The result was speedy delete per A7. User:Angr 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group. East Coast Beirut Association get 0 Google hits; The Corporation doesn't appear to get any either. May be a hoax. -- Natalie 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not really encyclopedic, very opiniated and POV, no sources (and to that end, unlikely to find sources). Maybe a section in a different article would be appropriate. Newnam (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom-- Mertens21 Talk 05:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Why delete? It's a common saying. LLBBooks 00:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced. Overly broad and superficial. Lacks WP:V, and is WP:OR. Intangible 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. -- Bigtop ( tk| cb| em| ea) 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable web comic. No reliable sources or significant and independent syndication. -- Hetar 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, article being now reliable sourced. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. The only link other than the website in the article is a blog. Blogs are usually not even allowed as links for articles (please note I have not removed this link). FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non notable companyand all the information comes from the company web site. Looks very much like a vanity puff piece Spartaz 08:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. After review of this article, and the referenced possible place it's copied from, I find concurrence with what I adjudge consensus to be here. Those in favour of a merge can ask me to userify the contents to one of their userspace pages so they can carry out the merge, but as others point out there may not be much to merge in. --++ Lar: t/ c 12:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Hardly notable if the group he used to belong to doesn't have an article and his album hasn't been published yet Spartaz 08:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged nn-band but notability is asserted (says they recorded two albums). Just zis Guy you know? 08:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - recording two albums isn't an assertion of notability if label information is not provided. Punkmorten 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirected to OOS. DS 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
A rose (or in fact RSI) by any other name... This is just a slang term for Repetitive Strain Injury, and is therefore a neologism. Ruaraidh-dobson 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete though, I think recreation should be allowed if it can be sourced and proved (through WP:V) that it is notable. However, consensus and the arguments of this article leans towards deletion. Yank sox 16:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged and contested. Band still have "real jobs" - i.e. are not full-time musicians. Unlikely to pass WP:MUSIC and no evidence in the article of meeting it. Author acknolwedges difficulty of finding information. Just zis Guy you know? 09:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Never a very commercially successful band... just about sums it up!!! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 09:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Maybe someone in Germany, who has this group's records and knows a good amount of English, would beg to differ!
Captain Caveman 9:24 PM EDT 7/24/06
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
tagged as nn-band but notability is asserted - in an unusual way: four of the band members reportedly appear at their gigs via live satellite feed. I have no idea what to make of this one! Just zis Guy you know? 09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO WP:NN local radio presenter DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 09:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A band whose studio is made of plastoic pipes and sleeping bags. Apparently they make references to Eminem; if it were the other way round that might be notable. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Soilwork 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A student. Also a rapper, apparently, though his music appears to be available excluisively by download from his site. Just zis Guy you know? 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 6 August 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}} . |
Release date June 27, 2006. Substantial article with no sources - probable WP:OR. Weblink for developers, no article. No evidence of player base, innovation, external coverage etc. per WP:SOFTWARE Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Soft systems, as the content is already there. Mango juice talk 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as "non-notable neologism" which os probably accurate but not a valid speedy criterion. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Userfied and reposted. A minor theatre actor, part of the current touring cast of Cats. Probably more notable than half the so-called slebrities on TV, and undoubtedly more talented, but still no assertion of meeting WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I don't understand the idea of merge votes to a non-existent article. It doesn't make any sense to rename David Keffen to List of fashion photographers. Keep votes seem not to argue for keeping this article. Mango juice talk 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The page is essentially an ad for wedding photography service, does not meet the Wiki standards for biography, and should be userfied. SteveHopson 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps someone might consider starting a links section in the article about wedding photography for the best known of the world's wedding photographers such as: Bambi Cantrell, Yervant, Martin Schembri, David Anthony Williams, Geoff Ascough, Peter Prior, David Keffen, Jo Buissink etc, etc. User: mike_wax [ [6]] 13.49 GMT
The result was delete and redirect to Shagia. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This was proposed for deletion as unverifiable, I'm hoping someone will be able to find a source. Kappa 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kirby series characters. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a character with a relatively small role on the Kirby anime- not enough to have her own page. She already has a description over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirby_series_characters#Sirica so this extra article isn't needed, and just has a lot of poorly written junk info (and unmarked spoilers!) Ivyna J. Spyder 04:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Opinion: Although this is a character that appears rarely, I know that a few people like researching their favourite characters and I happen to be one of them. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.172.68 ( talk • contribs)
- The article still isn't needed. The character is covered on the other page just fine, there is nothing important added on this one, most of it is just speculation and no actual facts. --
Ivyna J. Spyder
04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Advertising for website with no indication of meeting WP:WEB. Delete. User:Angr 14:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Please edit this page to ensure all information is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.21.230 ( talk) 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Company advertisement, might suit WP:CORP, but this text is unsalvagable. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Protologism; I believe this is not a well-established term. The google test reveals only 4 hits, plus this page on wikipedia. Adding external links to 2 of those 4 hits doesn't change anything. The WP:NEO page indicates that "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." -- Bovineone 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Bovineone 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is spam for a website, created by the webmaster himself.-- Peephole 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Pure vanispamcruftisement. Self-promotional advertisement for a corporate turnkey solution. Author Kmans06 ( talk • contribs) removed speedy deletion request tag. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep the disambiguation. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Defining the meaning of a name only. Wikipedia is not the phonebook of all names. Contested prod. Mango juice talk 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
COMMENT I am 22 years old and did not know the meaning of my name till i typed it in. Do not delete as this does not appear anywhere else online
The result was keep. Amidst all the sound and fury, the multitude of supporters of this site/company bring up some solid arguments that aren't refuted with regards to notability. Those arguing for deletion seem to be applying vague standards and merely asserting non-notability. The article isn't sourced, and WP:V is critical, but it seems WP:V could eventually be met, and no strong arguments have been presented to counter that. Mango juice talk 19:22, 8 August 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}} . |
Contested prod. Article about a website with an Alexa rating over 750,000. [10] Only real claim to fame listed in the article is a collaboration with another website that has an Alexa rating over 500,000. [11] Delete unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article and to demonstrate compliance with WP:WEB. -- Allen3 talk 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
KEEP I WOULD vote with my feet to keep this site. It is non-commercial in nature, maintained by the devotees of the Art known as Cinema and thus belongs to the general treasure of knowledge, rightfully here in wikipedia. I personally have seen entries in this encyclopedia with infinitely less content and shallow essence, so why the heck not a professional site (one of its kind) entirely devoted to the true masters of Cinema? IMO it would be a big loss to Wikipedia if you delete this article. Please consider keeping it. Thank u in advance. Eenspaaier 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability except for a passing mention in a New York times article. Wiki has only 1,209 pages. Google search delivered about 25000 results. Peephole 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NN software/game - I get very few (maybe 3 or 4, that I can see) ghits DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 15:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet the 'Music: Notability' guidelines. Also, contains so little informatio that it is of no practical use. Adam Slack 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Companion to deleted article on this alleged story's alleged author; article on author was deleted after afd, but for some reason this one wasn't. NawlinWiki 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A band whoch has wisely chosen to publish its own music instead of signing with a record label, thus saving al the tedious business of meeting WP:MUSIC. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
No dont delete it, Enter Shikari are one of the most popular unsigned bands in the Uk, and they rule all. WIKI RULES TOO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.246.16 ( talk • contribs)
This page deserves to stay up as it'll save the hassle of creating a new one when they hit the bigger time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.58.233.129 ( talk • contribs)
It smacks of shameless self-promotion to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.217.235 ( talk • contribs)
The result was DELETE. Rje 01:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NN Corp; most google hits do not seem to be articles about the company itself Valrith 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article created by user Emco-tec inc (only edit since then) regarding a very small avionics industry. It is not wikified and stubbish. Cantalamessa 21:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
no sources and no real indication of notability Spartaz 14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Since the relisting, the consensus has been keep. The nominator is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet (for abuses of the AfD process). alphaChimp laudare 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable: ("george pickard" atomiks -wikipedia) returns 182 Ghits. Unverifiable: ("george pickard" crash delano -wikipedia) returns 8 unique Ghits. CheNuevara 17:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Independent film made by a company whose page was speedied last night, was intended to be shown as part of a festival, according to the page, but has no distribution outside DVDs and the Internet. (Note the comments from the article creator on the talk page.) Prod removed. Author has been notified. Delete Tony Fox (speak) 18:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
While I don't quite understand the reason for deletion of either the company page or the Film page, the purpose of both the Company's page (since we discovered it was added here) and the Film page was to allow for people to get information about our company. Being that we are a smaller company, not exactly fortune 500 stuff, our company has always followed a loose, internet based distribution system. This film in question, Thanatos's Memento, is our first major project that we believe deserved some attention before we released it to the internet. As such, the wikipedia page was added, on top of our blog having mention of the movie not being able to make it into the festival, but was being considered to be re-shot and later distributed. We are not trying to sell or push a product. The intention is to assist those who want information on our latest endevours yet cannot get access to our web page (as it is currently under heavy re-design, and being moved from our host as it seems to have a problem with us.
Quite simply, I vote Keep, although without the company page in existance I guess it'd be hard for people to find THIS page. Somehow, you all have. Zombi3 01:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB. 39 distinct Google hits (some of it not pertaining to the site). No mention except for similar community sites. ColourBurst 21:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is being considered for deletion because of lack of information.
At least add much more info to the article if you don't want it deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clay4president ( talk • contribs) .
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
advertising pure and simple and doesn't appear notable Spartaz 14:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company; fails WP:CORP. MichaelZimmer ( talk) 15:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Ezeu 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreleased software, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE, and the only source on this is an unofficial website with an alexa ranking of 1,000,000+, which is not a reliable source.
Note that there are 20+ other wikipedia articles in the category Cancelled_Virtual_Boy_games which I will likely bundle together and nominate for deletion in a group if we have consensus that this should be deleted Xyzzyplugh 14:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 146,685. Jacek Kendysz 00:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is quite... interesting. It doesn't really provide any encyclopedic value and it is clearly original research. I was contemplating a redirect / merge into onomatopœia, but the article isn't exactly about onomatopœia. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Note that neither keep recommendation makes a valid argument, policy should be referred to. Rje 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor location, not much encylopaediac value. Fancruft. GSR 00:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks suspiciously like Gastroturfing; this is an author whose principal claim to fame seems to be a book which is claimed as a "historically based refutation" of one of Jack Chick's tracts. According to Weregerbil, this guy publishes through a vanity press. Oh, and he was prominent in the Hanoi darts league. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete (CSD G1) by User:Yanksox ( [30]). --jam es (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This article contains no real information about the topic. Green caterpillar 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Green caterpillar 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I have no doubt that this is a real phenomenon, but is this really a relevant topic? I mean, you can turn just about anything into a fetish, and that process is relevant (we already have an article about that, too), but surely the idea of having an article for every single thing someone has a sexual fixation on is counterproductive? Are we going to have a separate articles for hobbit fetishes? Ent fetishes? Highly specific food fetishes, like porridge fetishes? I mean, yeah, I exaggerate, but not that much. I just don't see any point in this. (Also, article cites no references and is probably original research, but that's kinda beside the point.) Captain Disdain 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Roy A. A. 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as protologism. DS 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
A pretty clear neologism. I get absolutely no relevant Google hits. Prod was removed and phrase defended on the talk page. David Schaich Talk/ Cont 01:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The term SDIMBY is a valid term and has been in use, although for a relatively short time. "Smart Growth" and "Smart Development" are two terms easily found through Google. Those that encourage these approaches to development are known as SDIMBYs. The application of the acronym is usually associated not with the urban planners but rather with the communities and the grassroots activists that are seeking a balance between the interests of the community and the interests of the developers.
The term SDIMBY has been in use in Los Angeles for well over a year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.248.77 ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
SDIMBY is a needed term to help define the subtle but significant approaches made to development. There are nany terms like Yimby and NIABY that only recently appeared . SDIMBY is only the latest and shows a distinct difference between the others listed. There are other writers willing to expnd on this term, but only if it is not considered for deletion.Thanks for your diligent consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.248.77 ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neoligism. All google hits on this term are related to the PalCom project in which context the term was coined. I could not find any independent sources that allow for the verification of the use of this term. -- Koffieyahoo 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nominating this article as unsuitable for the english version of wikipedia. I think this is a school in India, although it's hard to verify that seeing as I could find no homepage for the school. Delete. Stubbleboy 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Instead of leaping immediately to delete, I had proposed merging this article with Hindi (see the discussion about why and the results at the Hindi talk page). The consensus of was that this article ought not to be merged into the Hindi article. That brings me to this nomination. This article, Origin of some common Hindustani words, is indiscriminate as it provides no basis for what words are to be included on the list and which are not. There is no similar article for any other language that I could find (other than a few pages about words English has borrowed from other languages). They might be out there, but I did not see any. There is also no article on Most common words in Hindustani for this article to support. Anything in this article is more than adequately covered in the history and vocabulary sections of the main Hindi article without any need to refer to this article. I am also concerned about this article being original research. Finally, I am wondering about proper copyright authorization because of the odd line in the article, "The derivations below are based on posts by Yashwant Malaiya, and are given here by his consent". No verification of this is provided anywhere. Agent 86 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to iTunes Music Store. Keep in mind, deleting a page when the content has been merged elsewhere is problematic with respect to the GFDL. Mango juice talk 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable minor feature of the iTunes Music Store. Sorry but nothing worth merging. AlistairMcMillan 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It should be noted that being on IMDB is not proof of notability in the least. Wickethewok 14:30, 7 August 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}} . |
Apparently a short film, written/directed by a Harvard student, starring Harvard students, filmed at Harvard, screened at Harvard. Looks like a typical student film, not notable. Fan-1967 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep It- Queer Cinema by queer filmmakers is very rare, and this is a gem of a movie with very high-quality production design, acting and directing. This is not "just another" student movie.-Darla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.120.226 ( talk • contribs) Note: First edit from new user.
The result was keep - it was in English in the first place, what are you talking about?. DS 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I tagged this afd and then found him under another name on IMDB. I could be wrong but I thought this was the english version of wikipedia, but I'll let the consensus decide. Delete Stubbleboy 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a random person. Can't see how it would pass any kind of notability test. SubSeven 02:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Barely has enough notability to survive a speedy deletion, but the subject of this article is definately a violation of WP:BIO. -- Hetar 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Quoting from the WP:BIO, "The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted". However, I do believe Michael does fall into at least two of these categories and if there is a dispute about this, I ask that the following be considered along with the previous statement from the WP:BIO.
Michael has "...made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [his] specific field". Despite the fact that mainstream media will not cover alternative views on 9-11, its remarkable that he has gotten so much recognition, especially in Colorado. Two cover stories have been written in local, highly visible, alternative newspapers (The Rocky Mountain Bullhorn and the Boulder Weekly) as a result of Michael's work. One featured Michael and although he was not quoted in the second one, he was interviewed and appeared in the photograph that accompanied the cover story.
Michael is also well known for his radio appearences both locally in Colorado and nationally. He has made numerous appearances on several radio stations in Colorado and guest hosted many times for the program Words of Freedom with George Flynn.
Michael was recognized nationally when he was asked to serve on the board of directors with 911truth.org, which as noted previously, is a major component in the 9-11 truth movement.
Michael's work is also featured prominently on 9-11 related websites with great regularity.
I believe, as others do, that Michael has indeed made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [his] specific field".
For the reasons stated above, I also believe that Michael is also a "Person[s] achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Certainly, the events of September 11th are newsworthy and it is obvious that Michael has been recognized for his work.
By the way, yes, I do know Michael and I am the one who saw your huge section on 9-11 conspiracy theories. I think Michael should be included in the section with all the other Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. If this is being viewed as a vanity article, please help me to re-write it or give me suggestions so that it conforms with the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Visibility911 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete for non-notable bio contested by article creator. Listing in AFD. — ERcheck ( talk) 02:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO, speeded once, recreated but still not notable - so here we are. Rklawton 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As it is, there aren't any claims of notability. Wickethewok 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NN author; 211 ghits; article is one copyvio ( http://www.reeley.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Andy.htm) taken from author's homepage, due to lack of other info (thus failing WP:V) - Seidenstud 02:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Team America: World Police, per discussion below. alphaChimp laudare 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Doubtful that this term has entered the lexicon of the English language... even if it has, not encyclopedically notable, deserves no more than a footnote in Team America: World Police. bd2412 T 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I recomment someone use {{ mergeto}} to start a debate about merging, since the target of any merge seems unclear. Mango juice talk 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was originally a POV fork created by the now-blocked User:RJII. Subsequently, efforts have been made to remove the POV, but it is still a fork. All the content covered by constitutional republic is also present in the main republic article, and the definition of a constitutional republic is identical to the definition of a liberal democracy. I have repeatedly attempted to change the article into a redirect, but I have been reverted every time with no arguments given. Since there are actually only two other articles in the main namespace that link to constitutional republic, [34] a redirect isn't really necessary. Delete for being a content fork. Nikodemos 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism and a dictionary definition. Belongs on urban dictionary. FSRdomo 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:WEB. Does not come close. Does not have an Alexa ranking, so not in top 100,000. Google indicates only 3 sites even link to it, and one of those is this wikipedia entry. It deserves a footnote at best. Being a wiki does not procure notability. FSRdomo 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep.
SynergeticMaggot
00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
Not notable, just UFO conspiracy people. I believe the article is vanity. FSRdomo 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a notable lawyer, no remarkable cases to his name. Licensed to practice up to the Supreme Court, but has not practiced there. Seems to be written as an advertisement/promotional, including resume material. Deco 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page--musician with no ablums, no influence. Whosasking 03:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Dorms -- Durin 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Other pages focusing on dorms at La Salle University have repeatedly been listed as non-notable and have been deleted. This article should be no different. Pacdude 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable company in the field of WiFi. No mention of this company in Indian or American media. most of the article has been copied from the company website. http://www.zazunetworks.com/aboutus.htm Ageo020 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Yanksox as nonsense. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Article with no real information on an event that may not happen at all. Jake52 My talk 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 6 August 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}} . |
Long article on nonnotable fantasy/Internet "wrestling league"; 13 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Kim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.173.77 ( talk • contribs) Note: User's first edit.
The result was keep. Mango juice talk 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An unsourced article which makes extremely strong claims regarding the alleged pornographic past of the subject. It has been waiting over seven months for cleanup and still doesn't come even close to meeting WP:BLP. I suspect that it's just simply time to chuck the whole thing in the trash; if the anons who keep adding maliciously gleeful (and utterly unsourced) details about Ms. Scott's alleged shady past can't dig up an actual reliable source for any of their accusations, there's no reason for there to be an article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Anyone who would bash Pastor Scott doesn't have a clue what a christian is. Just because someone might have a "shady" past doesn't mean jack squat now. This is present time, when you become a christian you are forgiven for all sins. Right? right. Therefore all of the people wanting to know if she was into pornographic this and that. They just want to know for their own perverted minds not because they care. Furthermore if she has in fact been in any pornographic films, etc. That was then, non of our business and just leave her alone. She is doing the Lords bidding now. Plus, FACT: She will tell you she was the last person to ever think that she could be saved. It goes to show that God really does work in mysterious ways. Those of you who bash her, he just hasn't got to you yet. God Bless!-a christian
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
One student organization at a med school. I don't see anything particularly notable about it and their social calendar for the year is definitely not encyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 04:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school. -- Big top 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I have expanded the article, added references, and a list of awards that the school has won, including the National Blue Ribbon School award. -- Elonka 01:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This non-notable web forum article clearly fails WP:WEB, and possibly WP:VAIN. For all interested, it has the incredibly high Alexa rank of 2,930,989. alphaChimp laudare 04:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted. My justification is: this is an obvious hoax (the toothbrush was known as a poor French attempt at "paedophile"; CRT was once known in poor French as "rapist"; he died from "Tiberius"), and no-one will complain. Kids! Don't try this at home! fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 10:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax. Zero relevant ghits for this individual. Page author gives dubious explanation in the talk page that this person was the inspiration for a "best selling novel" written by the page author ( Bobbbbbb). — NM Chico 24 04:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was nominator has withdrawn the AFD request and will follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Merge. [37] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant list from List of ZIP Codes in California. Some Original Research related to the disputed Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. Is probably involved in the RFAR on Ericsaindon2. Recommend redirect to List of ZIP Codes in California. Gogo Dodo 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Turnstep 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band with one release, see WP:MUSIC. Melchoir 05:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus; default to keep. Mango juice talk 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Deletion nomination An article about amateur student shows. Article does not assert encyclopedic notability as a cultural event. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for university societies and groups. Also
the first time (June 2005) this was nominated for afd, the discussion and closure was a travesty. Discussion was closed as keep when there was only a single vote in the whole discussion (excluding nominator). This was a keep voter claimed that this subject had 6,150 google hits. In fact, "unsw revues" brings up only approx. 66 unique google hits excluding Wikipedia and a large proportion of these hits appear to be spam sites or mirrors of wikipedia
[38]. Searching for "University of New South Wales revues" gets a single hit
[39], excluding wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors and spam sites(the freedictionary sites look like spam sites to me). Approx. 9 unique hits (some spammy again) for "unsw revue"
[40]. Zero hits for "university of new south wales revue"
[41]. Finally searching for "university of new south wales" + "revue" or "revues" poses a problem, as Revue is a French word for Review or Journal used for French language publications - this academic term produces a very inflated ghit count of 70,000+
[42]. However, if one excludes French language pages and limits the search to "university of new south wales"+"revues", there are only approx. 65 unique ghits with significant spamminess
[43] The singular term variation produces approx. 95 unique hits with spamminess
[44](mistakenly searched for plural term - singular term produces too many French uses even with English filter, but if I take out some common french words (de, du, le), I get ~218 unique ghis with the singular "revue"
[45]). Some content of this article could be merged to
University of New South Wales.
Bwithh
05:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy keep. We have many essays, guidelines, and policies in Wikipedia space that are not official or widely accepted. Please use AFD for items in article space. Nandesuka 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is often used to justify deleting many anime/manga related pages that are disliked, with many votes for deletion being "delete, fancruft". It is being treated as a guideline and a rule when it is not and due to it many things that should be improved rather than deleted are removed. On top of that, fancruft itself is a weasel word. Jtrainor 05:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Deletion nomination Small non-notable student society event that has only been around since 2000. Does not assert encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for university societies. ~15 to ~30 unique ghits on google [50] [51].Terrible puns. Bwithh 05:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A character in a short story by a guy with a grand total of one Google hit. This Google hit references the Wikipedia article. Crystallina 05:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Video-game cruft. Can be condensed and merged with Halo 2. Doogie2K (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was killer delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Something a computer said in a presentation of beta software a few days ago is not notable enough for Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Recentism) -/- Warren 06:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Article will eventually have relevance, just as All Your Base does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.119.76 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This an advertisement for a script that someone wrote just a few days ago. Blatant advertising, and does not meet WP:SOFTWARE. -- Hetar 06:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Yank sox 16:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Recreated after being deleted by PROD. One appearance on NPR doesn't make a band notable by WP:MUSIC. Delete. User:Angr 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:36, 7 August 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}} . |
Article about small online fan group, written by the movement. None of WP:WEB criteria met, no outside source, no outside reference, no recorded public reaction, partly fanfiction. Violation of WP:WEB, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research. As a whole, article is highly unnotable, it is possibly fancruft, vanity information and advertising.
EDIT: Furthermore, members and supporters of this fan group, in response to the deletion nomination, have been vandalizing many Charmed-related Wikipedia pages, two of them being IP-blocked today. Creators of The Charmed Sons article have continuously attacked Wikipedia contributors and have admitted in their own forum (see below for screenshots) of using multiple Wikipedia accounts to win this voting. AdamDobay 07:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC), edited by AdamDobay 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about an insignifant/unnotable person. Too little information on somebody who is not relevant or important other than in extremely esoteric circles. Mongoleer 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Originally speedied as non-notable, but the author protested. I don't think the business is large enough or important enough to warrant an article. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Bafendo is large enough for an article on Wikipedia fore it is the small who will some day be the big company that it is meant to be. Bafendo is a force to be reckoned with. Bafendo is worthy and it is very important to the people it helps and to the people who love it! -- Bafendo 09:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
You may not think it is not old enough but it is. We are an important company to our clients! We deserve a chance! We demand a chance! Bafendo may only be three years old but we are good at what we do and we will not be bullied into deletion. We deserve this and we're not giving it up without a fight! And anybody who thinks they can bully the small is a fool! Fore the small will one day grow big and crush the ones who tried to hold them back! We've struggled before but no more! This is it do not delete our archive we deserve to be here as much as Microsoft. Sure we aren't an international corporation but we have something they don't have... reliable products and affordable service! And I'd be a fool not to stop the deletion of our archive! So think about what I said and think about not being another barrier which a small business must face! As I said before... I will fight this!!! -- Bafendo 09:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
CSD is supposed to define a list of reasons for deletion so obvious that we can trust just one person to make the decision all on his sweeney; as a result, people tend to want to extend the list as little as possible. Bands (meant to cover high school garage bands who formed last week and haven't agreed on a name, sort of thing), clubs (e.g. the football team you and your mates organised for a muckaround after work), and so on were difficult enough to push through, without trying for corporations as well. As for {{ prod}}, yes, it can be removed by anyone at any time for any reason (or, indeed, no acknowedlged reason). Speedy tags can be removed by anyone, but should not be removed by the article's author; {{ hangon}} exists for the article's author to contest the speedy deletion if he wants, but need not be used by anyone else. Administrators have no special status when it comes to removing speedy tags. {{ db-reason}} exists mostly so that people don't have to remember all the other template names, and partly for when you have a reason for deletion that doesn't match existing templates perfectly (e.g. you want to note that it meets more than one of the CSD, or you've got a good reason that doesn't have a template yet — like Jimbo's statements on articles that run afoul of WP:BLP). fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 11:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Why doesn't anyone in the Wiki community like Bafendo? Sure I said small but that doesn't mean my company isn't important. We're big to our clients and we've had a few problems that have kept us small but we are finally growing. What we need right now is friends not enemys. Enemies make Bafendo look bad and a few of our clients have seen these "delete" comments and are now thinking of dropping Bafendo. Enemies we don't need! We need friends and allies. You don't want to kill Bafendo do you? Oh and by big I went giant like Microsoft ok Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)! And I may be new to Wikipedia but I do know what I am talking about! And you'll see how big Bafendo is when Western Digital markets LiquaDrive in a few years... just you wait! And just for the record; I will always fight for my company and I will never let anyone say it is not worthy and that I and/or Bafendo is arrogant and obnoxious! We are loved by many and we will never go away! -- Bafendo 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
So you want to play that way do you? Fine I might as well delete it myself since you people hate us so much! I think i'll tell everyone I know to stop using Wikipedia. Sure it wont make a big impact at first but when word spreads especially through the media the wheels start turning on something big. You've made a very big mistake one you will regret! To hell with Wikipedia if all of you feel this way. I hope you don't destroy another company! Besides there's lots of alternatives to Wikipedia. One is webster. This is not the end Wikipedia! This is not the end at all! You've made a powerfull enemy and a big mistake! We don't have to take anyones crap not even precious Wikipedia! We will be back and you'll see just how "notable" we are! You've made our list! And it's not a good list! You've been warned! -- Bafendo 09:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, just make redirect. - Mailer Diablo 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete: Clearly an advertisement for a simple franchise owner. Steroid Expert 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Added title. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The article was already nominated for deletion several weeks ago, but the previous result was no consensus with a suggestion to nominate again in several weeks. No new arguments have been raised or agreed upon in this debate. A major concern (voiced repeatedly in these AfDs) has been the subjectivity of this list. I'd second Samuel Blanning in encouraging anyone with concerns about the validity of a single listing to be bold and remove it themselves. alphaChimp laudare 20:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NPOV, non-encyclopedic, unweildy listcruft, lol, internet. – 127.0.0.1 ( talk) 08:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads to me like a corporate brochure. Based on WP:CORP, I'm not seeing why it should be considered notable. Dori 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research. The "black cop" is such a broad category of characters that I don't see it as an actual archetype. A Google search for "black cop" archetype doesn't turn up any discussion of such an archetype, and certain clues in the text (ie, no possible origin for the archetype offered) makes me think someone is trying to advance an idea without the serious scholarly homework needed to do so. hateless 08:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, due to withdrawn nom. PT ( s-s-s-s) 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't know much about it but I'm not sure that this band meet WP:MUSIC, one album, no review (as yet) of a major tour etc.. Marcus22 08:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
* Comment: I dont really know enough about it, but one album on killrockstars does not strike me as very significant. Neither does one internet review of the album. There is no review of a tour. (Which is the point I actually made). And I dont know anything at all about Canada's national college charts - but are they the same sort of thing as Billboard? I'm not sure they are. So for now I'll go with Delete.
Marcus22
10:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was good grief. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 09:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not the correct title for the article, the correct title is simply "Power of Love", and that article has been created Evan Reyes 09:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:N Film career is mostly non-credited stunt work according to IMDB entry. Game character voice seems most notable aspect of career--Clappingsimon talk 09:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
nn-corp Will ( Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - sorry if this has breached any terms. I did to try to keep this entry as factual as possible, but if anything I've written is too "self promotional" I'm more than happy to edit accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpsio ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 July 2006
The result was delete and redirect. Wickethewok 14:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a "marketing page" for an organization/company not actually related to the food. Article is otherwise just a definition. SB_Johnny | talk 10:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Wickethewok 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This list can already be seen in the article Storylines of EastEnders, it doesn't need its own article. Trampik e y ( talk to me)( contribs) 10:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete the article. I did a lookup aganist reliable sources for the De Morgen article, and it says that foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, so WP:V arguements are moot. And of course, new sources would definitely help in the article. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article's deletion has been discussed on a number of prior occasions ( Sept 04 - keep, Dec 05 - keep, Feb 06 - delete, then recreated, March 06 - delete, DRV - keep deleted, then recreated, April 06 - no consensus, DRV - restored as no consensus).
Frankly, it is time this went. I have waited a reasonable amount of time - over 3 months - before renominating this article to see if any multiple reliable sources would be forthcoming - they have note been. The article is not suitable for any reliable encyclopaedia, which Wikipedia should strive to be. As Wikipedia seems to finally have turned the corner on what we allow, and actually are applying policy and guideline ( WP:WEB, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT) to internet meme garbage fanboy articles (see here or here, it may finally be time for this to go.
The article has 1 (one) even remotely verifiable source, which is a small article in a single edition of a fairly low circulation (53,860 or 1 in 150 Belgians) Flemish language newspaper that requires a subscription to read. This is nowhere near being sufficient for WP:RS (multiple reliable mainstream print journals), and the article is therefore unverified. The article even says this, itself - Despite its reported prevalence this is the only mainstream report of The Game. All the other 'sources' provided are either bloglinks, or a website made up purely to ensure this cack was no consensus'd in a prior AFD. And even if it were sufficiently verifiable, I would suggest that this is not notable. Strong delete. Proto:: type 10:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Rdore 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 04:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
nn local host, and has a few minor websites, only 600 google hits, based on his sites Quotes22 10:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Character in untraceable stories by nn author. If they exist, the books are internet or vanity published: no Amazon hits; no google hits for "Cannington Inquires" (except WP) two google hits for "Cannington Inquiries". An article about the author has already been deleted at AfD, and csd'd as a repost. Prod removed by creator. Mr Stephen 10:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject finished second last in a single race held 98 years ago. The fact that this race was an Olympic event is irrelevant. The wheat should be separated from the chaff, and we have entries for the finalists in the relevant event, but Axel Andersson is just chaff. Catchpole 12:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a third place in the 3rd season of the German version of Pop Idol. She was deleted in the German Wikipedia several times because of irrelevance. There is no official CD by her. There were several requests for deletion review in the German WP, most of them referred to the existence of the entry in the English WP, but all of them were refused Uwe Gille 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be vanity, and the guy doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. Ladybirdintheuk 12:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestling organisation, google returns back zero results, sounds like a backyard wrestling group. --- Lid 12:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be vanity. 4 google results. Dark Shikari 13:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unpublished role playing game. Products that are not yet released to the market are not usually listed on WP. This has no Google or Yahoo search hits, so is presumably not available to the public even in its current state. Once published, would be a valid subject for an article, but not until then. eaolson 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
promotional; fails WP:WEB. see also Michael Wolsey. Tom Harrison Talk 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I diliberately did not include the Revere Radio Network aspect because I wanted to keep it simple and avoid the appearence of "vanity". After reading the WP:WEB, I see that I should have included it. Quoting WP:WEB, "3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Revere Radio Network is both independent and well known with a current google search number of 10,900. They are very well known depending on who you talk to.
Also, it is worth mentioning that adding this show to Wikipedia in the 9-11 conspiracy theories section is very appropriate. The 9-11 section of Wikipedia is large. In fact, this article under consideration cites Wikipedia pages 9 times with regard to 9-11. Regardless of what you think about the 9-11 conspiracy theories, Michael has made a significant contribution in this area with this show. This show belongs in this section along with all the other researchers who are featured.
I believe that with the previously mentioned edit, and new information now provided, this article fits within the Wikipedia guidelines. If I am mistaken, please assist me in bringing this article within Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for taking the time and for your careful consideration. Visibility911 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was as follows: I took into account the arguments to delete, and at first glance, this looked like a clear "delete". However, having also (obviously) taken into account the arguments to keep, and given the circumstance that the article has been edited so that it is not plainly advertisement, I see no consensus either way. -- Ezeu 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
blantant advert Kungfu Adam ( talk) 13:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The Pink Pound Conference in June 2006 UK featured Out Now Consulting MD as the Keynote Speaker.
Time magazine today covers the organisation. This year has seen Out Now Consulting covered in other media and in fact over 15 years Out Now Consulting has been frequently covered in news media in relation to the company's leading role in what is a new development in marketing - developing strategies to target gay consumers.
Some of these publications include: The Independent (UK) The Times (UK) The Guardian (UK) The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) The Australian (Australia) Business Review Weekly (Australia) Het Financieele Dagblad (Netherlands) De Morgen (Belgium)
TV appearances by Out Now Consulting staff have been many and include: BBC TV (UK) Jim TV (Belgium) TCN 9 (Australia) Nederland 1 (Netherlands).
There has been much other media coverage of Out Now Consulting's role in this development during this period.
In each case, Out Now Consulting is reported upon as a "significant player" in the "major news event" of - the emergence of a visible gay and lesbian consumer market. Perhaps to you that isn't a major news event but today's issue of Time magazine obviously does as the story about the emergence of gay advertising in Europe quoting Out Now Consulting's work is the one item from the current issue that Time magazine has chosen to highlight at the top of their homepage http://www.time.com/time/europe/ and see also the article at http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060807-1220477,00.html
Other media events include the coverage in much UK media of the revelation that 49% of lesbian and gay people feel unable to come out at work. http://www.sundayherald.com/53693 (Scotland) and http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article341714.ece - again media coverage of gay community research that Out Now Consulting was the significant player in.
I again request undeletion of the Out Now Consulting page.
Thanks for your attention,
Ian - 31 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outnow ( talk • contribs)
I left this comment days ago when the article was much fuller, there is so little info on gay marketing available, that students like myself previously found this article of great use. It is not SPAM when it helps me do an assignment.
Original comment follows....
Hi There,
I am a mrketing student in the Netherlands, and have found the article on Out Now Consulting to be most helpful and of exceptional interest on the gay marketing phenomenon.
It was quite hard for me as well as other students to find the information that we needed, though there was plenty to say on the subject.
Keep up the good work and it may be worthwhile keeping the article here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.87.154.90 ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Out Now is the only gay marketing agency with offices in more than one country is a fact unique to the entity and increases the organisation's notability.
The deletions by Chris Griswold did far more than remove entries related to one survey. S/he removed many third party media reports of Out Now Consulting covering a range of issues, some related to Out Now's many different reports, some where the journalist sought Out Now Consulting as a notable source of expertise in its specific area. Given the extent to which s/he removed items and the little time it took for this user to do so I am somewhat concerned that s/he did not have time read through all these removed references sufficiently to see that they were clearly not just "a loosely related collection of references to brief mentions of [a single] survey". 37 minutes were spent deleting over 35 separate news articles, third party references and other citations from a range of sources. The article as left by this user this morning leaves only a single reference - to UK research from 2005 and removed everything else. There was also other research included previously. there was much more than reporting on research. For example, there were third party publications such as the Belgium Marketing Foundation, the Pink Pound Conference (UK), the Dutch marketing textbook "Principes van Marketing" (Principles of Marketing) also removed by this user - none of which was related to the British Gay Times and Diva research as s/he seemed to contend when removing it. On that point, where an esteemed newspaper such as the Sunday Independent - a leading national UK newspaper, devotes a double page spread feature article based primarily on, and extensively quoting research by, Out Now Consulting discussing a major workplace discrimination issue, which is also supported by remarks from other industry groups in the UK unrelated to Out Now Consulting, all commenting on the work of Out Now Consulting - does that not as C.Fred says: show Out Now Consulting to be a "company with major-media news coverage and that stands out in its industry/segment"? That seems to fall squarely within the Wikipedia guidelines as to notability for article's on companies being included.
For that matter, why would Time magazine this week in Europe choose to quote Out Now Consulting's opinion about the state of gay advertising in Europe if the company is not notable for readers of Time? That seems to fall within Wikipedia guidelines. That comment had absolutely nothing to do with the British research mentioned above. We were relied upon by the journalist of Time as a notable authority in the area of gay marketing. The magazine includes a photo of Out Now Consulting's campaign for the German National Tourist Office in their print edition as an example of gay advertising.
I note also that the comment made by the student 86.87.154.90 talk is a relevant one. Each week we usually receive several inquiries from students wanting our help. I agree our article is not SPAM to these students. Just today we received the following email -
"My name is Katharina and I study in Germany and have to write en essay for my university on gay marketing.It would be really helpful for me if you could send me some information, because it is such a new and present topic and I could not find any books so far. I would be really pleased if you could help me. Thank you very much, Katharina"
That sort of thing is fairly common here - if any of the Wikipedia editors wishes to contact me direct I would welcome them doing so to obtain more information about the similar student emails we regularly receive requesting assistance from Out Now Consulting with research about the gay market and other gay social issues. There really is a uniqueness to what we do - which is why media, students and others contact us. It is also why we are noted in such a leading textbook as Kotler's Principles of Marketing textbook in section 4 about niche marketing. That has nothing to do with our research - it features a full page discussion of advertising we created for Lufthansa and South African Tourism in the Dutch market. It also seems to fall squarely within Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion.
Any of the above factors taken alone should make you think our firm is notable but when taken in concert, - and in respect of so many third party citations about the company (removed today by Chris Griswold) I believe firmly that such a combination of factors renders this article well worth keeping and Out Now Consulting notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. To delete everything in the previous entries down to just what was left there this morning seems not in keeping with the Wikipedia principles. Finally, just in case you did not pick up on it above I am the author of the article and am the MD of the firm, so you might be tempted to discount all I say trying to believe that our article is SPAM however it is not just me saying it.
The search engines, the students such as 86.87.154.90, users such as C.Fred and Ageo020 and many media publications around the world seem to concur that our business has a unique industry position in a major new development in marketing. I would much prefer that there be restored some of what was deleted this morning from the article with a NPOV, and where third party items where the work of Out Now Consulting is the major aspect of the citation. Ian Johnson -- User:outnow
The result was Speedily deleted. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Hardly intelligible copied/pasted table. No references provided. Edcolins 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted by Fang Aili. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It was proded prod was removed. It's page that was deleted before here but it's not exactly the same page. Still reads like a game guide though and so violates WP:NOT -- Whispering 20:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a list of topics of a certain course, no explanation, no references. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsalvagable advertisement. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was hoax. DS 22:33, 2 August 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}} . |
This article, I freely admit, is a work of genius. It's funny and creative. Unfortunately, while Percy Nobby Norton does indeed appear to have been an Australian folk singer, he is entirely unnotable, and everything else here is made up. Among many other reasons to believe this are his alleged 1902 publication of "Calvin and Knobes", and the 1923 publication of "Desperate Househusbands". Good joke, but it's gone far enough. DJ Clayworth 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
God Save the Queen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.7.132 ( talk • contribs) (this is user's only edit)
I Came up from Wandin And a girl come up to me Here comes a raspberry picker now won't we have a spree she grabbed me by the collar and she tried to grab my swag so I upped with a stick and knocked here stiff and they all cried out he's a lad Oh give me the wandin life where the raspberry pickers do rome for we are the Carlton Larrikens lad That is what I can remember. I understand that the burden of proof is on me the author not the people wishing for deletion but most of the information was gathered via interviews. WHAT CAN I DO???-- Bpazolli 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
John Silverthorne 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (user's only edit) reply
C.Y.Elvira 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (user's only edit) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement, fails WP:SOFT. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- Ezeu 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced advertising for non-notable sub-brand Yomangani 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kusma (討論) 10:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article just doesn't make any sense. it is too Dilbert-zone like for me. Needs either to be made into an article that cross-references other concepts, or else should be removed. As it is, it isn't in the least enlightening. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 00:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website; doesn't meet WP:WEB. Founded in May 2006, it can't really be that notable, can it? Ruaraidh-dobson 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The article above was Speedy deleted while it was listed here ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surfing (Counter-Strike) (second nomination)). The article was NOT identical to the previous one, so G4 did not apply. The deleting editor ( Fang Aili) restored it, then it got CSD-G4 tagged again and Fang Aili himself changed the tag to {{db|WP:NOT a game guide}} [77], which is NOT a criterium for speedy deletion as well. I do not care for this article getting deleted, but please follow policy when speedy deleting articles. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Gordon H Bennett. One of the worst redlink/nn band infested lists-which-should-be-category I've ever seen. Please, begone. This is what categories are for. kingboyk 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about a long usenet flamewar. I don't think it could ever be anything than original research and I'm not sure if it's notable enough to have its own article.-- Joanne B 15:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Crystal balling, WP:OR and for the same reasons listed in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/That's_So_Raven_Movie - Yomangani 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was CSD G7 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 06:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This would appear to be an attempt at defining a new musical style based on the specific sounds being generated from a specific part of Washington, DC. Unfortunately, the article is unsourced, and a Google search [78] turns up 202 hits for "urban crank" - and nine for "urban crank" music. I can't find anything that confirms this as a substantially recognized musical style, and thus feel it fails verifiability. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 16:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
PLEASE REMOVE URBAN CRUNK. The Wikipedia Theory, and DC-MUSIC CHARTS from WIKIPEDIA. I've ben trying to delete these pages for some tiem now and I did not realize that it must be done by this way. THANKS!! Dawntelesford 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
These would appear to be music charts for the Washington, DC area, as apparently announced on a couple of the radio stations. They appear to be specific to the area, and don't seem to be notable and encyclopedic, to me. I asked for clarification on the talk page a couple of days ago, and got none, so felt it would be worthwhile to get further discussion on the topic. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 10:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:BAND, speedied once already but recreated Rklawton 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Northern Pikes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Pikes and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda77 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Listcruft Computerjoe 's talk 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NN, WP:OR, and WP:V. Possibly a hoax, or at best a lot of original research. The images are hand drawn scribbles, and the starting editor only has edits related to this article. Google search turns up 19 results, almost all related to this article. Originally PRODded, but User:Catchpole removed the tag, stating; "Not a hoax" without providing a rationale. Green451 16:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Episode details of every episode of WWE. Notable, I think not. Jmatt1122 CVU (Talk) 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Describes an outdoor game that does not seem to be widely played outside of the summer camp where it was invented last year. FreplySpang 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NN the subject does not appear to be a significant or notable person in his field. Seems also to be a vanity article. UARG 17:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Author removed the prod tag and someone else re-added, which you can't do, so here we are. May well qualify as Patent Nonsense. Fan-1967 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 6 August 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}} . |
Modest, midsize company fails WP:CORP. Take a look at the section on the chronology of their advertising catch phrases. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. -- Xrblsnggt 17:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This sourceless article has no encyclopedic value, for this topic is fundamentally unencyclopedic. Wikipedians have no right to label certain persons as being polymaths or not; We can't have this article for the same reason we can't have list of smart people. I have taken the liberty of adding a few names of what I thought to be quintessential polymaths to the Polymath article. Let us see if we can find a few indisputable polymaths, list them there and delete this mess. Rmrfstar 18:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A victim of torture perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. The incident is already covered in the article Bagram torture and prisoner abuse and the person is not in and of himself notable for any other incident. As such, this is just a memorial page and should be deleted. Indrian 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines fo notability. The first sentence reads: "The four worms (then Bob, Leon, Rodney, and Celia) were first created by Tim during a high school science class". -- Xrblsnggt 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A few people at MIT decided to have a party, drink some beer non-alcoholic beverages, and give the gathering a ridiculous premise to get some tongue-and-cheek newspaper headlines. I am sure a good time was had by all, but since no timetravellers actually showed up, I do not see anything more significant about this event than your typical college party or lecture series.
Indrian
18:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
De-proded. Non-notable web comic with no claims to meet WP:WEB. See talk page if you're really curious about the one Google hit for "Tywo at Large." The statement, "article has been typed by the creator Daran Carlin-Weber himself for show on Wikipedia", also indicates that this is a vanity page. Scientizzle 19:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A kind of marketing presentation that appears to be the exclusive domain of one consulting group. Needs to be more widely practiced before I'd consider it encyclopedic.
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like autobiography. I removed most of the POV, but what remains doesn't seem to assert notability. If he is in fact one of the top five earners in direct marketing, he might be notable, but that doesn't seem easily verifiable (and a seven figure income seems rather low in that context). I haven't checked all 892 google-results on "Clayton Makepeace", but if there are any reliable sources, they are drowned in the ads for seminars and books, so verifiablity might also be a concern. Rasmus (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Deprodded by creator with the rationale "article not complete. Content still being added. References to be added to support content once content more fleshed out and direction established." But I find it hard to believe that this article, given its title, will ever become anything other than a how-to guide (which Wikipedia is not). The article creator seems to be more concerned with my OR concerns, but the current version reads very much like an essay and sourcing it is not going to help with that, and I'm not seeing it going in the direction of less essay-like. As an added bonus, there appears to be plenty of POV ("Never use your pistol") and an "Acknowledgements" section where people are asked to sign the page. Apparently the creator mistakes us for some other wiki. Morgan Wick 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page contains only POV discussion in support of the pseudoscience Electric Universe concept. If present at all, the text should be at that page -- but it may not even be notable enough for that. zowie 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The more the lone author talks, the less they say. This article badly fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV and will never meet them, not to mention WP:ASR. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia, and WP:NOT a soapbox. Mango juice talk 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Contains only fallacious POV discussion of a supporting idea for the pseudoscience Electric Universe concept. zowie 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
To clarify: the discussion is fallacious in that it does not discuss other, more commonly accepted, mechanisms for the formation of the planetary features in question -- thereby failing WP:NPOV. In addition, it fails the WP:NOR and notability guidelines. zowie 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Deficiencies can be corrected by additonial information: Specifically, alternate (commonly accepted) points of view may be presented. References obviously need to be added. Other "theories" are presented in Wikipedia as fact even without experimental reproducibility, so long as the argument is convincing (black holes, pulsars, neutron stars). So long as it's clear that it is a theory, and alternate points of view are added, I see no problem. It can be edited to be more neutrally presented. Mgmirkin 03:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Update: In terms of scale and implication, this entry is significantly different from the regular Electrical discharge machining article and is a central tenet of the Electric Universe model, thus a full definition of the concept is necessary for the intelligent discussion of that model (this article was created due to the deficit of a sufficent article for reference in said article; the EDM article was insufficient in this regard). If necessary this could be integrated with the Electric Universe model, or portions of it used neutrally in the original EDM article, though I don't advocate that approach, as they're wholly separate concepts. I have added several fairly detailed articles by Ralph Juergens (electrical engineer) in support. And will add alternate viewpoints and attempt to edit for neutrality/balance. On another note, what is the timeline for discussion/deletion? IE, how much time does an article's author have to improve it before it is summarily deleted in reactionary fashion? I'm in the process of attempting to find additional references and flesh out the article. Mgmirkin 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Update again: I have cleaned up a good portion of the article, though it may still need work. I have added a sesction discussion opposite (more traditional) points of view. I have also included references to sites with supporting arguments, and references to sites with opposing views (also put opposing viewpoint references first, so people can review the traditional view for comparison before reading the supporting views). I have also requested scholarly references from a friend. I *hope* they may be forthcoming shortly, but cannot guarantee it. If anyone know of resources for FINDING specifically topical references in scholarly publications, it would be appreciated if they could be noted. Finding ANY discussions PRO OR CON about the features and causation (rilles, Valles Marineris, Mamers Vallis, Chaos Terrain, Arachnoids) has been difficult/frusting to say the least. However, I have tried to point to some useful references pro and con, for the time being, and to better balance the article. More revision may be needed. I've tried to get to a modicum of neutrality while still laying out the theory. So, I'm hoping it's closer to meeting POV requirements/neutrality rules. I object to it being labeled "New Research", as the ideas have been around at least since Immanuel Velikovsky and Nikola Tesla's time, and definitely since Ralph Juergens proposed the Electric Sun model. It's been around, it's been discussed, this isn't a new concept, it's just a recently added one on wikipedia. If someone could find/add a few references, I'd be grateful. Mgmirkin 06:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd also not the following from NOR: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view." As such I'll try to note the "controversy" over some of the sites referenced (specifically, thunderbolts.info is not technically regarded as a verifiable resource, despite the fact they cite laboratory experiments and even give photographic evidence to back up their claims, likewise, holoscience.com and plasmacosmology.net are regarded as
pseudoscience at worst, or
protoscience at best, by traditional physicists, despite those sites being authored by extremely bright plasma physicists and electrical engineers who work with similar materials and processes). This should satisfy NOR. As well as opposite viewpoints and references satisfying NPOV.
Mgmirkin
06:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
Ahh, finally a useful post! Thanks for the link to the abstracts searcher. No clue what ADS stands for tho' sorry (Astrophysics Data System, apparently, hey maybe we need a new article on THAT! Hehe, j/k, apparently we have our hands full with this one...). Oh, and methinks maybe you don't know what it is you're looking for. Or they might not know what it is they're researching or how to properly phrase it. I looked under Electrical discharge and a whole bunch of other search terms and came up with the following: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 (apologies if I accidentally duplicated any entries, it's been a grueling experience trying to decipher the astrobabble and physicsbabble; ask 10 physicists the same question and they all tell you 10 different ways of describing it using different words. Man... No wonder nobody can ever find any references. Unless you ask a plasma physicists and/or an electrical engineer, then they tend to use the same words pretty frequently: double-layering, charge separation, electric discharge machining, birkeland currents, z-pinch, anode tuft, glow discharge, and those are about the only names for 'em.).
As we can see, there is plenty of research (even one on electric dust devils lifting soil 1, hmm... Interesting! Funny how it looks like the same questions and observations being made here: 1 and here: 2) going on in the realm of electric phenomena in relation to "fulgurite" or spherule formation, relation of electrical arc formation to "channels" seen on on the Earth's surface, research regarding the electrical nature and discharges of tremendous dust devils combing the surface of Mars, lightning formation and effects on planetary bodies. Shall I go on? I don't think any of this is "new research." Portions of it have been talked about in various articles that have been published to date. I don't know their specific terminologies of how they refer to things. Frankly I'm startign to think their naming schemes are arbitrary... =o\ In any even, electrical processes on planets in the solar system have been talked about for a while. More frequently on thuderbolts.info and plasmcosmology.net and holoscience.com. But there's current technobabble in "peer reviewed" journals relating to many of the processes listed in the EDM in Space entry. They might not use the exact same terms (EDM in space), but they're definitely researching how lightning works, how it's interacting with various surfaces on earth and in space. I'm sure that if Ikept digging I'd find more specific references. I just don't know how physicists who don't uderstand plasmna physics are terming what they're talking about. 4.242.183.170 10:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) For some reason it logged me out. Go fig. I wasn't hiding! Honestly! Mgmirkin 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm suddenly reminded of my folklore (more specific cultural anthropology) classes in college. Specifically the admonition to represent a piece of information as it is considered relative to the point of view of the one(s) conveying the knowledge. We can analyze this briefly: What information is being conveyed? Is it conveyed properly? Does it represent the body of knowledge and thoughts/feelings/meaning of that knowledge as the one conveying it understands it?
If nothing else we can consider the article in question a piece of folklore or cultural anthropology (as, really, is any article on here, it's knowledge of the people conveyed to other people).
How is the article presented? -It is presented as a theory espoused by Electric Universe propnents.
Is this actually a theory espoused by EU proponents? -According to their web sites, this is their theory. In that regard, this article is correct, this article summarizes their theories.
Are verifiable resources used regarding the article? -If you mean can we verify that this is in fact the position proferred by EU theorists, then yes, sufficient evidence has been listed to say that this is the view espoused by EU theorists.
Are we attempting to validate the underlying theory, or simply the presentation of a position? -According to Wikipedia, we're NOT concerned with truth, merely that articles presented are, NOR, NPOV and verifiable as written in the context they're intended. In this case, a theory or belief is presented as "a theory" and explained in the terms that those who share the belief "understand" it. As with Jormundgand or the axis mundi, we are not evaluating the premise, technically only that the *belief* that is espoused. The "belief" is supported by the evidence already presented in numerous links to several EU theorist sites, which appear to be internally consistent with each other. Straight from the verifiability entry: "'Verifiability' in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research ... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." So, we're not looking at whether the underlying premise or process of EDM in Space is true. We're looking for whether it is true as presented. Is it a "theory?" Yes. Is it espoused by EU theorists? Consensus of EU proponents says yes. Does it present the theory and implications of said theory in the manner and understanding that it is epoused by proponents? Yes. Does it cite "authoritative" EU theorist websites? Yes (thunderbolts.info, plasmacosmology.net holoscience.com, kronia.com).The confidence with which we can say that EU theorists believe this in the way presented is fairly high considering the volume of works published by said theorists.
Do you need to agree with the specifics of the theory in order for it to be a well-written article on wikipedia? -According to Wikipedia, no... As long as it's fair, balanced, NPOV, verifiable, NOR, wikipedia isn't concerned with the "truth" of a position (hence there are plenty of articles on pseudoscience that paraphrase the specific beliefs in a neutral way), nor your *opinions* about an opinion, only that it acurately represents what it claims to represent. In this case it claims to represent a theory espoused by EU theorists, and it shows that EU theorists in fact do in fact hold this viewpoint. This is no different than listing articles about the World Tree or the World Serpent, or other "beliefs." In those articles bias (Norse Myth, Greek Myth, Atheism) are noted, beliefs are spelled out, and resources showing that the belief is held, who it is held by, etc. are spelled out. Mgmirkin 12:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Understood. As I've said, finding spoecific references is tricky due to the myriad of wordings ivolved in uber-specific fields of research. However, Martian Dust Devils are certainly one form of EDM, albeit on a slightly smaller scale than larger bolts of lightning. But these electrical filamentary processes are at the heart of the EDM conception in the EU model. Granted, it hasn't been given extensive mindshare in primary scientific circles. But it is a fairly basica and central tent in the EU model. And in that model mindshare on EDM processes is significantly higher (it's one of the basic theoretical prcoesses behind planetary surface machining/formation; in the EU model, where its mindshare is pretty unanimous, granted the EU model is a minority opinion).
However, research in terrestrial dust devils have been going on likewise to understand the process of formation and of machining dust off the surface and INTO the air. Note the following article from Nasa: Phantoms From the Sand: Tracking Dust Devils Across Earth and Mars I'm assuming Nasa releases are considered "credible." This article draws some parallels to and mentions Martian Dust devils. It also notes the interesting finding that "Some researchers think a dust devil may need dust to sustain itself, but here we recorded a very large one that was essentially free of dust for a substantial part of its lifetime" IE, dust movement is a secondary feature, not a primary feature. IE, dust motion does not create or sustain a devil, as the "devil" can be measured and remain active even WITHOUT any dust being excavated/lifted from the surface. Like I said, plenty of active research going on, you just need to find it. ;o]
Anywho, my main point from the prior discussion was that active research is going on in related fields. Granted mainstream science hasn't made the same connections yet. But the EU model has. This article is presented as being a EU "belief" (and it is; you can find the same stuff on all the EU sites of any import) and alternate theories/explanations are presented, thus satisfying NPOV. NOR should be satisfied simply by the fact of the Velikovsky affair, Ralph Juergens' electric Sun model, etc. The concepts have been discussed for some time. Verifiability depends on *what* you're trying to verify, and is thus subjective. If you're trying as an editor to verify the underlying claim that in fact electrical processes are causative, wikipedia says YOU are doing original research and strongly cautions against even trying to do that. However, if you are simply verifying that a belief is held by a specific group, from a cultural anthropology standpoint, there is no conflict (EU websites all say basically the same thing about discharges in space, as modeled in the lab and tested on the small scale by spark machining, creation of electrical vortexes, etc.), so the fact that the belief is held by EU theorists is easily "verified." Thus the issue of "truth" of the claim is irrelevant, since it is essentially just a belief held by the group and in that group it has nearly universal (consensus) mindshare (though the group in itself is a minority in the scientific community, in order to understand their beliefs in a proper context it is necessary to understand EDM in Space [concept] which is central to their cosmological belief system). Guess that about sums it up, eh? 4.242.183.215 09:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Guess I need to click "remember me" when I sign in so it automatically logs me in... Man, my typing sucks lately. Too much writing at 2am... ;o] Mgmirkin 09:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
To the contrary, a number of electrical engineers and plasma physicists (Wallace Thornhill, Ralph Juergens, Donald Scott and a number of others) are strong supporters (in fact are or have been its main proponents and commentators, specifically because their observations in the lab appeared to strongly correlate with observed stellar phenomena; anode glow and the sun, arc discharges and lightning, arc discharges and spherule generation in EDM in the lab) and have made quantitative and qualitative specific scientific predictions, which appear to better fit the actual data from subsequent observation than other contemporary interpretations.
EU model predicted that martian dust storms would demonstrate electrical characterization, despite the atmosphere being too thin and cold to support the standard convection model, and that similar mesurements of electrical processes in dust devils would be made in the terrestrial sphere. These predictions have been confirmed, not least of all by the article noted last night written by Nasa, and a number of others that have found electrical characterization of dust devils. Phantoms From the Sand: Tracking Dust Devils Across Earth and Mars, EU model similar characterizations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Likewise tornadoes, water spouts, hurricanes, etc. are expected to also display electrical characterization 1, 2, 3, 4 as well.
Similarly, predictions were made about the so-called "volcanoes" of IO before probes imaged them. Predictions included that the "volcanoes" would demonstrate electrical characterization, would be hotter than any known volcano on earth and would exhibit features common to electrical arcing and not to volcanoes, that the "lava lakes" (large black spopts) would in fact be cool (because it's not flowing lava it's an electrically charred/machined surface), and that the "volcano(es)" would MOVE around the edges of the lava lake and NOT be stationary. Predictions 1, 2 3. Initial accounts and images "appear" to fit the predictions. Cold "lava flow," jets much larger and hotter than expected, following the pattern of the expected electrical arcing that was predictde by the model. Prometheus Plume active for 18 years? With bluish characterization? IO enveloped in Aurora. And what causes auroras? According to Birkeland: charged particles involved in an electrical interaction. Hmm... Hence we get the term "Birkeland Currents" or field-aligned currents.
It is perfectly within the EU model's capabilities to make predictive statements that are borne out (or at the very least not contradicted) by facts and observations. In some cases, predictions which the standard models DID NOT make and are only now beginning to even investigate (and find a strong correlation to what the EU already said years ago). The model allows for falsifiability by making specific predictions and then observing results to note matches and/or contradictions, and welcomes critical discussion of its predictions.
Similar research is still ongoing: Measurements of Electrical Discharges in Martian Regolith Simulant. Researchers understand the need to know the causation and structural features associated with Mars' dust devils. The information will be useful for comparison to Earthly phenomena bearing similar structure as well.
The more I look, the more research in related fields I see going on around these very self-same concepts. The only difference is that the traditional researchers don't understand the causation. The EU model purports to (due to the plasma and electrical engineering understanding of its proponents in the field) and makes very specific predictions, many of which are being anecdotally verified as we speak.
But, again, this goes back to verifiability's ambiguity. Are we trying to verify the Physics (causation) of the phenomenon the belief is based upon (that's a no-no), or the fact that the belief is held, what the belief is, and who believes it ( Cultural anthropology)?
I am arguing for the latter (cultural anthropology). The belief is held. That has been substatiated repeatedly. We know who believes it. We know who the authoritative sources for the belief are (people, web sites, specific documents and claims). Even beyond that, certain features of the belief are in process of being upheld by observation (auroras on Earth and other planets, electric dust devils, tornadoes, water spouts, chondrule {or was it Chondrite?} and fulgurite formation).
Perhaps the article needs to be amended to say "EDM in Space (concept)" to distinguish between concept (cultural anthropology) and verified physical phenomenon (physical process). I would classify this under cultural anthropology insofar as the belief goes (it is a central tenet of a pseudo-/proto-scientific belief system, much as the axis mundi, world tree, world serpent, gods, etc are the central tenets of a religious/mythological belief). Physical confirmation of "fact" of the underlying processes is another matter entirely. I believe that verifiability and NPOV and NOR have been satisfied for the concept interpretation and am not specifically advocating for classification as verified physical fact, though it is anecdotally supported on a number of fronts. Granted, it may be walking a fine line, but I think the distinction is justifiable (cultural anthropology vs physical process; granted this is a "belief" about a physical process, but it is still a belief and a central tenet of a belief system nonetheless and should in that regard be given consideration). If necessary the article can be amended with "(concept)" and a more definitive note about the cultural anthropology of it can be inserted to distinguish it from empirical physical fact. 64.122.15.114 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't recall if I mentioned before, but have edited the article significantly since initially nominated for deletion. Have added opposing viewpoints, recently added clarification regarding cultural anthropology and that the article is regarding an aspect of EU model belief, also added that the claims have not been substatiated, but are necessary basic tenet for understanding the EU model in cultural anthropological terms. Have also noted controversy over certain sources, per Wikipedia policy when "reputability" is in dispute. And have noted opposition and alternate theories of the evolution of the same processes by non-adherents (mainstream scientists). Mgmirkin 21:44 (appx), 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And just for good measure, in case we're still wondering whether or not aspects of the EU model are being actively researched (regardless of by whom)? It appears so. There are a number of abstracts on electromagnetic field generation in the early universe, polarization of charge (charge separation) in the universe, electrical discharge within the solar system, the electrical conductivity and charging of Titan's atmosphere, research on modelling the global ionospheric electric fields to the solar wind, penetration of the interplanetary electric field to the low-latitude ionosphere during magnetic storms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
As we can see, this is an active field of research in astrophysics (the role of electricity in the universe). Many of these are questions which have been posed/proposed directly by the EU model. Though not specifically related to the EDM in Space entry, I felt inclusion was warranted due to general assailing of the EU model in general as not being notable. In fact there is a great body of research being done relating to electrical processes in the universe (not necessarily by adherents per se, but addressing the same issues of mechanisms/causation). So, anyway, there you have a bunch of research beig done on related fields... I'm sure I could find more if I took the time to look and sort through the jargon. Mgmirkin 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Haven't had time to read all specific markup at this time. Here's my general thoughts on some NPOV issues related to POV of a specific group (IE belief systems). I may respond to individual comments at a later point as I have time... I don't right now.
I've been trying to clean up the NPOV issues over the last week, by putting in alternate explanations, taking out some of the more obvious biased statments which may have been initially worded too strongly in favor, attempting to add citations pro and con. I'll admit I'm still new here, but learning as much as I can about protocol as possible to get up to speed. Apologies on any foibles in the meanwhile. Constructive criticism is appreciated, constructive edits toward neutrality appreciated as well. Mgmirkin 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Copied from my comments on Talk page.) reply
But, also, remember that this is presented as one of the central beliefs of a group/culture, so in some way, any "belief will be from the POV of that culture/group." Same gows when discussing the beliefs of any religion, pseudo-religion, scientific group, fringe group. When presenting the tenets of their belief system you are presenting their POV. In this case specifically getting at the heart of their cosmological view of the structure and nature of the universe. In some regards, POV should be accepting of presentation of a group's beliefs, so long as the presentation of those beliefs is neutral. If that hasn't yet been achieved here, let's discuss and come to concensus on how to better word things to be neutral POV, while still presenting the views in their entirety. What is wikipedia precedent on presenting a specific group's views? Obviously a belief us understanding from the POV of that group. How does that fit within the general POV / NPOV debate? Say for instance norse mythology's Jormungand (world serpent), this is their method of explaining a certain aspect of their cosmology. It's from their cultural POV. Yet, Wikipedia still allows it, yes? If so, why? Why is that POV acceptable but EU POV is not? Is this bias on the deletionists part? Playing favorites of one belief system over the other? Why should one groups' POV be promoted over another's? That in and of itself is not NPOV by way of selective suppression of information. Mgmirkin 23:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Copied from my comments on Talk page.) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable state assembley candidate. Possible WP:Vanity because the article was started by Brockwayandy ( talk • contribs). Also, the edits are full of non-encyclopedic POV content and personal attacks. sigmafactor 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A page made just for the heck of it on this facet of the Dragon Ball Z character, seen in just one TV special. Poor title that's near impossible to find with false facts, not what I'd call the *best* written article I've ever seen, and syntax is done in improper style. No merge or redirect here, as everything's covered well on Son Gohan#History of Trunks. And since someone else'll bring it to the table despite it not being official guideline/policy, über-cruft. Papacha 20:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB, no evidence of notability. Alexa rank of 1,003,082. Jacek Kendysz 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Scientologycruft. Not only is it totally POV, but it probably can never be anything but a stub about a non-notable aspect of early Scientology. Crabapplecove 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was as follows: It is established that Tim Bowles is notable among Scientologists. The easy way out would be to "delete" given the well formulated arguments to delete. Despite that, I opt for no consensus, as the arguments to delete do not convince me. -- Ezeu 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability not established. This non-notable attorney's claim to "fame" is that he works for the Church of Scientology. Aren't there about a thousand other lawyers who could say the same thing? Crabapplecove 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Google's never heard of it. Seems to be high-school kids pretending to be notable. Spondoolicks 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
High school kid (though that statement was taken off the article when the prod tag was removed) Created and edited by same users as
The Circulating Events (see above afd). No Google verification. Seems to be hoax.
Spondoolicks
20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Mango juice talk 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's doubly not a dictionary of obscure Scientology terminology Crabapplecove 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 19:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
More Scientologycruft, notability not established. This totally obscure and non-notable "company producing marketing material for the insurance industry" shouldn't get an article just because of its Scientology connections. Crabapplecove 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Utterly non-notable Church. Again, because of a Scientology connection, someone apparently thought notability was instantly conferred. I'm not so sure about Church of Jesus Christ in Zion either. Crabapplecove 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for deletion on 31/7/2006. The result of the discussion was keep
No sources apart from the Church itself. Will ( talk) 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The article seems to be a hoax, Jenna Dupri yields no Google hits and the information in the article is unverifiable. Liffey 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Culturally unimportant, non-notable drinking game. Receives only around 600 hits on Google; does not warrant its own article. Prod removed by anon. RandyWang ( raves/ review me!) 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Deprodded. Cannot be verified by
reliable sources.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
Molerat
21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the second nomination, the first was closed a month ago as no consensus [83]. There are about 15 Google hits for this. I can't find a Lexus-Nexus (going back 2 years) or Google News result for it. It's unverified and hasn't been touched (aside from being tagged for wikification) since the previous AfD a month ago. Metros232 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mango juice talk 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I'm fairly certain this entry was deleted once before on the basis of not meeting WP:Notability. Jinxmchue 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article fails
WP:BIO, and its content is generally duplicated in the
Jeffrey Archer article. Redirect to that article as a potential search term.
Erechtheus 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) In light of the outstanding work of AnonEMouse, I withdraw this AfD.
Erechtheus
16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The only evidence for this concept is some guy's webpage, with no evidence of notability supplied either of the term "Neo-Gothism" (and only 77 Google hits [84]), or The "Neo-Gothic Art Manifesto". Note, there do exist concepts such as "Neo-Gothic" and "Neo-Gothicism", and I've nothing against someone writing an article on those concepts - but this article appears to be on about something else (i.e., a new movement since the 1980s). Mdwh 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. I'm not deleting Victoria Cook since this discussion didn't get that much attention after her inclusion, listing her article on a separate afd instead. - Bobet 12:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notability: local politician of no great achievement. Martín ( saying/ doing) 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are councillors on the same authority:
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NN unreleased self-released (via a print-on-demand service) film.
23 Google hits for "Shadow Beings" "Mind's Clay", all but one of which are directly related to the company (official sites, myspace, cafepress, etc. --
Vary |
Talk
22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A vanity page about somebody's internet past/friends. Not notable. DonRexy 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like vanity article to me as a place for members of the website to advertise it and it is just not notable. LQ.org is not encyclopaedic content. What about other websites? Should Wikipedia serve as an advertising board for websites like this? DonRexy 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, possibly spam - Delete -- Spring Rubber 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was previously nominated as a potential vanity deletion. I am nominating on the basis that it fails to meet WP:MUSIC. In the prior AfD, it was said in the AfD only that this band met criteria 6, which at the time was that the band was the most prominent representative of that genre. In the time since that vote, there has been no addition of a verifiable source that makes that claim. Erechtheus 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NN film director. 16 Ghits for "Charles Bryan" + "Mind's Clay" (his production company). Looks like a vanity page. See Shadow Beings (movie), his film, also on AFD. -- Vary | Talk 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Reeks of vanity. RedRollerskate 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete NN bio, suspicions of vanity. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious WP:SPAM, does not meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB, article's creator's only contributions relate to this site. Sure wish we could get a speedy tag for this sort of thing. VoiceOfReason 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to World Wrestling Entertainment roster --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
All the information is copied in its entirety from World Wrestling Entertainment roster with other information removed and no new information gleamed or required --- Lid 00:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per A7. User:Angr 08:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group. East Coast Beirut Association get 0 Google hits; The Corporation doesn't appear to get any either. May be a hoax. -- Natalie 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not really encyclopedic, very opiniated and POV, no sources (and to that end, unlikely to find sources). Maybe a section in a different article would be appropriate. Newnam (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom-- Mertens21 Talk 05:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Why delete? It's a common saying. LLBBooks 00:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced. Overly broad and superficial. Lacks WP:V, and is WP:OR. Intangible 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. -- Bigtop ( tk| cb| em| ea) 03:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable web comic. No reliable sources or significant and independent syndication. -- Hetar 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, article being now reliable sourced. Mailer Diablo 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. The only link other than the website in the article is a blog. Blogs are usually not even allowed as links for articles (please note I have not removed this link). FurryiamIAM 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non notable companyand all the information comes from the company web site. Looks very much like a vanity puff piece Spartaz 08:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. After review of this article, and the referenced possible place it's copied from, I find concurrence with what I adjudge consensus to be here. Those in favour of a merge can ask me to userify the contents to one of their userspace pages so they can carry out the merge, but as others point out there may not be much to merge in. --++ Lar: t/ c 12:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Hardly notable if the group he used to belong to doesn't have an article and his album hasn't been published yet Spartaz 08:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was lifted from Memory Alpha and isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Philip Stevens 08:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged nn-band but notability is asserted (says they recorded two albums). Just zis Guy you know? 08:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - recording two albums isn't an assertion of notability if label information is not provided. Punkmorten 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirected to OOS. DS 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
A rose (or in fact RSI) by any other name... This is just a slang term for Repetitive Strain Injury, and is therefore a neologism. Ruaraidh-dobson 10:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete though, I think recreation should be allowed if it can be sourced and proved (through WP:V) that it is notable. However, consensus and the arguments of this article leans towards deletion. Yank sox 16:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged and contested. Band still have "real jobs" - i.e. are not full-time musicians. Unlikely to pass WP:MUSIC and no evidence in the article of meeting it. Author acknolwedges difficulty of finding information. Just zis Guy you know? 09:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Never a very commercially successful band... just about sums it up!!! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 09:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Maybe someone in Germany, who has this group's records and knows a good amount of English, would beg to differ!
Captain Caveman 9:24 PM EDT 7/24/06
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
tagged as nn-band but notability is asserted - in an unusual way: four of the band members reportedly appear at their gigs via live satellite feed. I have no idea what to make of this one! Just zis Guy you know? 09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO WP:NN local radio presenter DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 09:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A band whose studio is made of plastoic pipes and sleeping bags. Apparently they make references to Eminem; if it were the other way round that might be notable. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Soilwork 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A student. Also a rapper, apparently, though his music appears to be available excluisively by download from his site. Just zis Guy you know? 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 6 August 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}} . |
Release date June 27, 2006. Substantial article with no sources - probable WP:OR. Weblink for developers, no article. No evidence of player base, innovation, external coverage etc. per WP:SOFTWARE Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Soft systems, as the content is already there. Mango juice talk 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as "non-notable neologism" which os probably accurate but not a valid speedy criterion. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Userfied and reposted. A minor theatre actor, part of the current touring cast of Cats. Probably more notable than half the so-called slebrities on TV, and undoubtedly more talented, but still no assertion of meeting WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I don't understand the idea of merge votes to a non-existent article. It doesn't make any sense to rename David Keffen to List of fashion photographers. Keep votes seem not to argue for keeping this article. Mango juice talk 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The page is essentially an ad for wedding photography service, does not meet the Wiki standards for biography, and should be userfied. SteveHopson 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps someone might consider starting a links section in the article about wedding photography for the best known of the world's wedding photographers such as: Bambi Cantrell, Yervant, Martin Schembri, David Anthony Williams, Geoff Ascough, Peter Prior, David Keffen, Jo Buissink etc, etc. User: mike_wax [ [6]] 13.49 GMT
The result was delete and redirect to Shagia. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This was proposed for deletion as unverifiable, I'm hoping someone will be able to find a source. Kappa 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Kirby series characters. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a character with a relatively small role on the Kirby anime- not enough to have her own page. She already has a description over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirby_series_characters#Sirica so this extra article isn't needed, and just has a lot of poorly written junk info (and unmarked spoilers!) Ivyna J. Spyder 04:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Opinion: Although this is a character that appears rarely, I know that a few people like researching their favourite characters and I happen to be one of them. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.172.68 ( talk • contribs)
- The article still isn't needed. The character is covered on the other page just fine, there is nothing important added on this one, most of it is just speculation and no actual facts. --
Ivyna J. Spyder
04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Advertising for website with no indication of meeting WP:WEB. Delete. User:Angr 14:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Please edit this page to ensure all information is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.21.230 ( talk) 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Company advertisement, might suit WP:CORP, but this text is unsalvagable. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Protologism; I believe this is not a well-established term. The google test reveals only 4 hits, plus this page on wikipedia. Adding external links to 2 of those 4 hits doesn't change anything. The WP:NEO page indicates that "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." -- Bovineone 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Bovineone 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is spam for a website, created by the webmaster himself.-- Peephole 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Pure vanispamcruftisement. Self-promotional advertisement for a corporate turnkey solution. Author Kmans06 ( talk • contribs) removed speedy deletion request tag. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep the disambiguation. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Defining the meaning of a name only. Wikipedia is not the phonebook of all names. Contested prod. Mango juice talk 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
COMMENT I am 22 years old and did not know the meaning of my name till i typed it in. Do not delete as this does not appear anywhere else online
The result was keep. Amidst all the sound and fury, the multitude of supporters of this site/company bring up some solid arguments that aren't refuted with regards to notability. Those arguing for deletion seem to be applying vague standards and merely asserting non-notability. The article isn't sourced, and WP:V is critical, but it seems WP:V could eventually be met, and no strong arguments have been presented to counter that. Mango juice talk 19:22, 8 August 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}} . |
Contested prod. Article about a website with an Alexa rating over 750,000. [10] Only real claim to fame listed in the article is a collaboration with another website that has an Alexa rating over 500,000. [11] Delete unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article and to demonstrate compliance with WP:WEB. -- Allen3 talk 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
KEEP I WOULD vote with my feet to keep this site. It is non-commercial in nature, maintained by the devotees of the Art known as Cinema and thus belongs to the general treasure of knowledge, rightfully here in wikipedia. I personally have seen entries in this encyclopedia with infinitely less content and shallow essence, so why the heck not a professional site (one of its kind) entirely devoted to the true masters of Cinema? IMO it would be a big loss to Wikipedia if you delete this article. Please consider keeping it. Thank u in advance. Eenspaaier 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability except for a passing mention in a New York times article. Wiki has only 1,209 pages. Google search delivered about 25000 results. Peephole 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NN software/game - I get very few (maybe 3 or 4, that I can see) ghits DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 15:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet the 'Music: Notability' guidelines. Also, contains so little informatio that it is of no practical use. Adam Slack 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Companion to deleted article on this alleged story's alleged author; article on author was deleted after afd, but for some reason this one wasn't. NawlinWiki 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A band whoch has wisely chosen to publish its own music instead of signing with a record label, thus saving al the tedious business of meeting WP:MUSIC. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
No dont delete it, Enter Shikari are one of the most popular unsigned bands in the Uk, and they rule all. WIKI RULES TOO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.246.16 ( talk • contribs)
This page deserves to stay up as it'll save the hassle of creating a new one when they hit the bigger time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.58.233.129 ( talk • contribs)
It smacks of shameless self-promotion to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.217.235 ( talk • contribs)
The result was DELETE. Rje 01:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NN Corp; most google hits do not seem to be articles about the company itself Valrith 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article created by user Emco-tec inc (only edit since then) regarding a very small avionics industry. It is not wikified and stubbish. Cantalamessa 21:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
no sources and no real indication of notability Spartaz 14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Since the relisting, the consensus has been keep. The nominator is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet (for abuses of the AfD process). alphaChimp laudare 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable: ("george pickard" atomiks -wikipedia) returns 182 Ghits. Unverifiable: ("george pickard" crash delano -wikipedia) returns 8 unique Ghits. CheNuevara 17:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Independent film made by a company whose page was speedied last night, was intended to be shown as part of a festival, according to the page, but has no distribution outside DVDs and the Internet. (Note the comments from the article creator on the talk page.) Prod removed. Author has been notified. Delete Tony Fox (speak) 18:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
While I don't quite understand the reason for deletion of either the company page or the Film page, the purpose of both the Company's page (since we discovered it was added here) and the Film page was to allow for people to get information about our company. Being that we are a smaller company, not exactly fortune 500 stuff, our company has always followed a loose, internet based distribution system. This film in question, Thanatos's Memento, is our first major project that we believe deserved some attention before we released it to the internet. As such, the wikipedia page was added, on top of our blog having mention of the movie not being able to make it into the festival, but was being considered to be re-shot and later distributed. We are not trying to sell or push a product. The intention is to assist those who want information on our latest endevours yet cannot get access to our web page (as it is currently under heavy re-design, and being moved from our host as it seems to have a problem with us.
Quite simply, I vote Keep, although without the company page in existance I guess it'd be hard for people to find THIS page. Somehow, you all have. Zombi3 01:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB. 39 distinct Google hits (some of it not pertaining to the site). No mention except for similar community sites. ColourBurst 21:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was preceded by Angela Russell's multi-AfD. Mailer Diablo 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like!Minor figure from a local TV station and is seems very cruft like! Adam 1212 21:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is being considered for deletion because of lack of information.
At least add much more info to the article if you don't want it deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clay4president ( talk • contribs) .
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
advertising pure and simple and doesn't appear notable Spartaz 14:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company; fails WP:CORP. MichaelZimmer ( talk) 15:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Ezeu 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreleased software, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE, and the only source on this is an unofficial website with an alexa ranking of 1,000,000+, which is not a reliable source.
Note that there are 20+ other wikipedia articles in the category Cancelled_Virtual_Boy_games which I will likely bundle together and nominate for deletion in a group if we have consensus that this should be deleted Xyzzyplugh 14:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 146,685. Jacek Kendysz 00:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is quite... interesting. It doesn't really provide any encyclopedic value and it is clearly original research. I was contemplating a redirect / merge into onomatopœia, but the article isn't exactly about onomatopœia. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Note that neither keep recommendation makes a valid argument, policy should be referred to. Rje 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor location, not much encylopaediac value. Fancruft. GSR 00:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks suspiciously like Gastroturfing; this is an author whose principal claim to fame seems to be a book which is claimed as a "historically based refutation" of one of Jack Chick's tracts. According to Weregerbil, this guy publishes through a vanity press. Oh, and he was prominent in the Hanoi darts league. Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete (CSD G1) by User:Yanksox ( [30]). --jam es (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This article contains no real information about the topic. Green caterpillar 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Green caterpillar 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I have no doubt that this is a real phenomenon, but is this really a relevant topic? I mean, you can turn just about anything into a fetish, and that process is relevant (we already have an article about that, too), but surely the idea of having an article for every single thing someone has a sexual fixation on is counterproductive? Are we going to have a separate articles for hobbit fetishes? Ent fetishes? Highly specific food fetishes, like porridge fetishes? I mean, yeah, I exaggerate, but not that much. I just don't see any point in this. (Also, article cites no references and is probably original research, but that's kinda beside the point.) Captain Disdain 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Roy A. A. 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as protologism. DS 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
A pretty clear neologism. I get absolutely no relevant Google hits. Prod was removed and phrase defended on the talk page. David Schaich Talk/ Cont 01:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The term SDIMBY is a valid term and has been in use, although for a relatively short time. "Smart Growth" and "Smart Development" are two terms easily found through Google. Those that encourage these approaches to development are known as SDIMBYs. The application of the acronym is usually associated not with the urban planners but rather with the communities and the grassroots activists that are seeking a balance between the interests of the community and the interests of the developers.
The term SDIMBY has been in use in Los Angeles for well over a year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.248.77 ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
SDIMBY is a needed term to help define the subtle but significant approaches made to development. There are nany terms like Yimby and NIABY that only recently appeared . SDIMBY is only the latest and shows a distinct difference between the others listed. There are other writers willing to expnd on this term, but only if it is not considered for deletion.Thanks for your diligent consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.118.248.77 ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neoligism. All google hits on this term are related to the PalCom project in which context the term was coined. I could not find any independent sources that allow for the verification of the use of this term. -- Koffieyahoo 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Nominating this article as unsuitable for the english version of wikipedia. I think this is a school in India, although it's hard to verify that seeing as I could find no homepage for the school. Delete. Stubbleboy 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Instead of leaping immediately to delete, I had proposed merging this article with Hindi (see the discussion about why and the results at the Hindi talk page). The consensus of was that this article ought not to be merged into the Hindi article. That brings me to this nomination. This article, Origin of some common Hindustani words, is indiscriminate as it provides no basis for what words are to be included on the list and which are not. There is no similar article for any other language that I could find (other than a few pages about words English has borrowed from other languages). They might be out there, but I did not see any. There is also no article on Most common words in Hindustani for this article to support. Anything in this article is more than adequately covered in the history and vocabulary sections of the main Hindi article without any need to refer to this article. I am also concerned about this article being original research. Finally, I am wondering about proper copyright authorization because of the odd line in the article, "The derivations below are based on posts by Yashwant Malaiya, and are given here by his consent". No verification of this is provided anywhere. Agent 86 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to iTunes Music Store. Keep in mind, deleting a page when the content has been merged elsewhere is problematic with respect to the GFDL. Mango juice talk 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable minor feature of the iTunes Music Store. Sorry but nothing worth merging. AlistairMcMillan 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It should be noted that being on IMDB is not proof of notability in the least. Wickethewok 14:30, 7 August 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}} . |
Apparently a short film, written/directed by a Harvard student, starring Harvard students, filmed at Harvard, screened at Harvard. Looks like a typical student film, not notable. Fan-1967 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep It- Queer Cinema by queer filmmakers is very rare, and this is a gem of a movie with very high-quality production design, acting and directing. This is not "just another" student movie.-Darla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.120.226 ( talk • contribs) Note: First edit from new user.
The result was keep - it was in English in the first place, what are you talking about?. DS 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I tagged this afd and then found him under another name on IMDB. I could be wrong but I thought this was the english version of wikipedia, but I'll let the consensus decide. Delete Stubbleboy 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a random person. Can't see how it would pass any kind of notability test. SubSeven 02:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Barely has enough notability to survive a speedy deletion, but the subject of this article is definately a violation of WP:BIO. -- Hetar 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Quoting from the WP:BIO, "The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted". However, I do believe Michael does fall into at least two of these categories and if there is a dispute about this, I ask that the following be considered along with the previous statement from the WP:BIO.
Michael has "...made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [his] specific field". Despite the fact that mainstream media will not cover alternative views on 9-11, its remarkable that he has gotten so much recognition, especially in Colorado. Two cover stories have been written in local, highly visible, alternative newspapers (The Rocky Mountain Bullhorn and the Boulder Weekly) as a result of Michael's work. One featured Michael and although he was not quoted in the second one, he was interviewed and appeared in the photograph that accompanied the cover story.
Michael is also well known for his radio appearences both locally in Colorado and nationally. He has made numerous appearances on several radio stations in Colorado and guest hosted many times for the program Words of Freedom with George Flynn.
Michael was recognized nationally when he was asked to serve on the board of directors with 911truth.org, which as noted previously, is a major component in the 9-11 truth movement.
Michael's work is also featured prominently on 9-11 related websites with great regularity.
I believe, as others do, that Michael has indeed made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [his] specific field".
For the reasons stated above, I also believe that Michael is also a "Person[s] achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Certainly, the events of September 11th are newsworthy and it is obvious that Michael has been recognized for his work.
By the way, yes, I do know Michael and I am the one who saw your huge section on 9-11 conspiracy theories. I think Michael should be included in the section with all the other Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. If this is being viewed as a vanity article, please help me to re-write it or give me suggestions so that it conforms with the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Visibility911 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete for non-notable bio contested by article creator. Listing in AFD. — ERcheck ( talk) 02:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO, speeded once, recreated but still not notable - so here we are. Rklawton 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As it is, there aren't any claims of notability. Wickethewok 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NN author; 211 ghits; article is one copyvio ( http://www.reeley.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Andy.htm) taken from author's homepage, due to lack of other info (thus failing WP:V) - Seidenstud 02:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Team America: World Police, per discussion below. alphaChimp laudare 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Doubtful that this term has entered the lexicon of the English language... even if it has, not encyclopedically notable, deserves no more than a footnote in Team America: World Police. bd2412 T 02:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I recomment someone use {{ mergeto}} to start a debate about merging, since the target of any merge seems unclear. Mango juice talk 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was originally a POV fork created by the now-blocked User:RJII. Subsequently, efforts have been made to remove the POV, but it is still a fork. All the content covered by constitutional republic is also present in the main republic article, and the definition of a constitutional republic is identical to the definition of a liberal democracy. I have repeatedly attempted to change the article into a redirect, but I have been reverted every time with no arguments given. Since there are actually only two other articles in the main namespace that link to constitutional republic, [34] a redirect isn't really necessary. Delete for being a content fork. Nikodemos 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism and a dictionary definition. Belongs on urban dictionary. FSRdomo 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:WEB. Does not come close. Does not have an Alexa ranking, so not in top 100,000. Google indicates only 3 sites even link to it, and one of those is this wikipedia entry. It deserves a footnote at best. Being a wiki does not procure notability. FSRdomo 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep.
SynergeticMaggot
00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
Not notable, just UFO conspiracy people. I believe the article is vanity. FSRdomo 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a notable lawyer, no remarkable cases to his name. Licensed to practice up to the Supreme Court, but has not practiced there. Seems to be written as an advertisement/promotional, including resume material. Deco 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page--musician with no ablums, no influence. Whosasking 03:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Dorms -- Durin 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Other pages focusing on dorms at La Salle University have repeatedly been listed as non-notable and have been deleted. This article should be no different. Pacdude 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable company in the field of WiFi. No mention of this company in Indian or American media. most of the article has been copied from the company website. http://www.zazunetworks.com/aboutus.htm Ageo020 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Yanksox as nonsense. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Article with no real information on an event that may not happen at all. Jake52 My talk 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:11, 6 August 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}} . |
Long article on nonnotable fantasy/Internet "wrestling league"; 13 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Kim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.173.77 ( talk • contribs) Note: User's first edit.
The result was keep. Mango juice talk 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An unsourced article which makes extremely strong claims regarding the alleged pornographic past of the subject. It has been waiting over seven months for cleanup and still doesn't come even close to meeting WP:BLP. I suspect that it's just simply time to chuck the whole thing in the trash; if the anons who keep adding maliciously gleeful (and utterly unsourced) details about Ms. Scott's alleged shady past can't dig up an actual reliable source for any of their accusations, there's no reason for there to be an article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Anyone who would bash Pastor Scott doesn't have a clue what a christian is. Just because someone might have a "shady" past doesn't mean jack squat now. This is present time, when you become a christian you are forgiven for all sins. Right? right. Therefore all of the people wanting to know if she was into pornographic this and that. They just want to know for their own perverted minds not because they care. Furthermore if she has in fact been in any pornographic films, etc. That was then, non of our business and just leave her alone. She is doing the Lords bidding now. Plus, FACT: She will tell you she was the last person to ever think that she could be saved. It goes to show that God really does work in mysterious ways. Those of you who bash her, he just hasn't got to you yet. God Bless!-a christian
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
One student organization at a med school. I don't see anything particularly notable about it and their social calendar for the year is definitely not encyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 04:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school. -- Big top 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I have expanded the article, added references, and a list of awards that the school has won, including the National Blue Ribbon School award. -- Elonka 01:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This non-notable web forum article clearly fails WP:WEB, and possibly WP:VAIN. For all interested, it has the incredibly high Alexa rank of 2,930,989. alphaChimp laudare 04:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted. My justification is: this is an obvious hoax (the toothbrush was known as a poor French attempt at "paedophile"; CRT was once known in poor French as "rapist"; he died from "Tiberius"), and no-one will complain. Kids! Don't try this at home! fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 10:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax. Zero relevant ghits for this individual. Page author gives dubious explanation in the talk page that this person was the inspiration for a "best selling novel" written by the page author ( Bobbbbbb). — NM Chico 24 04:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was nominator has withdrawn the AFD request and will follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Merge. [37] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant list from List of ZIP Codes in California. Some Original Research related to the disputed Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. Is probably involved in the RFAR on Ericsaindon2. Recommend redirect to List of ZIP Codes in California. Gogo Dodo 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Turnstep 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band with one release, see WP:MUSIC. Melchoir 05:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus; default to keep. Mango juice talk 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Deletion nomination An article about amateur student shows. Article does not assert encyclopedic notability as a cultural event. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for university societies and groups. Also
the first time (June 2005) this was nominated for afd, the discussion and closure was a travesty. Discussion was closed as keep when there was only a single vote in the whole discussion (excluding nominator). This was a keep voter claimed that this subject had 6,150 google hits. In fact, "unsw revues" brings up only approx. 66 unique google hits excluding Wikipedia and a large proportion of these hits appear to be spam sites or mirrors of wikipedia
[38]. Searching for "University of New South Wales revues" gets a single hit
[39], excluding wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors and spam sites(the freedictionary sites look like spam sites to me). Approx. 9 unique hits (some spammy again) for "unsw revue"
[40]. Zero hits for "university of new south wales revue"
[41]. Finally searching for "university of new south wales" + "revue" or "revues" poses a problem, as Revue is a French word for Review or Journal used for French language publications - this academic term produces a very inflated ghit count of 70,000+
[42]. However, if one excludes French language pages and limits the search to "university of new south wales"+"revues", there are only approx. 65 unique ghits with significant spamminess
[43] The singular term variation produces approx. 95 unique hits with spamminess
[44](mistakenly searched for plural term - singular term produces too many French uses even with English filter, but if I take out some common french words (de, du, le), I get ~218 unique ghis with the singular "revue"
[45]). Some content of this article could be merged to
University of New South Wales.
Bwithh
05:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy keep. We have many essays, guidelines, and policies in Wikipedia space that are not official or widely accepted. Please use AFD for items in article space. Nandesuka 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is often used to justify deleting many anime/manga related pages that are disliked, with many votes for deletion being "delete, fancruft". It is being treated as a guideline and a rule when it is not and due to it many things that should be improved rather than deleted are removed. On top of that, fancruft itself is a weasel word. Jtrainor 05:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Deletion nomination Small non-notable student society event that has only been around since 2000. Does not assert encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for university societies. ~15 to ~30 unique ghits on google [50] [51].Terrible puns. Bwithh 05:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A character in a short story by a guy with a grand total of one Google hit. This Google hit references the Wikipedia article. Crystallina 05:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Video-game cruft. Can be condensed and merged with Halo 2. Doogie2K (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was killer delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Something a computer said in a presentation of beta software a few days ago is not notable enough for Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Recentism) -/- Warren 06:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Article will eventually have relevance, just as All Your Base does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.119.76 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This an advertisement for a script that someone wrote just a few days ago. Blatant advertising, and does not meet WP:SOFTWARE. -- Hetar 06:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Yank sox 16:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Recreated after being deleted by PROD. One appearance on NPR doesn't make a band notable by WP:MUSIC. Delete. User:Angr 07:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:36, 7 August 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}} . |
Article about small online fan group, written by the movement. None of WP:WEB criteria met, no outside source, no outside reference, no recorded public reaction, partly fanfiction. Violation of WP:WEB, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research. As a whole, article is highly unnotable, it is possibly fancruft, vanity information and advertising.
EDIT: Furthermore, members and supporters of this fan group, in response to the deletion nomination, have been vandalizing many Charmed-related Wikipedia pages, two of them being IP-blocked today. Creators of The Charmed Sons article have continuously attacked Wikipedia contributors and have admitted in their own forum (see below for screenshots) of using multiple Wikipedia accounts to win this voting. AdamDobay 07:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC), edited by AdamDobay 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about an insignifant/unnotable person. Too little information on somebody who is not relevant or important other than in extremely esoteric circles. Mongoleer 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Originally speedied as non-notable, but the author protested. I don't think the business is large enough or important enough to warrant an article. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Bafendo is large enough for an article on Wikipedia fore it is the small who will some day be the big company that it is meant to be. Bafendo is a force to be reckoned with. Bafendo is worthy and it is very important to the people it helps and to the people who love it! -- Bafendo 09:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
You may not think it is not old enough but it is. We are an important company to our clients! We deserve a chance! We demand a chance! Bafendo may only be three years old but we are good at what we do and we will not be bullied into deletion. We deserve this and we're not giving it up without a fight! And anybody who thinks they can bully the small is a fool! Fore the small will one day grow big and crush the ones who tried to hold them back! We've struggled before but no more! This is it do not delete our archive we deserve to be here as much as Microsoft. Sure we aren't an international corporation but we have something they don't have... reliable products and affordable service! And I'd be a fool not to stop the deletion of our archive! So think about what I said and think about not being another barrier which a small business must face! As I said before... I will fight this!!! -- Bafendo 09:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
CSD is supposed to define a list of reasons for deletion so obvious that we can trust just one person to make the decision all on his sweeney; as a result, people tend to want to extend the list as little as possible. Bands (meant to cover high school garage bands who formed last week and haven't agreed on a name, sort of thing), clubs (e.g. the football team you and your mates organised for a muckaround after work), and so on were difficult enough to push through, without trying for corporations as well. As for {{ prod}}, yes, it can be removed by anyone at any time for any reason (or, indeed, no acknowedlged reason). Speedy tags can be removed by anyone, but should not be removed by the article's author; {{ hangon}} exists for the article's author to contest the speedy deletion if he wants, but need not be used by anyone else. Administrators have no special status when it comes to removing speedy tags. {{ db-reason}} exists mostly so that people don't have to remember all the other template names, and partly for when you have a reason for deletion that doesn't match existing templates perfectly (e.g. you want to note that it meets more than one of the CSD, or you've got a good reason that doesn't have a template yet — like Jimbo's statements on articles that run afoul of WP:BLP). fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 11:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Why doesn't anyone in the Wiki community like Bafendo? Sure I said small but that doesn't mean my company isn't important. We're big to our clients and we've had a few problems that have kept us small but we are finally growing. What we need right now is friends not enemys. Enemies make Bafendo look bad and a few of our clients have seen these "delete" comments and are now thinking of dropping Bafendo. Enemies we don't need! We need friends and allies. You don't want to kill Bafendo do you? Oh and by big I went giant like Microsoft ok Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)! And I may be new to Wikipedia but I do know what I am talking about! And you'll see how big Bafendo is when Western Digital markets LiquaDrive in a few years... just you wait! And just for the record; I will always fight for my company and I will never let anyone say it is not worthy and that I and/or Bafendo is arrogant and obnoxious! We are loved by many and we will never go away! -- Bafendo 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
So you want to play that way do you? Fine I might as well delete it myself since you people hate us so much! I think i'll tell everyone I know to stop using Wikipedia. Sure it wont make a big impact at first but when word spreads especially through the media the wheels start turning on something big. You've made a very big mistake one you will regret! To hell with Wikipedia if all of you feel this way. I hope you don't destroy another company! Besides there's lots of alternatives to Wikipedia. One is webster. This is not the end Wikipedia! This is not the end at all! You've made a powerfull enemy and a big mistake! We don't have to take anyones crap not even precious Wikipedia! We will be back and you'll see just how "notable" we are! You've made our list! And it's not a good list! You've been warned! -- Bafendo 09:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, just make redirect. - Mailer Diablo 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete: Clearly an advertisement for a simple franchise owner. Steroid Expert 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Added title. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The article was already nominated for deletion several weeks ago, but the previous result was no consensus with a suggestion to nominate again in several weeks. No new arguments have been raised or agreed upon in this debate. A major concern (voiced repeatedly in these AfDs) has been the subjectivity of this list. I'd second Samuel Blanning in encouraging anyone with concerns about the validity of a single listing to be bold and remove it themselves. alphaChimp laudare 20:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NPOV, non-encyclopedic, unweildy listcruft, lol, internet. – 127.0.0.1 ( talk) 08:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads to me like a corporate brochure. Based on WP:CORP, I'm not seeing why it should be considered notable. Dori 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research. The "black cop" is such a broad category of characters that I don't see it as an actual archetype. A Google search for "black cop" archetype doesn't turn up any discussion of such an archetype, and certain clues in the text (ie, no possible origin for the archetype offered) makes me think someone is trying to advance an idea without the serious scholarly homework needed to do so. hateless 08:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, due to withdrawn nom. PT ( s-s-s-s) 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't know much about it but I'm not sure that this band meet WP:MUSIC, one album, no review (as yet) of a major tour etc.. Marcus22 08:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
* Comment: I dont really know enough about it, but one album on killrockstars does not strike me as very significant. Neither does one internet review of the album. There is no review of a tour. (Which is the point I actually made). And I dont know anything at all about Canada's national college charts - but are they the same sort of thing as Billboard? I'm not sure they are. So for now I'll go with Delete.
Marcus22
10:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was good grief. fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 09:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not the correct title for the article, the correct title is simply "Power of Love", and that article has been created Evan Reyes 09:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:N Film career is mostly non-credited stunt work according to IMDB entry. Game character voice seems most notable aspect of career--Clappingsimon talk 09:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
nn-corp Will ( Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - sorry if this has breached any terms. I did to try to keep this entry as factual as possible, but if anything I've written is too "self promotional" I'm more than happy to edit accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpsio ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 July 2006
The result was delete and redirect. Wickethewok 14:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a "marketing page" for an organization/company not actually related to the food. Article is otherwise just a definition. SB_Johnny | talk 10:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Wickethewok 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This list can already be seen in the article Storylines of EastEnders, it doesn't need its own article. Trampik e y ( talk to me)( contribs) 10:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete the article. I did a lookup aganist reliable sources for the De Morgen article, and it says that foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, so WP:V arguements are moot. And of course, new sources would definitely help in the article. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article's deletion has been discussed on a number of prior occasions ( Sept 04 - keep, Dec 05 - keep, Feb 06 - delete, then recreated, March 06 - delete, DRV - keep deleted, then recreated, April 06 - no consensus, DRV - restored as no consensus).
Frankly, it is time this went. I have waited a reasonable amount of time - over 3 months - before renominating this article to see if any multiple reliable sources would be forthcoming - they have note been. The article is not suitable for any reliable encyclopaedia, which Wikipedia should strive to be. As Wikipedia seems to finally have turned the corner on what we allow, and actually are applying policy and guideline ( WP:WEB, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT) to internet meme garbage fanboy articles (see here or here, it may finally be time for this to go.
The article has 1 (one) even remotely verifiable source, which is a small article in a single edition of a fairly low circulation (53,860 or 1 in 150 Belgians) Flemish language newspaper that requires a subscription to read. This is nowhere near being sufficient for WP:RS (multiple reliable mainstream print journals), and the article is therefore unverified. The article even says this, itself - Despite its reported prevalence this is the only mainstream report of The Game. All the other 'sources' provided are either bloglinks, or a website made up purely to ensure this cack was no consensus'd in a prior AFD. And even if it were sufficiently verifiable, I would suggest that this is not notable. Strong delete. Proto:: type 10:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Rdore 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 04:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
nn local host, and has a few minor websites, only 600 google hits, based on his sites Quotes22 10:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Character in untraceable stories by nn author. If they exist, the books are internet or vanity published: no Amazon hits; no google hits for "Cannington Inquires" (except WP) two google hits for "Cannington Inquiries". An article about the author has already been deleted at AfD, and csd'd as a repost. Prod removed by creator. Mr Stephen 10:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 03:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject finished second last in a single race held 98 years ago. The fact that this race was an Olympic event is irrelevant. The wheat should be separated from the chaff, and we have entries for the finalists in the relevant event, but Axel Andersson is just chaff. Catchpole 12:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a third place in the 3rd season of the German version of Pop Idol. She was deleted in the German Wikipedia several times because of irrelevance. There is no official CD by her. There were several requests for deletion review in the German WP, most of them referred to the existence of the entry in the English WP, but all of them were refused Uwe Gille 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be vanity, and the guy doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. Ladybirdintheuk 12:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestling organisation, google returns back zero results, sounds like a backyard wrestling group. --- Lid 12:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be vanity. 4 google results. Dark Shikari 13:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unpublished role playing game. Products that are not yet released to the market are not usually listed on WP. This has no Google or Yahoo search hits, so is presumably not available to the public even in its current state. Once published, would be a valid subject for an article, but not until then. eaolson 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
promotional; fails WP:WEB. see also Michael Wolsey. Tom Harrison Talk 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I diliberately did not include the Revere Radio Network aspect because I wanted to keep it simple and avoid the appearence of "vanity". After reading the WP:WEB, I see that I should have included it. Quoting WP:WEB, "3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Revere Radio Network is both independent and well known with a current google search number of 10,900. They are very well known depending on who you talk to.
Also, it is worth mentioning that adding this show to Wikipedia in the 9-11 conspiracy theories section is very appropriate. The 9-11 section of Wikipedia is large. In fact, this article under consideration cites Wikipedia pages 9 times with regard to 9-11. Regardless of what you think about the 9-11 conspiracy theories, Michael has made a significant contribution in this area with this show. This show belongs in this section along with all the other researchers who are featured.
I believe that with the previously mentioned edit, and new information now provided, this article fits within the Wikipedia guidelines. If I am mistaken, please assist me in bringing this article within Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for taking the time and for your careful consideration. Visibility911 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was as follows: I took into account the arguments to delete, and at first glance, this looked like a clear "delete". However, having also (obviously) taken into account the arguments to keep, and given the circumstance that the article has been edited so that it is not plainly advertisement, I see no consensus either way. -- Ezeu 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
blantant advert Kungfu Adam ( talk) 13:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The Pink Pound Conference in June 2006 UK featured Out Now Consulting MD as the Keynote Speaker.
Time magazine today covers the organisation. This year has seen Out Now Consulting covered in other media and in fact over 15 years Out Now Consulting has been frequently covered in news media in relation to the company's leading role in what is a new development in marketing - developing strategies to target gay consumers.
Some of these publications include: The Independent (UK) The Times (UK) The Guardian (UK) The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) The Australian (Australia) Business Review Weekly (Australia) Het Financieele Dagblad (Netherlands) De Morgen (Belgium)
TV appearances by Out Now Consulting staff have been many and include: BBC TV (UK) Jim TV (Belgium) TCN 9 (Australia) Nederland 1 (Netherlands).
There has been much other media coverage of Out Now Consulting's role in this development during this period.
In each case, Out Now Consulting is reported upon as a "significant player" in the "major news event" of - the emergence of a visible gay and lesbian consumer market. Perhaps to you that isn't a major news event but today's issue of Time magazine obviously does as the story about the emergence of gay advertising in Europe quoting Out Now Consulting's work is the one item from the current issue that Time magazine has chosen to highlight at the top of their homepage http://www.time.com/time/europe/ and see also the article at http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060807-1220477,00.html
Other media events include the coverage in much UK media of the revelation that 49% of lesbian and gay people feel unable to come out at work. http://www.sundayherald.com/53693 (Scotland) and http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article341714.ece - again media coverage of gay community research that Out Now Consulting was the significant player in.
I again request undeletion of the Out Now Consulting page.
Thanks for your attention,
Ian - 31 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outnow ( talk • contribs)
I left this comment days ago when the article was much fuller, there is so little info on gay marketing available, that students like myself previously found this article of great use. It is not SPAM when it helps me do an assignment.
Original comment follows....
Hi There,
I am a mrketing student in the Netherlands, and have found the article on Out Now Consulting to be most helpful and of exceptional interest on the gay marketing phenomenon.
It was quite hard for me as well as other students to find the information that we needed, though there was plenty to say on the subject.
Keep up the good work and it may be worthwhile keeping the article here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.87.154.90 ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Out Now is the only gay marketing agency with offices in more than one country is a fact unique to the entity and increases the organisation's notability.
The deletions by Chris Griswold did far more than remove entries related to one survey. S/he removed many third party media reports of Out Now Consulting covering a range of issues, some related to Out Now's many different reports, some where the journalist sought Out Now Consulting as a notable source of expertise in its specific area. Given the extent to which s/he removed items and the little time it took for this user to do so I am somewhat concerned that s/he did not have time read through all these removed references sufficiently to see that they were clearly not just "a loosely related collection of references to brief mentions of [a single] survey". 37 minutes were spent deleting over 35 separate news articles, third party references and other citations from a range of sources. The article as left by this user this morning leaves only a single reference - to UK research from 2005 and removed everything else. There was also other research included previously. there was much more than reporting on research. For example, there were third party publications such as the Belgium Marketing Foundation, the Pink Pound Conference (UK), the Dutch marketing textbook "Principes van Marketing" (Principles of Marketing) also removed by this user - none of which was related to the British Gay Times and Diva research as s/he seemed to contend when removing it. On that point, where an esteemed newspaper such as the Sunday Independent - a leading national UK newspaper, devotes a double page spread feature article based primarily on, and extensively quoting research by, Out Now Consulting discussing a major workplace discrimination issue, which is also supported by remarks from other industry groups in the UK unrelated to Out Now Consulting, all commenting on the work of Out Now Consulting - does that not as C.Fred says: show Out Now Consulting to be a "company with major-media news coverage and that stands out in its industry/segment"? That seems to fall squarely within the Wikipedia guidelines as to notability for article's on companies being included.
For that matter, why would Time magazine this week in Europe choose to quote Out Now Consulting's opinion about the state of gay advertising in Europe if the company is not notable for readers of Time? That seems to fall within Wikipedia guidelines. That comment had absolutely nothing to do with the British research mentioned above. We were relied upon by the journalist of Time as a notable authority in the area of gay marketing. The magazine includes a photo of Out Now Consulting's campaign for the German National Tourist Office in their print edition as an example of gay advertising.
I note also that the comment made by the student 86.87.154.90 talk is a relevant one. Each week we usually receive several inquiries from students wanting our help. I agree our article is not SPAM to these students. Just today we received the following email -
"My name is Katharina and I study in Germany and have to write en essay for my university on gay marketing.It would be really helpful for me if you could send me some information, because it is such a new and present topic and I could not find any books so far. I would be really pleased if you could help me. Thank you very much, Katharina"
That sort of thing is fairly common here - if any of the Wikipedia editors wishes to contact me direct I would welcome them doing so to obtain more information about the similar student emails we regularly receive requesting assistance from Out Now Consulting with research about the gay market and other gay social issues. There really is a uniqueness to what we do - which is why media, students and others contact us. It is also why we are noted in such a leading textbook as Kotler's Principles of Marketing textbook in section 4 about niche marketing. That has nothing to do with our research - it features a full page discussion of advertising we created for Lufthansa and South African Tourism in the Dutch market. It also seems to fall squarely within Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion.
Any of the above factors taken alone should make you think our firm is notable but when taken in concert, - and in respect of so many third party citations about the company (removed today by Chris Griswold) I believe firmly that such a combination of factors renders this article well worth keeping and Out Now Consulting notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. To delete everything in the previous entries down to just what was left there this morning seems not in keeping with the Wikipedia principles. Finally, just in case you did not pick up on it above I am the author of the article and am the MD of the firm, so you might be tempted to discount all I say trying to believe that our article is SPAM however it is not just me saying it.
The search engines, the students such as 86.87.154.90, users such as C.Fred and Ageo020 and many media publications around the world seem to concur that our business has a unique industry position in a major new development in marketing. I would much prefer that there be restored some of what was deleted this morning from the article with a NPOV, and where third party items where the work of Out Now Consulting is the major aspect of the citation. Ian Johnson -- User:outnow
The result was Speedily deleted. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Hardly intelligible copied/pasted table. No references provided. Edcolins 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted by Fang Aili. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It was proded prod was removed. It's page that was deleted before here but it's not exactly the same page. Still reads like a game guide though and so violates WP:NOT -- Whispering 20:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a list of topics of a certain course, no explanation, no references. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsalvagable advertisement. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was hoax. DS 22:33, 2 August 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}} . |
This article, I freely admit, is a work of genius. It's funny and creative. Unfortunately, while Percy Nobby Norton does indeed appear to have been an Australian folk singer, he is entirely unnotable, and everything else here is made up. Among many other reasons to believe this are his alleged 1902 publication of "Calvin and Knobes", and the 1923 publication of "Desperate Househusbands". Good joke, but it's gone far enough. DJ Clayworth 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
God Save the Queen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.7.132 ( talk • contribs) (this is user's only edit)
I Came up from Wandin And a girl come up to me Here comes a raspberry picker now won't we have a spree she grabbed me by the collar and she tried to grab my swag so I upped with a stick and knocked here stiff and they all cried out he's a lad Oh give me the wandin life where the raspberry pickers do rome for we are the Carlton Larrikens lad That is what I can remember. I understand that the burden of proof is on me the author not the people wishing for deletion but most of the information was gathered via interviews. WHAT CAN I DO???-- Bpazolli 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
John Silverthorne 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (user's only edit) reply
C.Y.Elvira 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (user's only edit) reply
The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement, fails WP:SOFT. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- Ezeu 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced advertising for non-notable sub-brand Yomangani 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Kusma (討論) 10:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article just doesn't make any sense. it is too Dilbert-zone like for me. Needs either to be made into an article that cross-references other concepts, or else should be removed. As it is, it isn't in the least enlightening. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 00:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website; doesn't meet WP:WEB. Founded in May 2006, it can't really be that notable, can it? Ruaraidh-dobson 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The article above was Speedy deleted while it was listed here ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surfing (Counter-Strike) (second nomination)). The article was NOT identical to the previous one, so G4 did not apply. The deleting editor ( Fang Aili) restored it, then it got CSD-G4 tagged again and Fang Aili himself changed the tag to {{db|WP:NOT a game guide}} [77], which is NOT a criterium for speedy deletion as well. I do not care for this article getting deleted, but please follow policy when speedy deleting articles. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Gordon H Bennett. One of the worst redlink/nn band infested lists-which-should-be-category I've ever seen. Please, begone. This is what categories are for. kingboyk 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
An article about a long usenet flamewar. I don't think it could ever be anything than original research and I'm not sure if it's notable enough to have its own article.-- Joanne B 15:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Crystal balling, WP:OR and for the same reasons listed in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/That's_So_Raven_Movie - Yomangani 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was CSD G7 - CrazyRussian talk/ email 06:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This would appear to be an attempt at defining a new musical style based on the specific sounds being generated from a specific part of Washington, DC. Unfortunately, the article is unsourced, and a Google search [78] turns up 202 hits for "urban crank" - and nine for "urban crank" music. I can't find anything that confirms this as a substantially recognized musical style, and thus feel it fails verifiability. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 16:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
PLEASE REMOVE URBAN CRUNK. The Wikipedia Theory, and DC-MUSIC CHARTS from WIKIPEDIA. I've ben trying to delete these pages for some tiem now and I did not realize that it must be done by this way. THANKS!! Dawntelesford 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
These would appear to be music charts for the Washington, DC area, as apparently announced on a couple of the radio stations. They appear to be specific to the area, and don't seem to be notable and encyclopedic, to me. I asked for clarification on the talk page a couple of days ago, and got none, so felt it would be worthwhile to get further discussion on the topic. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 10:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:BAND, speedied once already but recreated Rklawton 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Northern Pikes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Pikes and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda77 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Listcruft Computerjoe 's talk 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NN, WP:OR, and WP:V. Possibly a hoax, or at best a lot of original research. The images are hand drawn scribbles, and the starting editor only has edits related to this article. Google search turns up 19 results, almost all related to this article. Originally PRODded, but User:Catchpole removed the tag, stating; "Not a hoax" without providing a rationale. Green451 16:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Episode details of every episode of WWE. Notable, I think not. Jmatt1122 CVU (Talk) 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Describes an outdoor game that does not seem to be widely played outside of the summer camp where it was invented last year. FreplySpang 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NN the subject does not appear to be a significant or notable person in his field. Seems also to be a vanity article. UARG 17:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Author removed the prod tag and someone else re-added, which you can't do, so here we are. May well qualify as Patent Nonsense. Fan-1967 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 6 August 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}} . |
Modest, midsize company fails WP:CORP. Take a look at the section on the chronology of their advertising catch phrases. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. -- Xrblsnggt 17:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This sourceless article has no encyclopedic value, for this topic is fundamentally unencyclopedic. Wikipedians have no right to label certain persons as being polymaths or not; We can't have this article for the same reason we can't have list of smart people. I have taken the liberty of adding a few names of what I thought to be quintessential polymaths to the Polymath article. Let us see if we can find a few indisputable polymaths, list them there and delete this mess. Rmrfstar 18:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A victim of torture perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. The incident is already covered in the article Bagram torture and prisoner abuse and the person is not in and of himself notable for any other incident. As such, this is just a memorial page and should be deleted. Indrian 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines fo notability. The first sentence reads: "The four worms (then Bob, Leon, Rodney, and Celia) were first created by Tim during a high school science class". -- Xrblsnggt 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A few people at MIT decided to have a party, drink some beer non-alcoholic beverages, and give the gathering a ridiculous premise to get some tongue-and-cheek newspaper headlines. I am sure a good time was had by all, but since no timetravellers actually showed up, I do not see anything more significant about this event than your typical college party or lecture series.
Indrian
18:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
De-proded. Non-notable web comic with no claims to meet WP:WEB. See talk page if you're really curious about the one Google hit for "Tywo at Large." The statement, "article has been typed by the creator Daran Carlin-Weber himself for show on Wikipedia", also indicates that this is a vanity page. Scientizzle 19:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A kind of marketing presentation that appears to be the exclusive domain of one consulting group. Needs to be more widely practiced before I'd consider it encyclopedic.
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like autobiography. I removed most of the POV, but what remains doesn't seem to assert notability. If he is in fact one of the top five earners in direct marketing, he might be notable, but that doesn't seem easily verifiable (and a seven figure income seems rather low in that context). I haven't checked all 892 google-results on "Clayton Makepeace", but if there are any reliable sources, they are drowned in the ads for seminars and books, so verifiablity might also be a concern. Rasmus (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Deprodded by creator with the rationale "article not complete. Content still being added. References to be added to support content once content more fleshed out and direction established." But I find it hard to believe that this article, given its title, will ever become anything other than a how-to guide (which Wikipedia is not). The article creator seems to be more concerned with my OR concerns, but the current version reads very much like an essay and sourcing it is not going to help with that, and I'm not seeing it going in the direction of less essay-like. As an added bonus, there appears to be plenty of POV ("Never use your pistol") and an "Acknowledgements" section where people are asked to sign the page. Apparently the creator mistakes us for some other wiki. Morgan Wick 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page contains only POV discussion in support of the pseudoscience Electric Universe concept. If present at all, the text should be at that page -- but it may not even be notable enough for that. zowie 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The more the lone author talks, the less they say. This article badly fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV and will never meet them, not to mention WP:ASR. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia, and WP:NOT a soapbox. Mango juice talk 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Contains only fallacious POV discussion of a supporting idea for the pseudoscience Electric Universe concept. zowie 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
To clarify: the discussion is fallacious in that it does not discuss other, more commonly accepted, mechanisms for the formation of the planetary features in question -- thereby failing WP:NPOV. In addition, it fails the WP:NOR and notability guidelines. zowie 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Deficiencies can be corrected by additonial information: Specifically, alternate (commonly accepted) points of view may be presented. References obviously need to be added. Other "theories" are presented in Wikipedia as fact even without experimental reproducibility, so long as the argument is convincing (black holes, pulsars, neutron stars). So long as it's clear that it is a theory, and alternate points of view are added, I see no problem. It can be edited to be more neutrally presented. Mgmirkin 03:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Update: In terms of scale and implication, this entry is significantly different from the regular Electrical discharge machining article and is a central tenet of the Electric Universe model, thus a full definition of the concept is necessary for the intelligent discussion of that model (this article was created due to the deficit of a sufficent article for reference in said article; the EDM article was insufficient in this regard). If necessary this could be integrated with the Electric Universe model, or portions of it used neutrally in the original EDM article, though I don't advocate that approach, as they're wholly separate concepts. I have added several fairly detailed articles by Ralph Juergens (electrical engineer) in support. And will add alternate viewpoints and attempt to edit for neutrality/balance. On another note, what is the timeline for discussion/deletion? IE, how much time does an article's author have to improve it before it is summarily deleted in reactionary fashion? I'm in the process of attempting to find additional references and flesh out the article. Mgmirkin 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Update again: I have cleaned up a good portion of the article, though it may still need work. I have added a sesction discussion opposite (more traditional) points of view. I have also included references to sites with supporting arguments, and references to sites with opposing views (also put opposing viewpoint references first, so people can review the traditional view for comparison before reading the supporting views). I have also requested scholarly references from a friend. I *hope* they may be forthcoming shortly, but cannot guarantee it. If anyone know of resources for FINDING specifically topical references in scholarly publications, it would be appreciated if they could be noted. Finding ANY discussions PRO OR CON about the features and causation (rilles, Valles Marineris, Mamers Vallis, Chaos Terrain, Arachnoids) has been difficult/frusting to say the least. However, I have tried to point to some useful references pro and con, for the time being, and to better balance the article. More revision may be needed. I've tried to get to a modicum of neutrality while still laying out the theory. So, I'm hoping it's closer to meeting POV requirements/neutrality rules. I object to it being labeled "New Research", as the ideas have been around at least since Immanuel Velikovsky and Nikola Tesla's time, and definitely since Ralph Juergens proposed the Electric Sun model. It's been around, it's been discussed, this isn't a new concept, it's just a recently added one on wikipedia. If someone could find/add a few references, I'd be grateful. Mgmirkin 06:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd also not the following from NOR: "In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view." As such I'll try to note the "controversy" over some of the sites referenced (specifically, thunderbolts.info is not technically regarded as a verifiable resource, despite the fact they cite laboratory experiments and even give photographic evidence to back up their claims, likewise, holoscience.com and plasmacosmology.net are regarded as
pseudoscience at worst, or
protoscience at best, by traditional physicists, despite those sites being authored by extremely bright plasma physicists and electrical engineers who work with similar materials and processes). This should satisfy NOR. As well as opposite viewpoints and references satisfying NPOV.
Mgmirkin
06:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
Ahh, finally a useful post! Thanks for the link to the abstracts searcher. No clue what ADS stands for tho' sorry (Astrophysics Data System, apparently, hey maybe we need a new article on THAT! Hehe, j/k, apparently we have our hands full with this one...). Oh, and methinks maybe you don't know what it is you're looking for. Or they might not know what it is they're researching or how to properly phrase it. I looked under Electrical discharge and a whole bunch of other search terms and came up with the following: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 (apologies if I accidentally duplicated any entries, it's been a grueling experience trying to decipher the astrobabble and physicsbabble; ask 10 physicists the same question and they all tell you 10 different ways of describing it using different words. Man... No wonder nobody can ever find any references. Unless you ask a plasma physicists and/or an electrical engineer, then they tend to use the same words pretty frequently: double-layering, charge separation, electric discharge machining, birkeland currents, z-pinch, anode tuft, glow discharge, and those are about the only names for 'em.).
As we can see, there is plenty of research (even one on electric dust devils lifting soil 1, hmm... Interesting! Funny how it looks like the same questions and observations being made here: 1 and here: 2) going on in the realm of electric phenomena in relation to "fulgurite" or spherule formation, relation of electrical arc formation to "channels" seen on on the Earth's surface, research regarding the electrical nature and discharges of tremendous dust devils combing the surface of Mars, lightning formation and effects on planetary bodies. Shall I go on? I don't think any of this is "new research." Portions of it have been talked about in various articles that have been published to date. I don't know their specific terminologies of how they refer to things. Frankly I'm startign to think their naming schemes are arbitrary... =o\ In any even, electrical processes on planets in the solar system have been talked about for a while. More frequently on thuderbolts.info and plasmcosmology.net and holoscience.com. But there's current technobabble in "peer reviewed" journals relating to many of the processes listed in the EDM in Space entry. They might not use the exact same terms (EDM in space), but they're definitely researching how lightning works, how it's interacting with various surfaces on earth and in space. I'm sure that if Ikept digging I'd find more specific references. I just don't know how physicists who don't uderstand plasmna physics are terming what they're talking about. 4.242.183.170 10:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) For some reason it logged me out. Go fig. I wasn't hiding! Honestly! Mgmirkin 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm suddenly reminded of my folklore (more specific cultural anthropology) classes in college. Specifically the admonition to represent a piece of information as it is considered relative to the point of view of the one(s) conveying the knowledge. We can analyze this briefly: What information is being conveyed? Is it conveyed properly? Does it represent the body of knowledge and thoughts/feelings/meaning of that knowledge as the one conveying it understands it?
If nothing else we can consider the article in question a piece of folklore or cultural anthropology (as, really, is any article on here, it's knowledge of the people conveyed to other people).
How is the article presented? -It is presented as a theory espoused by Electric Universe propnents.
Is this actually a theory espoused by EU proponents? -According to their web sites, this is their theory. In that regard, this article is correct, this article summarizes their theories.
Are verifiable resources used regarding the article? -If you mean can we verify that this is in fact the position proferred by EU theorists, then yes, sufficient evidence has been listed to say that this is the view espoused by EU theorists.
Are we attempting to validate the underlying theory, or simply the presentation of a position? -According to Wikipedia, we're NOT concerned with truth, merely that articles presented are, NOR, NPOV and verifiable as written in the context they're intended. In this case, a theory or belief is presented as "a theory" and explained in the terms that those who share the belief "understand" it. As with Jormundgand or the axis mundi, we are not evaluating the premise, technically only that the *belief* that is espoused. The "belief" is supported by the evidence already presented in numerous links to several EU theorist sites, which appear to be internally consistent with each other. Straight from the verifiability entry: "'Verifiability' in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research ... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." So, we're not looking at whether the underlying premise or process of EDM in Space is true. We're looking for whether it is true as presented. Is it a "theory?" Yes. Is it espoused by EU theorists? Consensus of EU proponents says yes. Does it present the theory and implications of said theory in the manner and understanding that it is epoused by proponents? Yes. Does it cite "authoritative" EU theorist websites? Yes (thunderbolts.info, plasmacosmology.net holoscience.com, kronia.com).The confidence with which we can say that EU theorists believe this in the way presented is fairly high considering the volume of works published by said theorists.
Do you need to agree with the specifics of the theory in order for it to be a well-written article on wikipedia? -According to Wikipedia, no... As long as it's fair, balanced, NPOV, verifiable, NOR, wikipedia isn't concerned with the "truth" of a position (hence there are plenty of articles on pseudoscience that paraphrase the specific beliefs in a neutral way), nor your *opinions* about an opinion, only that it acurately represents what it claims to represent. In this case it claims to represent a theory espoused by EU theorists, and it shows that EU theorists in fact do in fact hold this viewpoint. This is no different than listing articles about the World Tree or the World Serpent, or other "beliefs." In those articles bias (Norse Myth, Greek Myth, Atheism) are noted, beliefs are spelled out, and resources showing that the belief is held, who it is held by, etc. are spelled out. Mgmirkin 12:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Understood. As I've said, finding spoecific references is tricky due to the myriad of wordings ivolved in uber-specific fields of research. However, Martian Dust Devils are certainly one form of EDM, albeit on a slightly smaller scale than larger bolts of lightning. But these electrical filamentary processes are at the heart of the EDM conception in the EU model. Granted, it hasn't been given extensive mindshare in primary scientific circles. But it is a fairly basica and central tent in the EU model. And in that model mindshare on EDM processes is significantly higher (it's one of the basic theoretical prcoesses behind planetary surface machining/formation; in the EU model, where its mindshare is pretty unanimous, granted the EU model is a minority opinion).
However, research in terrestrial dust devils have been going on likewise to understand the process of formation and of machining dust off the surface and INTO the air. Note the following article from Nasa: Phantoms From the Sand: Tracking Dust Devils Across Earth and Mars I'm assuming Nasa releases are considered "credible." This article draws some parallels to and mentions Martian Dust devils. It also notes the interesting finding that "Some researchers think a dust devil may need dust to sustain itself, but here we recorded a very large one that was essentially free of dust for a substantial part of its lifetime" IE, dust movement is a secondary feature, not a primary feature. IE, dust motion does not create or sustain a devil, as the "devil" can be measured and remain active even WITHOUT any dust being excavated/lifted from the surface. Like I said, plenty of active research going on, you just need to find it. ;o]
Anywho, my main point from the prior discussion was that active research is going on in related fields. Granted mainstream science hasn't made the same connections yet. But the EU model has. This article is presented as being a EU "belief" (and it is; you can find the same stuff on all the EU sites of any import) and alternate theories/explanations are presented, thus satisfying NPOV. NOR should be satisfied simply by the fact of the Velikovsky affair, Ralph Juergens' electric Sun model, etc. The concepts have been discussed for some time. Verifiability depends on *what* you're trying to verify, and is thus subjective. If you're trying as an editor to verify the underlying claim that in fact electrical processes are causative, wikipedia says YOU are doing original research and strongly cautions against even trying to do that. However, if you are simply verifying that a belief is held by a specific group, from a cultural anthropology standpoint, there is no conflict (EU websites all say basically the same thing about discharges in space, as modeled in the lab and tested on the small scale by spark machining, creation of electrical vortexes, etc.), so the fact that the belief is held by EU theorists is easily "verified." Thus the issue of "truth" of the claim is irrelevant, since it is essentially just a belief held by the group and in that group it has nearly universal (consensus) mindshare (though the group in itself is a minority in the scientific community, in order to understand their beliefs in a proper context it is necessary to understand EDM in Space [concept] which is central to their cosmological belief system). Guess that about sums it up, eh? 4.242.183.215 09:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Guess I need to click "remember me" when I sign in so it automatically logs me in... Man, my typing sucks lately. Too much writing at 2am... ;o] Mgmirkin 09:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
To the contrary, a number of electrical engineers and plasma physicists (Wallace Thornhill, Ralph Juergens, Donald Scott and a number of others) are strong supporters (in fact are or have been its main proponents and commentators, specifically because their observations in the lab appeared to strongly correlate with observed stellar phenomena; anode glow and the sun, arc discharges and lightning, arc discharges and spherule generation in EDM in the lab) and have made quantitative and qualitative specific scientific predictions, which appear to better fit the actual data from subsequent observation than other contemporary interpretations.
EU model predicted that martian dust storms would demonstrate electrical characterization, despite the atmosphere being too thin and cold to support the standard convection model, and that similar mesurements of electrical processes in dust devils would be made in the terrestrial sphere. These predictions have been confirmed, not least of all by the article noted last night written by Nasa, and a number of others that have found electrical characterization of dust devils. Phantoms From the Sand: Tracking Dust Devils Across Earth and Mars, EU model similar characterizations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Likewise tornadoes, water spouts, hurricanes, etc. are expected to also display electrical characterization 1, 2, 3, 4 as well.
Similarly, predictions were made about the so-called "volcanoes" of IO before probes imaged them. Predictions included that the "volcanoes" would demonstrate electrical characterization, would be hotter than any known volcano on earth and would exhibit features common to electrical arcing and not to volcanoes, that the "lava lakes" (large black spopts) would in fact be cool (because it's not flowing lava it's an electrically charred/machined surface), and that the "volcano(es)" would MOVE around the edges of the lava lake and NOT be stationary. Predictions 1, 2 3. Initial accounts and images "appear" to fit the predictions. Cold "lava flow," jets much larger and hotter than expected, following the pattern of the expected electrical arcing that was predictde by the model. Prometheus Plume active for 18 years? With bluish characterization? IO enveloped in Aurora. And what causes auroras? According to Birkeland: charged particles involved in an electrical interaction. Hmm... Hence we get the term "Birkeland Currents" or field-aligned currents.
It is perfectly within the EU model's capabilities to make predictive statements that are borne out (or at the very least not contradicted) by facts and observations. In some cases, predictions which the standard models DID NOT make and are only now beginning to even investigate (and find a strong correlation to what the EU already said years ago). The model allows for falsifiability by making specific predictions and then observing results to note matches and/or contradictions, and welcomes critical discussion of its predictions.
Similar research is still ongoing: Measurements of Electrical Discharges in Martian Regolith Simulant. Researchers understand the need to know the causation and structural features associated with Mars' dust devils. The information will be useful for comparison to Earthly phenomena bearing similar structure as well.
The more I look, the more research in related fields I see going on around these very self-same concepts. The only difference is that the traditional researchers don't understand the causation. The EU model purports to (due to the plasma and electrical engineering understanding of its proponents in the field) and makes very specific predictions, many of which are being anecdotally verified as we speak.
But, again, this goes back to verifiability's ambiguity. Are we trying to verify the Physics (causation) of the phenomenon the belief is based upon (that's a no-no), or the fact that the belief is held, what the belief is, and who believes it ( Cultural anthropology)?
I am arguing for the latter (cultural anthropology). The belief is held. That has been substatiated repeatedly. We know who believes it. We know who the authoritative sources for the belief are (people, web sites, specific documents and claims). Even beyond that, certain features of the belief are in process of being upheld by observation (auroras on Earth and other planets, electric dust devils, tornadoes, water spouts, chondrule {or was it Chondrite?} and fulgurite formation).
Perhaps the article needs to be amended to say "EDM in Space (concept)" to distinguish between concept (cultural anthropology) and verified physical phenomenon (physical process). I would classify this under cultural anthropology insofar as the belief goes (it is a central tenet of a pseudo-/proto-scientific belief system, much as the axis mundi, world tree, world serpent, gods, etc are the central tenets of a religious/mythological belief). Physical confirmation of "fact" of the underlying processes is another matter entirely. I believe that verifiability and NPOV and NOR have been satisfied for the concept interpretation and am not specifically advocating for classification as verified physical fact, though it is anecdotally supported on a number of fronts. Granted, it may be walking a fine line, but I think the distinction is justifiable (cultural anthropology vs physical process; granted this is a "belief" about a physical process, but it is still a belief and a central tenet of a belief system nonetheless and should in that regard be given consideration). If necessary the article can be amended with "(concept)" and a more definitive note about the cultural anthropology of it can be inserted to distinguish it from empirical physical fact. 64.122.15.114 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't recall if I mentioned before, but have edited the article significantly since initially nominated for deletion. Have added opposing viewpoints, recently added clarification regarding cultural anthropology and that the article is regarding an aspect of EU model belief, also added that the claims have not been substatiated, but are necessary basic tenet for understanding the EU model in cultural anthropological terms. Have also noted controversy over certain sources, per Wikipedia policy when "reputability" is in dispute. And have noted opposition and alternate theories of the evolution of the same processes by non-adherents (mainstream scientists). Mgmirkin 21:44 (appx), 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And just for good measure, in case we're still wondering whether or not aspects of the EU model are being actively researched (regardless of by whom)? It appears so. There are a number of abstracts on electromagnetic field generation in the early universe, polarization of charge (charge separation) in the universe, electrical discharge within the solar system, the electrical conductivity and charging of Titan's atmosphere, research on modelling the global ionospheric electric fields to the solar wind, penetration of the interplanetary electric field to the low-latitude ionosphere during magnetic storms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
As we can see, this is an active field of research in astrophysics (the role of electricity in the universe). Many of these are questions which have been posed/proposed directly by the EU model. Though not specifically related to the EDM in Space entry, I felt inclusion was warranted due to general assailing of the EU model in general as not being notable. In fact there is a great body of research being done relating to electrical processes in the universe (not necessarily by adherents per se, but addressing the same issues of mechanisms/causation). So, anyway, there you have a bunch of research beig done on related fields... I'm sure I could find more if I took the time to look and sort through the jargon. Mgmirkin 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Haven't had time to read all specific markup at this time. Here's my general thoughts on some NPOV issues related to POV of a specific group (IE belief systems). I may respond to individual comments at a later point as I have time... I don't right now.
I've been trying to clean up the NPOV issues over the last week, by putting in alternate explanations, taking out some of the more obvious biased statments which may have been initially worded too strongly in favor, attempting to add citations pro and con. I'll admit I'm still new here, but learning as much as I can about protocol as possible to get up to speed. Apologies on any foibles in the meanwhile. Constructive criticism is appreciated, constructive edits toward neutrality appreciated as well. Mgmirkin 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Copied from my comments on Talk page.) reply
But, also, remember that this is presented as one of the central beliefs of a group/culture, so in some way, any "belief will be from the POV of that culture/group." Same gows when discussing the beliefs of any religion, pseudo-religion, scientific group, fringe group. When presenting the tenets of their belief system you are presenting their POV. In this case specifically getting at the heart of their cosmological view of the structure and nature of the universe. In some regards, POV should be accepting of presentation of a group's beliefs, so long as the presentation of those beliefs is neutral. If that hasn't yet been achieved here, let's discuss and come to concensus on how to better word things to be neutral POV, while still presenting the views in their entirety. What is wikipedia precedent on presenting a specific group's views? Obviously a belief us understanding from the POV of that group. How does that fit within the general POV / NPOV debate? Say for instance norse mythology's Jormungand (world serpent), this is their method of explaining a certain aspect of their cosmology. It's from their cultural POV. Yet, Wikipedia still allows it, yes? If so, why? Why is that POV acceptable but EU POV is not? Is this bias on the deletionists part? Playing favorites of one belief system over the other? Why should one groups' POV be promoted over another's? That in and of itself is not NPOV by way of selective suppression of information. Mgmirkin 23:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Copied from my comments on Talk page.) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable state assembley candidate. Possible WP:Vanity because the article was started by Brockwayandy ( talk • contribs). Also, the edits are full of non-encyclopedic POV content and personal attacks. sigmafactor 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A page made just for the heck of it on this facet of the Dragon Ball Z character, seen in just one TV special. Poor title that's near impossible to find with false facts, not what I'd call the *best* written article I've ever seen, and syntax is done in improper style. No merge or redirect here, as everything's covered well on Son Gohan#History of Trunks. And since someone else'll bring it to the table despite it not being official guideline/policy, über-cruft. Papacha 20:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:WEB, no evidence of notability. Alexa rank of 1,003,082. Jacek Kendysz 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Dia b lo 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Scientologycruft. Not only is it totally POV, but it probably can never be anything but a stub about a non-notable aspect of early Scientology. Crabapplecove 20:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was as follows: It is established that Tim Bowles is notable among Scientologists. The easy way out would be to "delete" given the well formulated arguments to delete. Despite that, I opt for no consensus, as the arguments to delete do not convince me. -- Ezeu 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability not established. This non-notable attorney's claim to "fame" is that he works for the Church of Scientology. Aren't there about a thousand other lawyers who could say the same thing? Crabapplecove 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Google's never heard of it. Seems to be high-school kids pretending to be notable. Spondoolicks 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
High school kid (though that statement was taken off the article when the prod tag was removed) Created and edited by same users as
The Circulating Events (see above afd). No Google verification. Seems to be hoax.
Spondoolicks
20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Mango juice talk 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's doubly not a dictionary of obscure Scientology terminology Crabapplecove 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 19:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
More Scientologycruft, notability not established. This totally obscure and non-notable "company producing marketing material for the insurance industry" shouldn't get an article just because of its Scientology connections. Crabapplecove 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Utterly non-notable Church. Again, because of a Scientology connection, someone apparently thought notability was instantly conferred. I'm not so sure about Church of Jesus Christ in Zion either. Crabapplecove 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for deletion on 31/7/2006. The result of the discussion was keep
No sources apart from the Church itself. Will ( talk) 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The article seems to be a hoax, Jenna Dupri yields no Google hits and the information in the article is unverifiable. Liffey 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Culturally unimportant, non-notable drinking game. Receives only around 600 hits on Google; does not warrant its own article. Prod removed by anon. RandyWang ( raves/ review me!) 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Deprodded. Cannot be verified by
reliable sources.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
Molerat
21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the second nomination, the first was closed a month ago as no consensus [83]. There are about 15 Google hits for this. I can't find a Lexus-Nexus (going back 2 years) or Google News result for it. It's unverified and hasn't been touched (aside from being tagged for wikification) since the previous AfD a month ago. Metros232 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mango juice talk 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I'm fairly certain this entry was deleted once before on the basis of not meeting WP:Notability. Jinxmchue 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This article fails
WP:BIO, and its content is generally duplicated in the
Jeffrey Archer article. Redirect to that article as a potential search term.
Erechtheus 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) In light of the outstanding work of AnonEMouse, I withdraw this AfD.
Erechtheus
16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The only evidence for this concept is some guy's webpage, with no evidence of notability supplied either of the term "Neo-Gothism" (and only 77 Google hits [84]), or The "Neo-Gothic Art Manifesto". Note, there do exist concepts such as "Neo-Gothic" and "Neo-Gothicism", and I've nothing against someone writing an article on those concepts - but this article appears to be on about something else (i.e., a new movement since the 1980s). Mdwh 22:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. I'm not deleting Victoria Cook since this discussion didn't get that much attention after her inclusion, listing her article on a separate afd instead. - Bobet 12:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notability: local politician of no great achievement. Martín ( saying/ doing) 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are councillors on the same authority:
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NN unreleased self-released (via a print-on-demand service) film.
23 Google hits for "Shadow Beings" "Mind's Clay", all but one of which are directly related to the company (official sites, myspace, cafepress, etc. --
Vary |
Talk
22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
A vanity page about somebody's internet past/friends. Not notable. DonRexy 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like vanity article to me as a place for members of the website to advertise it and it is just not notable. LQ.org is not encyclopaedic content. What about other websites? Should Wikipedia serve as an advertising board for websites like this? DonRexy 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, possibly spam - Delete -- Spring Rubber 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was previously nominated as a potential vanity deletion. I am nominating on the basis that it fails to meet WP:MUSIC. In the prior AfD, it was said in the AfD only that this band met criteria 6, which at the time was that the band was the most prominent representative of that genre. In the time since that vote, there has been no addition of a verifiable source that makes that claim. Erechtheus 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
NN film director. 16 Ghits for "Charles Bryan" + "Mind's Clay" (his production company). Looks like a vanity page. See Shadow Beings (movie), his film, also on AFD. -- Vary | Talk 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Reeks of vanity. RedRollerskate 23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete NN bio, suspicions of vanity. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious WP:SPAM, does not meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB, article's creator's only contributions relate to this site. Sure wish we could get a speedy tag for this sort of thing. VoiceOfReason 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to World Wrestling Entertainment roster --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
All the information is copied in its entirety from World Wrestling Entertainment roster with other information removed and no new information gleamed or required --- Lid 00:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply