisted once is enough, having been on AfD for nearly 2 weeks without any trace of support for the article. - Splash talk 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for AfD, but the nominator failed to carry out the second step of the process. No reason is given in the edit summary. My personal assumption for deletion is that the subject, a German 'warez reporter' is not an encyclopedic subject and fails the qualifiers at WP:BIO. But as I said, I'm just cleaning up the nomination. No vote at this time -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fraternity. Article self-nominates, in part, by the line "Famous Alumnae: None". Stifle 14:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. This one stands apart from the other biblical nominations (there must be a pun in there). SimonP's defense is absent; he recommends outright deletion instead. The numbers opting to delete this are substantially higher than those opting to keep, and the gap between them is much wider than in the other nominations, so clearly there is a desire for an otherwise-inconsistent result in this case. Clearly, the concern is the extreme paucity of actual non-source content; the semi-sentence that there is is subtrivial and a repetition of the title in words. Babajobu, do note that this article does not even come close to beginning to consider doing any of the things you mention, unlike some of the other bible entries. I'm not going to orphan this article as is often done at the end of an AfD, however, since there remains the possibility of a non-'cruft' version emerging into the light. - Splash talk 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
n.n. Biblecruft. Content is
That's all that's in it.
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep -- Ichiro 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a combined nomination for Harq Obispal and Stalinvast. Both these articles are non-canonical in the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe, and appear to be the subject of a role-playing character and setting, respectively. "Harq Obispal" attracts nine unique Google hits, the majority of the non-Wikipedia ones are for role-playing forums. -- 22:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Saberwyn -
The
Zoids
Expansion Project
Both Stalinvast and Harq Obispal are sourced in the Black Library Publication of "Inquisitor" by Ian Watson and as such exist properly inside the Warhammer 40K Universe at large and not any specific gamers campaign.
I admit that my first claim of non-canonocity is false, in light of the evidence. I admit I was wrong. However, I still find myself questioning this article's 'place' in the grand scheme of Warhammer 40,000-related articles on Wikipedia.
Many of the characters in the fictional universe do not have their own articles. The Emperor Himself, arguably the single most important character/'historical figure' in the game and fiction, is a section in another article (although I do concede that there are plans to move him back out, and support this move). The majority of the Primarchs are included in the article on their Legion (with one exception, who is arguably the second most important character/'historical figure' in the fictional universe.
I have never read the Inquisition War (and knowing my luck, will probably never get the chance to), and don't know how important the character of Harq Obispal, or the world of Stalinvast) is to the plot. I think the best place for this information would be either in an article on the Inquisition War trilogy, or in an article on "Jac Draco", who appears to be the primary character of the trilogy. Failing that, my call for deletion still stands. No offense to the article author or the subject material, but to me, this is at the moment little more than Warhammer40K-cruft. -- Saberwyn
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Incorrect spelling, page exists at Coriolis effect. Jomtois 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity Prashanthns 15:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP is not a crystal ball, game is not released and google test provides no relevant links J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Student film perhaps? Nothing on IMDB and nothing that I saw when I googled the name (and variations) — Bellhalla 15:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Suspected, er, original research, followed by a crib of the underwear article. Robin Johnson 15:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 10:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Ad for a Warcraft III map. No claim to notability Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 11:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or Expand & explain notability. Seems to be a NN neologism. Badly written, and practically empty. I cleaned up the images because I could not stand the previous version. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 11:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a bus schedule plus the POV
Jcbarr
14:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete silly vandalism - let's not waste time. - Doc ask? 22:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
No clarity, uncertain article, proof needed Holms19 14:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neutron and positron radiation are two very different types of particle radiation, therefore they should not be an article on both of them. Therefore, this article should be deleted. There should be separate articles on both of them. Polonium
The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The reason I've nominated this for deletion is because the information is already listed under the "Runes" section, at RuneScape Items.
That aside, the RuneScape Items article is hardly what I would call "cumbersome". Mike 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable record label - main evidence includes having a myspace page. Stifle 16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Canadian genealogical entry. YUL89YYZ 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT ALL to Current Home and Away characters. There's clearly no consensus to delete, but this new article is constructed directly from the individual ones, appearing to incorporate all the information in them. So, I'll apply redirects to each article, which is an ordinary editorial decision. - Splash talk 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Most (if not all) the articles for Home And Away are very short and the characters wouldn't pass the "google test" if they were real people, much less characters on this TV show. The vast majority's #1 hit is their respective WP article that has very little information. A concise page listing all the characters would be the best way to handle this on WP, if necessary at all. Dbchip 16:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete per above.
Home And Away is the place for that sort of thing.
Dan 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*Delete These characters do not seem to pass the google test. Separate articles for each of these fictional characters seems excessive, especially with the brevity of some of the articles. --
Bovineone
18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
KEEP - H&A is one of the most popular and succesful shows in Australian history and has a HUGE fan base and following outside AU. With much more viewers than stale old unimportant shows like Eastenders and Coronation street - two shows that not a single soul outside the UK cares about. The Idea of deletion is anopther example of the UGLINESS of colinalism and bigotry- one thinks only American characters from buffy should be allowd to saty and a british poster thinks someone actually cares about Eastenders and CS' who's number of viewers outside the UK (combined) is not even a quarter of the H&A viewers.
The result of the debate was DELETE as copyvio. - Splash talk 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertisement 司徒天 16:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Looking at the unwikfied text dump makes me think it a likely copyvio from somewhere, too. - Splash talk 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. No information found on the same. Linked sites on article have no information. -- Krash 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily merged -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no text on this page, except for the pointless "See also" part. The article should be deleted or merged with Walden Pond. If merged, I suggest Walden Pond State Reservation be redirected to Walden Pond. -- Thorri 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE as copyvio. This debate shouldn't prejudice a rewrite since it's a not-really-sure by itself and is brief. - Splash talk 00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Veiled advertisement James084 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough, as it is about a fictional disease that was only mentioned in one episode. Philip Stevens 16:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Ad copy. Rhobite 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I can not find anything to back up the claims of this supposed 23-year old self-made millionaire. Delete unless verified. BD2412 T 18:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Redirect to View Askewniverse. enochlau ( talk) 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The page lists information that is already present on, View Askewniverse. Only View Askewniverse contains more information on the subject than this page. The Filmaker 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Note that the cited text does exist, and appears not be on a vanity press. - Splash talk 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Added by an anonymous author, zero non-wiki google hits, I put a If this page does not list a reference by the end of the week, I am nominating it for deletion on the talk page a week ago. Its writing style alone makes me suspicious that this is a spurious work of imagination, for example Her power over the camp, the more than 60,000 female and juvenile inmates, and more than 1,000 female guards, was absolute. - it's possible that she was an actual person, but even if she was, Wikipedia is unlikely to be lessened by losing this article, and since it seems "likely" to say it's a hoax (since all other female Nazi guards listed on Wikipedia are google-able), I'd rather we be safe, and not used at another plaything for the media ("I put my three year old daughter on Wikipedia as a Nazi guard, and it stayed up for months", etc) Sherurcij ( talk) ( bounties) 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a dictionary article about a word that has been submitted to the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's nothing here of any worth to Wiktionary. Indeed, Wiktionary already has leverage, which leverage (disambiguation) already links to. There is no good reason for even a redirect by this title. Uncle G 18:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be very notable, nothing concrete from a google search [18]. Delete as nonsense KnowledgeOf Self | talk 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Only claim to notability is three albums that I can't find on three different "independent" labels. Ifnord 18:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by user:KFD ( talk • contribs)
Combathas ceased to exist, but has released albums by Megadeth, Nuclear Assault, Exodus and Celtic Frost. They're all very big names in Thrash Metal and Black Metal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by user:KFD ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete nnbio. - Doc ask? 22:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musical artist. "Preparing a debut album" doesn't qualify someone for WP yet. -- (aeropagitica) 18:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This was previously nominated for a speedy (CSD A7). I'm not sure if A7 applies, since it attempts to establish notability by saying he's the father of a daimyo. No vote from me, since I don't know enough about Japanese history to reliably comment on whether this is a valid bio stub or if it should be deleted for being about the non-notable father of a daimyo. --
D
e
ath
phoenix
18:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion as nn-bio, but it's company, not a person. However, it's a very NN record label that has 3 albums "that have not been met with any tangible success." howch e ng { chat} 18:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparent self-promotion attempt for porn website; no evident notability. Sandstein 19:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by Sliggy as nn-bio, but it claims significance, so bringing it to AfD instead. However, the multiple links to his web page don't work, and Googling him reveals a number of links to sites that he presumably runs that also don't work. howch e ng { chat} 19:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep, and then rename, and add cleanup tag. enochlau ( talk) 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a strange article. I'm quite sure that there is a science of studying animals which move about using the surface tension of water, but Google at least supports my view that it doesn't have this name. Perhaps a delete is too strong - the information should be moved to a correctly named article and cleaned up. Richard W.M. Jones 19:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, just a fictional organization in a role-playing campaign GRuban 19:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by James084 as nn-bio, but he's an author. I found his books on Amazon, so bringing it to AfD instead. No vote. howch e ng { chat} 19:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Although he seems a minor writer, there is a substantial interest in this author as evidenced in his presense elsewhere on the web. I vote to keep it.
The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howch e ng { chat} 19:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Band appears insignificant, no direct hits from google. Only one band they have listed as playing with actually has a wikipedia entry BUT they have recorded cds. Appears to be a self glorifying stub of an amatuer musical group NJ 19:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a recreation of Harry Potter RPGs, which has already been merged and redirected to Harry Potter fandom (under the "Roleplaying Games" section). It's not a speedy criteria because that content wasn't deleted, but I believe this article goes beyond the trivial details into one subset of fandom that doesn't deserve its own article. Not only that, but putting a /RPGs subarticle is contrary to what I've seen on main articlespace articles. For these multitude of reasons this article should definitely be deleted. -- D e ath phoenix 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Local music promoter, manager of apparently non-notable band, insufficiently notable currently Average Earthman 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged as an A7 nn-bio speedy, but it's a fairly dodgy one as it does assert significance in some ways. Anyway, it's a managing director for BearingPoint - not sure it's "notable" enough for here though, probably not. No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 19:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Zoe — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-05 04:22 Z
I doubt if it's encyclopedic content... Maybe moving into Uncyclopedia? Adam78 20:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
peedied. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
===Berabow Man===
Remake of older copy/paste & search&replace article by part of
User:193.164.112.20, careful reading reveals the article to be just a grossly made vandalism/joke, and the user has a well-known history of vandalism/unconstructive edits. All relevant info about the game's arcade version can already be found in the
Bravoman article.
EpiVictor 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
March listing is moot, was speedy redirected to
Bravoman.
Angr/
talk
20:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The Berabow Man article appears to be a shallow copy of the Bravoman article with just changes in the names, no images, and no apparent reason for creation e.g. like "Berabow Man" being an actual alternate name for the actual Namco's game Bravoman. Also, its author vandalized the original Bravoman page and redirected to his/her version. This article offers little or nothing extra information compared to the original, and has little reason to exist.
Berabow Man is NOT a shallow copy of the Bravoman article. The game name is BERABOW MAN based upon Namco's own listings: - BERABOW is in the default high score listing - BERABOW MAN is listed in the history of Namco games in Namco Museum Volume 1 (PS1) - BERABOW MAN is listed in the history of Namco games in the end credits of Dragon Saber (1990). Bravoman is just an NEC PC-Engine conversion of the game, translated into English.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like a lot of nonsense to me; however, it could indeed be somewhat notable. I don't know. I'd vote Strong Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James084 ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 January 2006
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Adam Bishop — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-05 04:17 Z
Non notable Oscarthecat 20:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau ( talk) 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity, non-notable Crid 20:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). enochlau ( talk) 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. 468 Google hits, 1st page is two different guys, one a Hell's Angels member and the other a professional wrestler. His "biography" (the external link) leads to his webpage - which has nothing written about him, it's a commercial site that sells cartoons from many different cartoonists. Ifnord 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
An university project, complete with a conclusion and the authors' names at the bottom. JoaoRicardo talk 20:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau ( talk) 23:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I've added the stub content of Ron Wilson (hockey) to a preexisting entry for an NHL player/coach, Ron Wilson.
Having two NHL player/coaches in separate entries, with only one marked "(hockey)", was confusing, and looked at first like entries for the same person. Their birth years are only one digit different, as are their Overall draft positions, either at which, at first glance, could pass for typos. A dual entry follows the style of other such entries as Ghost Rider.
Part Two to this: Deleting "Ron Wilson (hockey)" will allow the current "Ron Wilson" to be be renamed "Ron Wilson (hockey)".
This would be good since there are many, many Ron Wilson entries (see Ron Wilson (disambiguation)) and it makes wikifying other Ron Wilsons problemmatic, since " Ron Wilson" with no qualifier looks like a good blue link, but it currently goes to a hockey entry rather than, more helpfully, the disambig page. -- Tenebrae 21:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This isn't a UK radio station. In fact, it doesn't look like it's much of a radio station at all. The article attached to the title isn't even about the radio station - it's about a non-notable British DJ. So, not notable, not clean-up-able, article not related to subject.➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Since Novemeber of last year on Talk:Edward Smith (psychologist) we have been trying to figure out if this person actually exists, what his academic credentials really are, etc. Is he a hoax? Is this vanity? I suspect he is a non-notable with a diploma mill doctorate. Ifnord 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
of disease-causing intestinal bacteria." [24]. Limegreen 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This almost certainly doesn't meet WP's music notability standards, but it is a little novel. So maybe it should be included in the metal article? If not, I think it should be deleted. Esprit15d 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like a hoax, with no references given. Google doesn't show any such organization, other than an unrelated Partnership for Economic Governance Reforms, some radiotherapy pEgr, and a departmental abbreviation at Western Michigan University. And I find no reference to any Walther O'Toole on Google, nor did I see at first glance any Walter O'Tooles that seemed likely. I'm not real sure how PEGR is supposed to stand for People Against Gamma Radiation, but I don't find any PAGRs that fit the description either. NickelShoe 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:Music; see also Desk Metal Ray Dassen 21:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howch e ng { chat} 22:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
not notable. Speedy Delete James084 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable. Part of Plymouth, no noteworthy information. Didactylos 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete - this was a single-author-only deletion request; closed early. -- HappyCamper 04:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic podcast with no notability. feydey 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree that this page has no merit and merely seems to serve as an ad. It is also poorly written-- levophed 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet another
fork. By consensus, there is an article on
motorized bicycles which
User:CyclePat (who makes electric bikes) has been trying for ever to fork into a separate article on electric bikes. There have been edit wars over the redirect at
electric bicycle, addition of excessive detail re Canadian regulations and all sorts. I'm sorry, Pat, I know you are sincere but you just can't keep doing this!
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD?
22:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
I think perhaps you meant Wikipedia:Content forking instead of WP:FORK because I couldn't find anything in that guideline relating to your issues. Let's go through that article on content forking. Here is my analisys:
Conclusion: There is nothing left for you to argue according to those guidelines. Nomination of this page for the above reason WP:FORK is not justified. -- CylePat 03:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
You address the subject very vaguelly. I understand that some of those issues such as "is not a synonym of an existing article title" is not an affirmative defense. But you are reversing the roles here. You are attempting to make me prove my innoncence, when you haven't even proven that there is guilt. There is no doubt that this is a translation. And yes it can be both! This is because it is a "sub-class" of motorized bicycle... or in the case of this alleged POV FORKING, a "spin-out." (I call it an article with more details.) These vehicle may be, in some instances similar, but they definatelly warants their own pages. The first part of Wikipedia:Content forking stipulates:
I haven't experienced any disagreement about the content of "pedelec". What content don't you agree with? You see none of this was discussed, even with past issues that might have occured with the totally different class of vehicle called the "electric bicycle." This makes it difficult to assume good faith when you don't prove your case. I'm sorry but if the German Wikipedian have decided to "spin-out"(I call it have more details in another article), I see no reason why this precedence could not be used?... But that doesn't really matter because it's not a spin-out or a POV FORK. The key idea here is "summary". When "motorized bicycle" was created consensus was that this was a summary file. Editor firgured it would be better to have all articles under one roof. It was created to summarize power assisted cycles and power assisted bicycles and electric bicycles, etc... Again, as per Wikipedia:Content forking Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking. Again: there is no disagreement on content and motorized bicycle article is a summary style article. We need to go into more details. -- CylePat 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Again, Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking. -- CyclePat [[Image:Ladies safety bicycles1889.gif|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
According to Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles,: (for the ease of reader I include it hear):
A precedence exists at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Content of articles ]] that is related to this article. "Statement(s) of principle: An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details." Using this precedence, we may argue that motorized bicycle, should remain a summary article. Furthermore using the precedence Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Splitting of articles will also support my theory of creating this article. I must make an attack on the article of motorized bicycle for we are generalizing within that article and have started original research. ie.: That a pedelec is a motorized bicycle. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Neutral point of view (and associated principles), "Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues." (It however makes sense to include all machines that meet the definition of a "motorized bicycles", right? I would say yes, but that's only because we have mis interpretated Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy which "contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion." We are meeting the wiki policy of NPOV in the article of motorized bicycle and I think we need some supporting sources regarding the subject of the article. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Neutral point of view (and associated principles) "Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves." This being said, I sugest we resolve this issue as per a suggestion from NPOV precedences: "Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." -- CyclePat 00:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep. Mackensen (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and unencyclopedic, especially as it is utterly unclear who he's supposed to be. Google turns up 96 distinct hits for "Sir Derek Vestey", most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. This article has been here two years without improving from its origins as an unwikified and confused text dump.
Mackensen
(talk)
22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the place to advertise games under development.
The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau ( talk) 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
vanity page badbio
This person is an unknown, claiming to have written one book nobody has heard of, and the original entry, very badly phrased in telegraphic style, came from an unknown source with only IP number. further entries on the page were style improvements and wikification, the only one that added real content was spam
even if it's not a vanity page proper, it's worthy of deletion on badbio grounds-- Svartalf 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising. Oppress this article. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to help you delete the delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by Misza13 as spam, but it's not really. Article is about some guy's web site selling ad space so he can buy a Hummer (which would plastered with those ads). I hate to break it to him, but it's already been done. Anyway, brought it to AfD to respect Misza13's desire to see it gone. howch e ng { chat} 23:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable neologism. A Google search yields 0 hits. Phædriel 23:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This phrase has become a commonly accepted portmanteau when discussing business process improvement. -- Ghofbauer 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as silly vandalism.
Something for editors to bear in mind when next April the 1st comes around: We are still cleaning up the silly vandalism from April Fools Day eight months later.
Uncle G 15:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be fake or a joke article. A google search [29] did not return pertinent hits. Uthbrian ( talk) 23:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Mike Rosoft (Neologism, no context/references) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-05 02:42 Z
Neologism. Loads of Google entries, but mostly acronyms which are unrelated to this supposed definition. Ifnord 23:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was (Doesn't belong on AfD) enochlau ( talk) 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Incorrect title for an article on a document. Another with the correct title has been put in its place. Delete this and use only "El Plan de Santa Barbara (correct title) Fcendejas 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The debate boils down to keep-vs-merge, which is not a decision for AfD, and there is no consensus on that question anyway. - Splash talk 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by
64.27.214.250 as nn-bio, but he's the survivor of the recent coal mine accident, which is certainly a claim of notability. Not sure, however, if it's encyclopedic. No vote.
howch
e
ng {
chat}
23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Total count thus far--I think it is safe to say we have ourselves a keeper. --
Caponer
18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
**Keep: 13
**Merge: 4
**Delete: 2
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This band hasn't achieved a degree of notability sufficient to be referenced in WP. See WP:Music for criteria of same. -- (aeropagitica) 23:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Halakha. We don't merge original research. It's all in the history if anyone wants it. - Splash talk 00:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article purports to list all Jewish laws with either a kabbalistic source or a kabbalistic rationale. However, it is overwhelmingly original research without a system or clear inclusion or exclusion criteria, lacks sources and has been abandoned by the one author who was editing it ( Jon513 ( talk · contribs)). JFW | T@lk 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Highly non-famous record co. founded in 2001, no claims of large sales, notable bands, etc. Vanity, promotion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to fit WP:MUSIC. Rob Church Talk 23:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd tag it as {{ nn-bio}}, but someone would complain. See also AfD for HydE (band). Doesn't seem notable in his own right, and the article was either created by its subject or a sexually-crazed fan. Rob Church Talk 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. The article certainly is about the company, not about açaí itself, the redirection and typing-in of which is a different matter. - Splash talk 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nothing is wrong with this post. Keep in mind there are other brand names which are posted here. Does this mean we are going to remove Coke, Pepsi, 7up, etc...?
The result of the debate was delete NSL E ( T+ C) 08:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Argument for Delete: An article about a legal case which has barely begun, and about which there is no evidence any newspaper or journal has written, concerning a matter which itself does not appear to be notable or significant. Ordinarilly I'd be reluctant to nominate an article only a day old for AfD, but the submitter's other contributions (particularly those on Unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange) strongly suggest he intends to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to publicise his ongoing lawsuit. That's not a fit purpose to which Wikipedia should be put. Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Argument to Keep: True v USAA was commenced (filed) 10 Feb 2004 (Docket # 04 L 79, St. Clare County, IL). Thus, this is hardly a new case: in fact it is almost two years old. True is singularly the most challenging law suit and easily the most significant event presently bearing on USAA's finances. It demands the immediate return of all unallocated surplus surplus. If Col True is granted class action status, and if Col True prevails, USAA will tautologically become insolvent and will then be disolved by the Texas Department of Insurance.
USAA's April 6, 2005 24-page response to interrogatories, in which USAA's lawyers essentially argue that the "members" own nothing, is one of the most revealing documents in USAA's history. This document will soon be available on a server located in Ulan Bator, with simultaneous mirror-service out of Vilnius and Yekatarinburg, and Irkutsk.
True v. USAA focuses on the fundamental issue that USAA lacks any capital structure. USAA exists off of money "borrowed" and then perhaps not faithfully returned to the subscribers. This law suit demands that USAA repatriate money questionably deposited in the Arran Master Trust - and that this money be returned to the subscribers who own it.
If there is some argument which dignifies the improper retention of these funds
(Author note as to argument to keep: I have absolutely no financial interest in how True v. USAA turns out. Will every signatory below please declare his/her "independence" in this matter.)
Critics: listen to this and listen carefully. " . . . and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." John Donne 1623. St. Paul's Cathedral, London. USAA's days are numbered. Look at all of you laid out below, as if you were tree huggers lying in front of a bull-dozer. You'all make a sad sight.
The result of the debate was delete NSL E ( T+ C) 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable blog. No claims to notability. Ifnord 00:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete NSL E ( T+ C) 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-admitted neologism that is only used on one forum message board. howch e ng { chat} 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
im at a bit of a loss here. its unencyclopedic, but what it is is wierd. BL kiss the lizard 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Uncle! Uncle! howch e ng { chat} 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about an advertising icon. Well-known in the US, but I don't really think it's particularly encyclopedic. ( Kool-Aid Man is a different story, though.) howch e ng { chat} 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
There's still no guidlines that say it has to have had some sort of major, groundbreaking impact and cure world hunger. It's a well known mascot. I'm gonna have to call foul on this one and say afd was a bad call. Sorry. -- TaeKwonTimmy 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete NSL E ( T+ C) 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, original research. As far as I can see, this term is only seen in Wikipedia and its mirrors. See also retiary organization. Delete -- Karada 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete
Neologism, original research. As far as I can see, this term is only seen in Wikipedia and its mirrors. See also enumerative organization. Delete -- Karada 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Those keeps that rest on the fact of marriage don't appear to have any basis for that claim, and the reference to wikitabloid very appropriate. An encyclopeda is not a gossip magazine. - Splash talk 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
nn dancer, article fails to allege notability. I was tempted to speedy it as nn-bio, but decided to bring it here. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Am I confused or are you guys? Nowhere does it say that he is married to Britney Spears! User:Zoe| (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nominator votes delete, because this group is too non-notable ( only 293 Googles). King of Hearts | (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep - brenneman (t) (c) 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page about achievements of alumni, mostly NOT about the Institute itself. Looking back through the history, it is apparent that someone at the Institute repeatedly changes article to biased information about the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.75.197 ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Local business in Corpus Christi, Texas. Does not meet WP:CORP. howch e ng { chat} 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is certainly verifiable, but it's just listcruft. Do we care what the top N songs of YYYY were as declared by some radio station? Not I, said the fly. howch e ng { chat} 01:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to taur. enochlau ( talk) 15:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable: an apparent internet neologism with only 854 google hits, referenced only by other "taur" articles. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 01:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to The Register. Note that addition to the register is entirely original writing and does not demand a redirect, however, a mention of it in that article does make a good case for the redirect. - Splash talk 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Page contains nothing but non-encyclopedic and/or false information. Otto Z Stern is a columnist for The Register and is borderline notable, if that Aim Here 01:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a single file created by a program. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of cruft. - Bobet 02:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as spam. - Lucky 6.9 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Corporate spammityspamspan from spamland about a company founded a few weeks ago, with a website on geocities. - Splash talk 02:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The supposed artist got his page deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pádraig. If the artist's not notable, how can an album due to be released in 6 months be either? - Bobet 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was created for personal advertising. 86.2.136.146 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Album from a musical group with no article ( Evince actually leads to a document viewer). Producer got his article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pádraig. 0 google hits beyond wikipedia for "Debut Days"+Evince. - Bobet 02:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was created for personal advertising. 86.2.136.146 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nn website. No incoming wikilinks. No "link:" results. Nn alexa rank. Vanity article made last August by Closo who never returned. So unpopular that it was blank for a month and no one fixed it. -- Perfecto 02:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP is not a crystal ball, article proposes that the game will be a game, but not yet J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 02:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau ( talk) 15:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary disambiguation page. Same can be accomplished with link and text I have placed at the top of Staten Island. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedied as nonsense. r3m0t talk 04:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article makes no verifiable statements and externally links to blog J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nn encyclopedia site. No incoming wikilinks. No "link:" results. No media coverage. Long edit history, though, but fails WP:WEB -- Perfecto 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The Astor Place Cosmonauts are admitted by the article to be fictional. That's not the problem. The problem is that nowhere is it indicated what fiction it is from, and if that fiction is notable. The fact that APC's four Google hits are all from Wikipedia or mirrors suggests no. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. It's hard to work out what to make of Aeropagitca's comment, since it demands a judgement from me, the closer, on whether it can be cleaned up or not. Seeing as it hasn't been edited at all since the AfD tag, I suppose it's more of a deletey comment than a keepy one. - Splash talk 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Basically an add for a non-notable webiste. None of the info is independently verifiable, it all comes from their website. This was a lot worse. I had to delete a lot of second person (""They have six unique ways to search their database for a church near you." But, I decided that it still deserves deletion because the info can't be verified (except for the lead) which is non-notable without the non-verifiable data Savidan 03:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 06:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a notable company by the guidelines at WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 03:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable political candidate written in POV style Drdisque 04:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete.
Jamyskis
Whisper,
Contribs
11:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete non-notable, possible hoax "contest" Drdisque 04:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
...so why is it still here? Ah screw you all, I'll do it myself.-- Radioshed 10:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be incoherent nonsense. Delete Unless author can be more specific and explain the article. TaeKwonTimmy 04:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, since the final comment reveals it has already been 'transwikied'. - Splash talk 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This belongs at Wikisource if it isn't a copyvio, which it probably is. Cookiecaper 05:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete DS 00:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Commercial/Vanity Crid 05:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was marked for speedy deletion (A7), and while it does not assert significance, it is also not about a real person, so this tag didn't apply. Article is bio of nn "infamous Gamefaqs joke account". Does not deserve BJAODN. jnothman talk 05:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The keepers execute a reasonable justification of the article. - Splash talk 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Alexa rank is 959,041. I don't see how this site is notable by WP:WEB; text of article sounds primarily promotional. Daniel Case 06:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
(above vote by article creator)
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 06:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a notable company, based on WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 06:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Fixing corrupted nomination (attempt at second nom at the first nom's page). Below is the nominator's provided reasons for deletion, (cut from the previous debate before I restored it.)...
I've revived the deletion request for the following reasons:
1.) The article is largely POV that violates not only the NPOV policy but also the no original research policy and, to top it off, the talk page makes it clear that it is a vanity page for the original author. Essentially, the author is attempting to create a genre to promote his band.
2.) Subsequently, it has since become nothing but a magnet for vandalism. The valadity of the article is clearly disputed all over the relevant talk page. This seems to be pretty clear to most people who approach the subject who are familiar with the genres that are cited here as reference material. :bloodofox: 06:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The previous debate (
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothcore), was declared a keep on 8 April 2005. Fixing corrupted nomination/no vote. --
Saberwyn -
07:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
GeorgeStepanek,
The identification of 'A Fire Inside' as gothcore that you indicated occurs on what looks to me like a blog. According to A Fire Inside's wikiarticle, they are hardcore punk, an editor consensus established sometime around July-August 2005, after a series of edit wars (based on a comment on the talk page and a very brief browse of the edits in that timeframe.
A Google for "A Fire Inside" gothcore comes up with 29 unique out of 54 hits. Of these, we have two hots for the 'blog entry', a large series of Wiki-mirrors and Wiki-copyers, a scattering of other blogs, and a couple of forum postings where the poster appears to be unsure of the validity of the term gothcore. Googlesearching the http://www.afireinside.net/ domain for use of the word 'gothcore' came up nada for me.
Based on this, I believe that AFI, while notable, is not gothcore, and my previous comments still stand. Saberwyn - 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
discussion resumes
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Originally I had some cleanup tags on it, but the more I think about it the more an article written like this about a guy who's put three albums out on his own label doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Daniel Case 06:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I am Joseph's publicist and at this point spokesperson in constant contact with his attorney,,Joseph has written many songs that have been performed by many non-mainstream artists,,also he has performed on radio stations and has been mentioned on television and in sub-culture publications,,,,He has been writing lyrics and arranged melody and compositions as long as some as his mathematician detractors or self proclaimed editors of the arts,,,He is also on the path to graduate with a juris doctor,,specializing in tech and entertainment law,,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.92.205 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Google turns up nothing on this Lindström chap. Therefore, no historical interest and non-notable. Daniel Case 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)]] reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Alexa ranks this one a whopping 2,176,739th out of all the world's websites. Surely a reason it deserves its own highly promotional Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, in addition to the totally unacceptable way it's written, we have the fact that its Alexa rank is 765,572. Put this one out of its misery. Daniel Case 06:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Figuring out what mistake got this published here might be worthy of a genuinely notable article. Daniel Case 07:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Very few Google hits; text sounds promotional. Daniel Case 07:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
An obvious hoax that has been sitting in the back of wikipedia for a few months. If it had the slightest chance of being true then it would have been front page news on every gaming website. I can't even find a good rumor site to back it up (full disclosure: I only briefly scanned the google search I did.) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like a load of crap but
http://www.engadget.com/2004/05/20/details-on-the-game-boy-evolution-and-gamecube-next/
That may be of any use?
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD : speculation article; potentially libellous if about a real person. The subject does not hit in google with Microsoft --
(aeropagitica)
07:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable band. No hits on www.allmusic.com --
(aeropagitica)
07:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
One of the members is in a multi platnium band (the deftones) this is a side proiject that may intrest fans of his original band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (aeropagitica) ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 January 2006
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy for being a nn-band, but claims that one member Mike Sweeney is a broadcaster on Piccadilly Magic 1152 radio and they had a hit song in 1980. Perhaps some of our Brits can weigh in on whether this meets WP:MUSIC or not. howch e ng { chat} 07:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The page is about an artist in a California underground prog rock band. A refined Google search yields 113 hits, which are either about California underground band information or are unrelated to the subject of the article. The article also appears to have been created by the person himself (see article history) and seems to be a vanity biography. Bumm13 07:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page, together with Daimnation! (already nominated for deletion) Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity band article; only links via Google are information on underground California rock bands; article was started by a member of the band (who also started Hart Hancock. None of their albums/songs appear to have charted on any major chart. Bumm13 08:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
keep. You can't go around deleting every indy artist your itchy fingers find. If they're non-verifiable and/or are some local band, fine. These guys appear to be semi-professional, have been around awhile and have released several albums. While the article may be written by a band member, I'm sure we can rectify the neutrality issue by cleaning it up. Not being signed to columbia or atlantic is not criteria for exclusion. -- TaeKwonTimmy 08:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
comment Also, they're on clearchannel and appear to tour worldwide. floater (band) is a wikipedia staple and they're just as notable. -- TaeKwonTimmy 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - Definitely notable, and their music is excellent as well. They have been popular since at least 2002. To aeropagitica: Allmusic.com has more errors than accuracy in their content, and too many holes where good (and notable) bands should have far more information available than is usually found. Allmusic.com is about as useful as religioustolerance.org in terms of comprehensive coverage of content. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be about a local politician (conservative opposition leader) in a council for a municipality of 40 000 people. I am OK with having articles about mayors in municipalities of that size, but there are an awful lot of local council members in the world, and the vast majority of them are unlikely to pass WP:BIO. Article is also a substub, almost devoid of any real content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 08:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 08:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
not appropriate for Wikipedia — J3ff 08:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
not appropriate for Wikipedia. — J3ff 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 04:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 08:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
fixing incomplete afd nomination, page seems to be already deleted, no vote. -- MisterHand 15:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep -- Ichiro 22:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 08:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete --
Longhair 10:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Delete doubly quick? (No vote from me)
pfctdayelise
15:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was gone. DS 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. No assertion of notability; I'd have speedied this article if it were new. Melchoir 08:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 23:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable: article for a video game that never existed. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 09:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Pac-Man. - Mailer Diablo 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 09:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable one-off TV show. Robin Johnson 09:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic as repost (CSD G4). — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-04 11:13 Z
This article was deleted a month ago Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HEXUS, it's back with a new name variation HackJandy 09:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-04 13:24 Z
non-notable —
J3ff
09:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Longhair as nn bio. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-04 11:10 Z
non-notable — J3ff 09:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I'm not persuaded to declare this a 'redirect' outcome since it would be on the knuckle only if I treat Bearcat as a redirect. - Splash talk 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable — J3ff 09:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Bodcast, porncast, podnography... is there no limit to the number of neologisms used to describe the inherently obvious extension of podcasting to pornmongery? For consistency with the others, which seem to achieve consensus delete pretty fast, I nominate this. Perhaps it would be best to describe all the newly-coined terms in Podcast, redirect and have done with it. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep it. I would not delete the term just yet. This is an early term, yes, but a very potent one that could and by the looks of how the media has picked up on it, will be very popular. Also, it definitely has meaning. I have heard the term tossed around in daily speech between several different people.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Simply put, this is trivia, failing WP:IINFO. It also lacks sources and verification, potentially failing WP:NOR. (There was no consensus in a nomination two months ago, here) >Radiant< 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP, with a subst: into the article. - Splash talk 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Game guide - fancruft. Orphaned page, not really used. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm not interested in comments like Marcin147's. - Splash talk 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOR. Appears to be a personal essay about how case studies are used in Universities. Delete, or Merge into Case study Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 10:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or rewrite. Corporate Vanity - reads like an ad brochure. No claim to notability Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 11:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Cannot find evidence that it meets WP:MUSIC. -- Whouk ( talk) 11:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak [6]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 20:19, Jan. 4, 2006
An unsigned band, with no mention of albums released. Fails Geogre's law. Could probably technically be speedy deleted on a good day, but it's more than one paragraph and has an infobox, so I'll let others decide. Abstain. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 11:21, Jan. 4, 2006abst
The result of the debate was DELETE. Although the creator cannot (and does not) demand deletion, he can participate like anyone else can, in the same way as for a more usual 'keep'. Stifle's observation seems quite well rebutted by PJM, and although not policy, WP:MUSIC does ask for two albums, so those who cite it do have grounds. We touch two-thirds here, and that's enough in this case (especially noting the "if" in Kappa's comment). - Splash talk 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails notability test in WP:MUSIC. -- Whouk ( talk) 11:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
another non notable online gaming club. Note: Over30Club, Over30club, OverThirtyClub and Over Thirty Club all redirect to Over 30 Club. User:Jsmp01 created all of them as the same article. I made them redirects. If the vote is for delete, ALL will be deleted. Woohookitty (cat scratches) 11:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
As for original research I'm not making any claims based on any research, unless you would like to redefine what the word research means, so thats hardly a reason for delete. Again we come back to the vanity but it states (as quoted above) not writing about yourself, well I'm not. -- Jsmp01 12:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Only 950 Google Results. NN? Compu ter Jo e 12:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
As with Bishop Althon ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Althon) this is tough to verify if at all possible. The article does have one reference, "Copenhagen Cathedral Guidebook, 2003" but I cannot verify the existence of such a guidebook either. Unless someone can convince me that Halderson existed, delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable, does not appear in All Music Guide, all references in other Wiki articles created by article's primary author, only Google hit is article. Cigarette 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting to get more consensus New votes below this line, please--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
KEEP IT
previous AfD
Not encyclopedic. Fails
WP:WEB,
200K google but nothing substantial (and drops to
600 when we include the main character's name to eliminate some false positives.)
One unrelated news hit, Alexa just shy of
40,000. Delete unless evedence of notabilty produced.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like it's machine translated. There's nothing here that's worth merging with depreciation. Rhobite 14:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep -- Ichiro 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
advertising a mod for Half Life 2; non-notable and possibly a copyvio ( ESkog)( Talk) 10:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
* Thanks, JJay. - Kizza
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. If I lump merge/deletes with deletes, I suppose there's numerical consensus to merge+redirect, but I'm not happy doing so under such circumstances in a well-populated debate. If there were a rough consensus, it should be fairly easy to spot with this much participation. Alternatively, I could lump the merges with keeps and look at it that way; then it becomes an editorial decision not a deletion one. - Splash talk 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Biblecruft. There is nothing specifically notable about this verse. It comes part of the way through a large genealogy, which is notable as a whole but not in fractions. The division of the bible into chapters and verses is a somewhat mediaeval invention and so there is nothing significant, religiously, about this verse in particular.
The only content of the article is two translations of the verse, a few sentences repeating who is listed in it (as if you couldn't tell from either of the preceeding two translations), and a brief comment that Rahab is spelt as Rachab, and is in an odd position - a comment that would much better fit in an article on the genealogy as a whole.
This is all it is ever likely to contain. --User talk:FDuffy 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
P.s. This article was apparantly put up for AFD before. The result was 18 Merge, 12 Keep, 7 Delete, 2 Keep or Merge, 1 Transwiki, 2 votes by new users, and 1 anonymous vote. This was declared to be without consensus.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 00:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I tagged this for cleanup ages ago, but the anon author removed the tag (and I diodn't notice). The systems appears to exist, but with <600 Google hits, mostly appearing to be from sites pushing the barrow rather than
reliable sources. The creators are redlinked and the external links are to something "still in its infancy" - this looks like an attempt at promotion rather than documnetation of a genuine and encyclopaedic topic.
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD?
14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. ( ESkog)( Talk) 20:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Prashanthns 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I am sorry to hear of this young lady's death. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and "subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives". There is no wider or profound significance to this apparent murder. Therefore, delete. Sliggy 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I originally speedied this a week ago as a NN Band, then withdrew it when the page author claimed notability in the 'outside the mass media' category of music. Since then, the page author has failed to provide any verification for notability in this category and so I'm moving it over here to get it off my watchlist MNewnham 15:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
![]() | This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Ham Ham Rivals appears to be a Hamtaro forum, fan-created video game, and possible fan created anime. Google returns 78 hits on "Ham Ham Rivals". The article itself is turning into a bit of a discussion forum. Was speedily deleted by the wub yesterday, but I think it may have progressed enough to warrant an AfD. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 14:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
POV advertisement for Hoosac Wind, largely copied from http://www.hoosacwind.com/views_bakke.html Econrad 15:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
From the article's talk page, this would seem to be some kind of school project, and a lot of work would appear to have gone into it. Unfortunately, however, this probably makes the article original research. Delete CLW 16:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Another one where it's far from clear from the debate whether it should stand alone, be merged or hacked about a bit. Certainly no consensus to delete, and I'm not happy declaring an 'editorial' outcome in the face of so much disagreement. - Splash talk 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Biblecruft. Content is
This is all it is ever going to say. --User talk:FDuffy 14:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was DELETE. I was slightly surprised by this on reading the article (although certainly much of it is of tangential relevance at best), but it is essentially unchanged from its state prior to the AfD nomination, and so it seems very clear that people are not persuaded by the material that is included. - Splash talk 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article itself states that it's only a collection of unproven rumors. In fact, these rumors are not only unproven, but unprovable. Is there any point to having article in an encyclopedia that consists of such content as "I think such and such is gay, but I have no proof?". -- Jbamb 14:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Ichiro 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
n.n. Bible cruft. Content is
The verse is "And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel". I really don't see how this constitutes notability.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Esoteric slang for video gamers doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Maybe it goes to Wictionary, but it seems doubtful for that project, too. Mikeblas 20:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Has already been pre-trans-userfied. - Splash talk 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is not an encyclopaedia entry and the contents should be moved to the creator's talk page before deletion of the article. (aeropagitica) 21:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 05:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
fiction, unverifiable Prashanthns 14:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. From the discussion, this sounds like something that needs working out on talk pages. - Splash talk 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article discusses solely the implications of a theory presented in another article peak oil or Hubbert peak. The implications of the theory should be discussed in the article itself. -- Jbamb 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
List which can never realistically be complete, POV on famous, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 14:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Being relisted once is enough, having been on AfD for nearly 2 weeks without any trace of support for the article. - Splash talk 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for AfD, but the nominator failed to carry out the second step of the process. No reason is given in the edit summary. My personal assumption for deletion is that the subject, a German 'warez reporter' is not an encyclopedic subject and fails the qualifiers at WP:BIO. But as I said, I'm just cleaning up the nomination. No vote at this time -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fraternity. Article self-nominates, in part, by the line "Famous Alumnae: None". Stifle 14:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. This one stands apart from the other biblical nominations (there must be a pun in there). SimonP's defense is absent; he recommends outright deletion instead. The numbers opting to delete this are substantially higher than those opting to keep, and the gap between them is much wider than in the other nominations, so clearly there is a desire for an otherwise-inconsistent result in this case. Clearly, the concern is the extreme paucity of actual non-source content; the semi-sentence that there is is subtrivial and a repetition of the title in words. Babajobu, do note that this article does not even come close to beginning to consider doing any of the things you mention, unlike some of the other bible entries. I'm not going to orphan this article as is often done at the end of an AfD, however, since there remains the possibility of a non-'cruft' version emerging into the light. - Splash talk 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
n.n. Biblecruft. Content is
That's all that's in it.
The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep -- Ichiro 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a combined nomination for Harq Obispal and Stalinvast. Both these articles are non-canonical in the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe, and appear to be the subject of a role-playing character and setting, respectively. "Harq Obispal" attracts nine unique Google hits, the majority of the non-Wikipedia ones are for role-playing forums. -- 22:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Saberwyn -
The
Zoids
Expansion Project
Both Stalinvast and Harq Obispal are sourced in the Black Library Publication of "Inquisitor" by Ian Watson and as such exist properly inside the Warhammer 40K Universe at large and not any specific gamers campaign.
I admit that my first claim of non-canonocity is false, in light of the evidence. I admit I was wrong. However, I still find myself questioning this article's 'place' in the grand scheme of Warhammer 40,000-related articles on Wikipedia.
Many of the characters in the fictional universe do not have their own articles. The Emperor Himself, arguably the single most important character/'historical figure' in the game and fiction, is a section in another article (although I do concede that there are plans to move him back out, and support this move). The majority of the Primarchs are included in the article on their Legion (with one exception, who is arguably the second most important character/'historical figure' in the fictional universe.
I have never read the Inquisition War (and knowing my luck, will probably never get the chance to), and don't know how important the character of Harq Obispal, or the world of Stalinvast) is to the plot. I think the best place for this information would be either in an article on the Inquisition War trilogy, or in an article on "Jac Draco", who appears to be the primary character of the trilogy. Failing that, my call for deletion still stands. No offense to the article author or the subject material, but to me, this is at the moment little more than Warhammer40K-cruft. -- Saberwyn
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Incorrect spelling, page exists at Coriolis effect. Jomtois 15:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity Prashanthns 15:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
WP is not a crystal ball, game is not released and google test provides no relevant links J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Student film perhaps? Nothing on IMDB and nothing that I saw when I googled the name (and variations) — Bellhalla 15:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Suspected, er, original research, followed by a crib of the underwear article. Robin Johnson 15:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 10:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Ad for a Warcraft III map. No claim to notability Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 11:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or Expand & explain notability. Seems to be a NN neologism. Badly written, and practically empty. I cleaned up the images because I could not stand the previous version. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 11:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a bus schedule plus the POV
Jcbarr
14:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete silly vandalism - let's not waste time. - Doc ask? 22:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
No clarity, uncertain article, proof needed Holms19 14:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Neutron and positron radiation are two very different types of particle radiation, therefore they should not be an article on both of them. Therefore, this article should be deleted. There should be separate articles on both of them. Polonium
The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The reason I've nominated this for deletion is because the information is already listed under the "Runes" section, at RuneScape Items.
That aside, the RuneScape Items article is hardly what I would call "cumbersome". Mike 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable record label - main evidence includes having a myspace page. Stifle 16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Canadian genealogical entry. YUL89YYZ 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT ALL to Current Home and Away characters. There's clearly no consensus to delete, but this new article is constructed directly from the individual ones, appearing to incorporate all the information in them. So, I'll apply redirects to each article, which is an ordinary editorial decision. - Splash talk 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Most (if not all) the articles for Home And Away are very short and the characters wouldn't pass the "google test" if they were real people, much less characters on this TV show. The vast majority's #1 hit is their respective WP article that has very little information. A concise page listing all the characters would be the best way to handle this on WP, if necessary at all. Dbchip 16:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete per above.
Home And Away is the place for that sort of thing.
Dan 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
*Delete These characters do not seem to pass the google test. Separate articles for each of these fictional characters seems excessive, especially with the brevity of some of the articles. --
Bovineone
18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
KEEP - H&A is one of the most popular and succesful shows in Australian history and has a HUGE fan base and following outside AU. With much more viewers than stale old unimportant shows like Eastenders and Coronation street - two shows that not a single soul outside the UK cares about. The Idea of deletion is anopther example of the UGLINESS of colinalism and bigotry- one thinks only American characters from buffy should be allowd to saty and a british poster thinks someone actually cares about Eastenders and CS' who's number of viewers outside the UK (combined) is not even a quarter of the H&A viewers.
The result of the debate was DELETE as copyvio. - Splash talk 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertisement 司徒天 16:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Looking at the unwikfied text dump makes me think it a likely copyvio from somewhere, too. - Splash talk 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. No information found on the same. Linked sites on article have no information. -- Krash 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily merged -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no text on this page, except for the pointless "See also" part. The article should be deleted or merged with Walden Pond. If merged, I suggest Walden Pond State Reservation be redirected to Walden Pond. -- Thorri 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE as copyvio. This debate shouldn't prejudice a rewrite since it's a not-really-sure by itself and is brief. - Splash talk 00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Veiled advertisement James084 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough, as it is about a fictional disease that was only mentioned in one episode. Philip Stevens 16:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Ad copy. Rhobite 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I can not find anything to back up the claims of this supposed 23-year old self-made millionaire. Delete unless verified. BD2412 T 18:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Redirect to View Askewniverse. enochlau ( talk) 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The page lists information that is already present on, View Askewniverse. Only View Askewniverse contains more information on the subject than this page. The Filmaker 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Note that the cited text does exist, and appears not be on a vanity press. - Splash talk 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Added by an anonymous author, zero non-wiki google hits, I put a If this page does not list a reference by the end of the week, I am nominating it for deletion on the talk page a week ago. Its writing style alone makes me suspicious that this is a spurious work of imagination, for example Her power over the camp, the more than 60,000 female and juvenile inmates, and more than 1,000 female guards, was absolute. - it's possible that she was an actual person, but even if she was, Wikipedia is unlikely to be lessened by losing this article, and since it seems "likely" to say it's a hoax (since all other female Nazi guards listed on Wikipedia are google-able), I'd rather we be safe, and not used at another plaything for the media ("I put my three year old daughter on Wikipedia as a Nazi guard, and it stayed up for months", etc) Sherurcij ( talk) ( bounties) 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a dictionary article about a word that has been submitted to the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's nothing here of any worth to Wiktionary. Indeed, Wiktionary already has leverage, which leverage (disambiguation) already links to. There is no good reason for even a redirect by this title. Uncle G 18:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be very notable, nothing concrete from a google search [18]. Delete as nonsense KnowledgeOf Self | talk 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Only claim to notability is three albums that I can't find on three different "independent" labels. Ifnord 18:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by user:KFD ( talk • contribs)
Combathas ceased to exist, but has released albums by Megadeth, Nuclear Assault, Exodus and Celtic Frost. They're all very big names in Thrash Metal and Black Metal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by user:KFD ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete nnbio. - Doc ask? 22:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musical artist. "Preparing a debut album" doesn't qualify someone for WP yet. -- (aeropagitica) 18:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This was previously nominated for a speedy (CSD A7). I'm not sure if A7 applies, since it attempts to establish notability by saying he's the father of a daimyo. No vote from me, since I don't know enough about Japanese history to reliably comment on whether this is a valid bio stub or if it should be deleted for being about the non-notable father of a daimyo. --
D
e
ath
phoenix
18:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion as nn-bio, but it's company, not a person. However, it's a very NN record label that has 3 albums "that have not been met with any tangible success." howch e ng { chat} 18:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparent self-promotion attempt for porn website; no evident notability. Sandstein 19:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by Sliggy as nn-bio, but it claims significance, so bringing it to AfD instead. However, the multiple links to his web page don't work, and Googling him reveals a number of links to sites that he presumably runs that also don't work. howch e ng { chat} 19:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep, and then rename, and add cleanup tag. enochlau ( talk) 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a strange article. I'm quite sure that there is a science of studying animals which move about using the surface tension of water, but Google at least supports my view that it doesn't have this name. Perhaps a delete is too strong - the information should be moved to a correctly named article and cleaned up. Richard W.M. Jones 19:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, just a fictional organization in a role-playing campaign GRuban 19:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by James084 as nn-bio, but he's an author. I found his books on Amazon, so bringing it to AfD instead. No vote. howch e ng { chat} 19:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Although he seems a minor writer, there is a substantial interest in this author as evidenced in his presense elsewhere on the web. I vote to keep it.
The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howch e ng { chat} 19:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Band appears insignificant, no direct hits from google. Only one band they have listed as playing with actually has a wikipedia entry BUT they have recorded cds. Appears to be a self glorifying stub of an amatuer musical group NJ 19:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a recreation of Harry Potter RPGs, which has already been merged and redirected to Harry Potter fandom (under the "Roleplaying Games" section). It's not a speedy criteria because that content wasn't deleted, but I believe this article goes beyond the trivial details into one subset of fandom that doesn't deserve its own article. Not only that, but putting a /RPGs subarticle is contrary to what I've seen on main articlespace articles. For these multitude of reasons this article should definitely be deleted. -- D e ath phoenix 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Local music promoter, manager of apparently non-notable band, insufficiently notable currently Average Earthman 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged as an A7 nn-bio speedy, but it's a fairly dodgy one as it does assert significance in some ways. Anyway, it's a managing director for BearingPoint - not sure it's "notable" enough for here though, probably not. No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 19:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Zoe — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-05 04:22 Z
I doubt if it's encyclopedic content... Maybe moving into Uncyclopedia? Adam78 20:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
peedied. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
===Berabow Man===
Remake of older copy/paste & search&replace article by part of
User:193.164.112.20, careful reading reveals the article to be just a grossly made vandalism/joke, and the user has a well-known history of vandalism/unconstructive edits. All relevant info about the game's arcade version can already be found in the
Bravoman article.
EpiVictor 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
March listing is moot, was speedy redirected to
Bravoman.
Angr/
talk
20:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The Berabow Man article appears to be a shallow copy of the Bravoman article with just changes in the names, no images, and no apparent reason for creation e.g. like "Berabow Man" being an actual alternate name for the actual Namco's game Bravoman. Also, its author vandalized the original Bravoman page and redirected to his/her version. This article offers little or nothing extra information compared to the original, and has little reason to exist.
Berabow Man is NOT a shallow copy of the Bravoman article. The game name is BERABOW MAN based upon Namco's own listings: - BERABOW is in the default high score listing - BERABOW MAN is listed in the history of Namco games in Namco Museum Volume 1 (PS1) - BERABOW MAN is listed in the history of Namco games in the end credits of Dragon Saber (1990). Bravoman is just an NEC PC-Engine conversion of the game, translated into English.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like a lot of nonsense to me; however, it could indeed be somewhat notable. I don't know. I'd vote Strong Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James084 ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 January 2006
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Adam Bishop — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-05 04:17 Z
Non notable Oscarthecat 20:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau ( talk) 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity, non-notable Crid 20:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). enochlau ( talk) 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. 468 Google hits, 1st page is two different guys, one a Hell's Angels member and the other a professional wrestler. His "biography" (the external link) leads to his webpage - which has nothing written about him, it's a commercial site that sells cartoons from many different cartoonists. Ifnord 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
An university project, complete with a conclusion and the authors' names at the bottom. JoaoRicardo talk 20:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau ( talk) 23:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I've added the stub content of Ron Wilson (hockey) to a preexisting entry for an NHL player/coach, Ron Wilson.
Having two NHL player/coaches in separate entries, with only one marked "(hockey)", was confusing, and looked at first like entries for the same person. Their birth years are only one digit different, as are their Overall draft positions, either at which, at first glance, could pass for typos. A dual entry follows the style of other such entries as Ghost Rider.
Part Two to this: Deleting "Ron Wilson (hockey)" will allow the current "Ron Wilson" to be be renamed "Ron Wilson (hockey)".
This would be good since there are many, many Ron Wilson entries (see Ron Wilson (disambiguation)) and it makes wikifying other Ron Wilsons problemmatic, since " Ron Wilson" with no qualifier looks like a good blue link, but it currently goes to a hockey entry rather than, more helpfully, the disambig page. -- Tenebrae 21:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This isn't a UK radio station. In fact, it doesn't look like it's much of a radio station at all. The article attached to the title isn't even about the radio station - it's about a non-notable British DJ. So, not notable, not clean-up-able, article not related to subject.➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Since Novemeber of last year on Talk:Edward Smith (psychologist) we have been trying to figure out if this person actually exists, what his academic credentials really are, etc. Is he a hoax? Is this vanity? I suspect he is a non-notable with a diploma mill doctorate. Ifnord 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
of disease-causing intestinal bacteria." [24]. Limegreen 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This almost certainly doesn't meet WP's music notability standards, but it is a little novel. So maybe it should be included in the metal article? If not, I think it should be deleted. Esprit15d 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like a hoax, with no references given. Google doesn't show any such organization, other than an unrelated Partnership for Economic Governance Reforms, some radiotherapy pEgr, and a departmental abbreviation at Western Michigan University. And I find no reference to any Walther O'Toole on Google, nor did I see at first glance any Walter O'Tooles that seemed likely. I'm not real sure how PEGR is supposed to stand for People Against Gamma Radiation, but I don't find any PAGRs that fit the description either. NickelShoe 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:Music; see also Desk Metal Ray Dassen 21:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howch e ng { chat} 22:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
not notable. Speedy Delete James084 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable. Part of Plymouth, no noteworthy information. Didactylos 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete - this was a single-author-only deletion request; closed early. -- HappyCamper 04:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic podcast with no notability. feydey 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree that this page has no merit and merely seems to serve as an ad. It is also poorly written-- levophed 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet another
fork. By consensus, there is an article on
motorized bicycles which
User:CyclePat (who makes electric bikes) has been trying for ever to fork into a separate article on electric bikes. There have been edit wars over the redirect at
electric bicycle, addition of excessive detail re Canadian regulations and all sorts. I'm sorry, Pat, I know you are sincere but you just can't keep doing this!
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD?
22:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
I think perhaps you meant Wikipedia:Content forking instead of WP:FORK because I couldn't find anything in that guideline relating to your issues. Let's go through that article on content forking. Here is my analisys:
Conclusion: There is nothing left for you to argue according to those guidelines. Nomination of this page for the above reason WP:FORK is not justified. -- CylePat 03:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
You address the subject very vaguelly. I understand that some of those issues such as "is not a synonym of an existing article title" is not an affirmative defense. But you are reversing the roles here. You are attempting to make me prove my innoncence, when you haven't even proven that there is guilt. There is no doubt that this is a translation. And yes it can be both! This is because it is a "sub-class" of motorized bicycle... or in the case of this alleged POV FORKING, a "spin-out." (I call it an article with more details.) These vehicle may be, in some instances similar, but they definatelly warants their own pages. The first part of Wikipedia:Content forking stipulates:
I haven't experienced any disagreement about the content of "pedelec". What content don't you agree with? You see none of this was discussed, even with past issues that might have occured with the totally different class of vehicle called the "electric bicycle." This makes it difficult to assume good faith when you don't prove your case. I'm sorry but if the German Wikipedian have decided to "spin-out"(I call it have more details in another article), I see no reason why this precedence could not be used?... But that doesn't really matter because it's not a spin-out or a POV FORK. The key idea here is "summary". When "motorized bicycle" was created consensus was that this was a summary file. Editor firgured it would be better to have all articles under one roof. It was created to summarize power assisted cycles and power assisted bicycles and electric bicycles, etc... Again, as per Wikipedia:Content forking Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking. Again: there is no disagreement on content and motorized bicycle article is a summary style article. We need to go into more details. -- CylePat 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Again, Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking. -- CyclePat [[Image:Ladies safety bicycles1889.gif|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
According to Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles,: (for the ease of reader I include it hear):
A precedence exists at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Content of articles ]] that is related to this article. "Statement(s) of principle: An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details." Using this precedence, we may argue that motorized bicycle, should remain a summary article. Furthermore using the precedence Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Splitting of articles will also support my theory of creating this article. I must make an attack on the article of motorized bicycle for we are generalizing within that article and have started original research. ie.: That a pedelec is a motorized bicycle. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Neutral point of view (and associated principles), "Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues." (It however makes sense to include all machines that meet the definition of a "motorized bicycles", right? I would say yes, but that's only because we have mis interpretated Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy which "contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion." We are meeting the wiki policy of NPOV in the article of motorized bicycle and I think we need some supporting sources regarding the subject of the article. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Neutral point of view (and associated principles) "Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves." This being said, I sugest we resolve this issue as per a suggestion from NPOV precedences: "Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." -- CyclePat 00:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep. Mackensen (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and unencyclopedic, especially as it is utterly unclear who he's supposed to be. Google turns up 96 distinct hits for "Sir Derek Vestey", most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. This article has been here two years without improving from its origins as an unwikified and confused text dump.
Mackensen
(talk)
22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the place to advertise games under development.
The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau ( talk) 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
vanity page badbio
This person is an unknown, claiming to have written one book nobody has heard of, and the original entry, very badly phrased in telegraphic style, came from an unknown source with only IP number. further entries on the page were style improvements and wikification, the only one that added real content was spam
even if it's not a vanity page proper, it's worthy of deletion on badbio grounds-- Svartalf 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising. Oppress this article. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to help you delete the delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by Misza13 as spam, but it's not really. Article is about some guy's web site selling ad space so he can buy a Hummer (which would plastered with those ads). I hate to break it to him, but it's already been done. Anyway, brought it to AfD to respect Misza13's desire to see it gone. howch e ng { chat} 23:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable neologism. A Google search yields 0 hits. Phædriel 23:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This phrase has become a commonly accepted portmanteau when discussing business process improvement. -- Ghofbauer 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as silly vandalism.
Something for editors to bear in mind when next April the 1st comes around: We are still cleaning up the silly vandalism from April Fools Day eight months later.
Uncle G 15:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be fake or a joke article. A google search [29] did not return pertinent hits. Uthbrian ( talk) 23:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Mike Rosoft (Neologism, no context/references) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-05 02:42 Z
Neologism. Loads of Google entries, but mostly acronyms which are unrelated to this supposed definition. Ifnord 23:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was (Doesn't belong on AfD) enochlau ( talk) 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Incorrect title for an article on a document. Another with the correct title has been put in its place. Delete this and use only "El Plan de Santa Barbara (correct title) Fcendejas 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The debate boils down to keep-vs-merge, which is not a decision for AfD, and there is no consensus on that question anyway. - Splash talk 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy deletion by
64.27.214.250 as nn-bio, but he's the survivor of the recent coal mine accident, which is certainly a claim of notability. Not sure, however, if it's encyclopedic. No vote.
howch
e
ng {
chat}
23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Total count thus far--I think it is safe to say we have ourselves a keeper. --
Caponer
18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
**Keep: 13
**Merge: 4
**Delete: 2
reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This band hasn't achieved a degree of notability sufficient to be referenced in WP. See WP:Music for criteria of same. -- (aeropagitica) 23:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Halakha. We don't merge original research. It's all in the history if anyone wants it. - Splash talk 00:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This article purports to list all Jewish laws with either a kabbalistic source or a kabbalistic rationale. However, it is overwhelmingly original research without a system or clear inclusion or exclusion criteria, lacks sources and has been abandoned by the one author who was editing it ( Jon513 ( talk · contribs)). JFW | T@lk 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Highly non-famous record co. founded in 2001, no claims of large sales, notable bands, etc. Vanity, promotion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to fit WP:MUSIC. Rob Church Talk 23:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd tag it as {{ nn-bio}}, but someone would complain. See also AfD for HydE (band). Doesn't seem notable in his own right, and the article was either created by its subject or a sexually-crazed fan. Rob Church Talk 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. The article certainly is about the company, not about açaí itself, the redirection and typing-in of which is a different matter. - Splash talk 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Nothing is wrong with this post. Keep in mind there are other brand names which are posted here. Does this mean we are going to remove Coke, Pepsi, 7up, etc...?