The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a nonsense page. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Chipka 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to speedily keep. Wrong forum as per discussion. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Doesn't even have the potential to be a popular search title. The second name isn't capitalized. Marcus 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to speedily keep. This should be taken to WP:RFD. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. No one will ever type this into the Wikipedia search engine. They should know the full name. Marcus 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Morgan Wick 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be someones joke page. ScottNestle 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Metamagician3000 10:58, 19 June 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 hate to AfD an article right after the subject's died, but this page seems to be a memorial. It was created just after the death, and is the only page the author has edited. I don't think the subject is notable, but I'm hoping some people who know more about computers than me will have some more informed opinions. I'll abstain, for now. djrobgordon 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Banana04131 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep, This was a person who was a well regarded technical expert in the Mac community. He co-wrote the authoritative technical book for Mac OS X Server. At the time of his death he was employed by Apple as a consultant in Japan. He was a former Apple employee who Apple regarded high enough to actually hire as a consultant (something Apple rarely does). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.58.160 ( talk • contribs)
He seems to be notable enough to have an effect on society through computer software, if not than might as well get rid of people like Charles O'Hea who ever he is. Enlil Ninlil 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity entry, entirely non-notable: googling "josh mcfarland" poker turns up one college link 2005 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
this doesnt look like itll ever be encyclopedic even with a lot of work. just a list of instructions at the moment. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Searching for "Mark Ballard" "tier ethics" is a google wack, only shows the wikipedia page; searching for "tier ethics" with google gives 53 hits, most of which use the concept in a different way that use in the article. -- Koffieyahoo 01:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement, fails WP:CORP. mtz206 ( talk) 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Here's the scoop They will be the first accredited spa in the US within the next month or so...which they believe will start a trend that will revolutionize the spa industry...that's all I got folks. Thanks again for the input. Awennar 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Accredited by IMAPC (see article...there is a link). Apparently they are "the" accreditation organization for legal mail-order pharmacies and medical spas in the USA. They perform extrememly rigorous off- and on-site inspections depending on certain criteria..... Awennar 22:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be a vanity band page and does not meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Bumm13 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Song only appeared on an album, not a single -- Koffieyahoo 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. Mo0[ talk] 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Protologism. Though defined as a standard by the "International Intangible Management Standards Institute" (which itself doesn't seem very notable [9]), the term doesn't appear to have caught on. Google search returns no hits for this term that correspond with this definition [10]. Article created by User:Kenstandfield whose primary edits lately have been to promote himself, his books, and his institute. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related Protologisms:
Please discuss all 4. Thanks -- AbsolutDan (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable theory by a non-notable engineer (just tagged that nn-bio); no interest in this theory beyond the publications of the author. Sdedeo ( tips) 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as advertisement. Fails WP:CORP (despite being "heralded as the first of its kind in Queensland." -- mtz206 ( talk) 01:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable Band Alan 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-published comics, nonnotable NawlinWiki 01:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged as a {{ prod}} as a non-notable website. Tag removed without explanation by original creator of article. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB. Only 5 ghits. Agent 86 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
(Record playing.) Please read WP:WEB and the article. Webby == automatic "keep". Sdedeo ( tips) 22:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me. Frankly, it's now got to the stage where the creator of this crap is being disruptive (he's done it a lot more than once), which I can consider vandalism, which shall be speedied. Proto|| type 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, content in article is largely false. (May meet speedy deletion criteria.) -- ChrisB 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Discusses the act of inverting the colors in an image. I don't know as much about computers as some people do, but this sounds unencyclopedic. Hasn't seen a single major edit since it was created a year ago. See also negative (photography). -- Smack ( talk) 02:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is basically just one sentence at the beginning, a list of ingredients, and two uses for this medicine, and it all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle — M e ts501 ( talk) 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. — M e ts501 ( talk) 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. — M e ts501 ( talk) 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
advertisement, POV Luigivampa 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No information given about notability, site has a low Alexa ranking. If his song was chosen this may be notable, but it wasn't. Crystallina 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. — M e ts501 ( talk) 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article does not establish any grounds for notability, seems to fail WP:BIO Yamla 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
From time to time, I have come across articles with links to this page, which is written in a vainglorious fashion. Checking the "What links here", I went through the pages where it was listed and investigated whether it would be appropriate to link to a badly written article. The link was something copied and pasted in as it fell out of format with all other links in the "See also" sections of the various pages. Ignoring that aspect, it fell totally out of place when considering the content of the various articles (palaces, new construction, etc) and I thought it appropriate to remove the link case by case. Each case proved to necessitate the removal of the link. The article itself really should be deleted. It is unencyclopedic and even if expanded, it isn't a notable topic. The vague term "castle preservation" redirects to it, created by the creator of the Castles Society page himself. I consider the page to be an advertisement and Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. Some of the pages that formerly linked are below:
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Last AfD had absolutely no hint of discussion whatsoever and resulted in a soft redirect, which I don't find appropriate. Anyways, the soft redirect was reverted because the transwiki move apparently wasn't done properly. It's since been done. TheProject 02:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable primary school with no professed achievements. BlueValour 02:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable primary school with no listed achievements. BlueValour 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Two extracurricular activities at a school (apparently in Hong Kong); school clubs are nonnotable in themselves NawlinWiki 02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Yoshi's Story. JPD ( talk) 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Second nomination, but first under new title. I argue that even if tech demos were applicable to be articles, consider this - it may be that this is a notable tech demo, but it is also another thing - a port. It is known that it is Yoshi's Story, and thusly, like any other port, should not be included as its own page. If the Breath of Fire Game Boy Advance port does not warrant its own page, then even if a tech demo was deserving of being its own article, it's the same as Yoshi's Story, but on a different system. The article should be deleted, as it is an obscure title that people will likely not visit. It does not need any more mention than on Yoshi's Story's page. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like original thought &/or opinion. It is *not* one of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points as stated in the article. I can't think of how to edit this into something usable. NawlinWiki 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual/possible vanity Alan 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Leads to a small set of private servers of no great significance; vanity article -- DarkLordSeth 02:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete This is clearly an advertisment. information written and sourced entirely by company. Librarianofages 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G4, already deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Too trivial Geopgeop 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete with witty Family Guy reference. DS 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Mentioned only once on an episode of Family Guy; doesn't warrant its own article — №tǒŖïøŭş 4lĭfė ♫ ♪ 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page has been on WP:PNT for two weeks, and only the first couple of lines are in English (added by someone other than the author, apparently.) From what I can read in the article, this person is a DJ, and is notable if the claims in the article are true (but they're unsourced.) Unless someone is willing to translate this and elevate it above the vanity it looks like right now, I think this should be deleted, without prejudice towards recreation (in English.) Grand master ka 03:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
not notable; one of the least notable Duke basketball players in recent memory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedog423 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a barely anthing more than an elaborate dictionary entry. To make matters worse, it was created by Ray Crowther, the same person who invented the word just two years ago. A google search for the term turns up only 167 results, and the article also seems to be doing some advertising for http://pegularity.org.uk/ which isn't even worthy of an Alexa rank. -- Hetar 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete ( CSD A8) – Gurch 11:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Lack of notability Article is the summary of one band's history. See WP:MUSIC for policies on bands. Interlingua talk 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article seems to have been created for the sole purpose of creating a "counter" to the New anti-Semitism article. It consists entirely of OR (such as the false claim that 'Classic anti-Semitism refers to the the political right's attempts to ..." as well as "Examples" which are irrelevant to "Classical anti-Semitism Isarig 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was boldly redirected by User:Kevin1243 to sex organ. Proto|| type 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic article on a slang term. History shows that it's already been transwikied to Wiktionary, and I can't see how it can be made into a useful encyclopedia article. Warpstar Rider 04:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is minutiae about some multiple-unit housing complex, is in no way encyclopedic. Bumm13 04:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily kept after the article has been rewritten to be about the actual person. Any debate about whether he is encyclopaedic would go through a seperate AFD (and I don't think it will, though) Proto|| type 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This page is about Edgar Winter, not Chuck Ruff. There is no need to move the article, however, because the page Edgar Winter is identical. -- Danielrocks123 04:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was other consensus to delete, but as this has been merged to Shorewood, Wisconsin apparently, we need to preserve the article history so I'm redirecting there. W.marsh 00:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, we've gotten to the point where we need a vote to decide whether the neighbourhood pharmacy is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Harr o 5 04:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename and Keep Eluchil404 05:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete original research. -- Danielrocks123 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I've "Moved" Gated Reverb to Gated reverb as that's the concensus of just about everybody & it makes sense. I've done a little bit more cleanup but I'm not best qualified to do this so it's over to the community. I'm new to this stuff, how long before we lose the deletion tag?
Megamanic 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Are there very many articles about individual games? I'm a big college sports fan, but I have a little problem with recaps of individual games other than maybe national title games. Even then, if we're talking basketball, there's an article on each year's tournament itself, so you don't really need a separate article about the game. (Also, please note that this article is about the women's basketball championship game, so it should probably be renamed if it is kept.) I will not oppose a speedy keep if there is otherwise overwhelming consensus for a keep ... I just think that individual game articles set a dangerous crufty precedent (as much as I hate that word). BigDT 04:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted as apparent hoax. DS 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no such 'golden age' known or recognised by Mayanist scholarship- 1st C. AD would place this in the preclassic era, and there's nowhere near enough known about the details of this period to support any such claim. If not an actual hoax or piece of fiction, it is possible that this is some poor distillation of some LDS account somewhere speculating about this period/region. Even if so, it is better covered somewhere like Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, but I really don't see anything salvagable or sensible here. Delete, as unverified, not useful, and wrong. cjllw | TALK 04:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me. That's right, I'm being bold. It's a hoax, it's A7, and if there is a claim to notability, it's a hoaxy one, and I chose to ignore any such claims for the greater good. Proto|| type 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article about a musician included various faked references (for example, a link to an article in Rolling Stone which turned out to be about a completely different band), which have since been removed from the article. This leaves the rest of the article as unverifiable, vanity, and/or a hoax. I can't find any evidence that this person satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off Puente, where his band's article has been submitted for deletion too. I recommend a delete. -- Metropolitan90 04:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. I noticed the redlinked AFD and that an IP user User:213.122.69.118 had added it to the list and tagged the article with a prod (rather than an AFD). I switched it to an AFD and created this page. As for looking at the article itself, it certainly appears to be more than a vanity page ... can someone familiar with British politics comment on whether this is a real/notable individual or just someone's wishful thinking? No vote. BigDT 05:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I was unable to find prominent news reports or academic papers not associated with Ken Standfield, who is credited with creating the term(and who wrote the article). Therefore, I judge it to be a neologism which has failed to catch on in the wider world of economics, and it's inclusion in Wikipedia to be an attempt at self-promotion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - already at bs:Riblja čorba. - Mike Rosoft 06:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page has been on WP:PNT for the required two weeks. It is about a band. I believe it's in Bosnian. Unless this wall of text is translated and the band is notable, this should be deleted. Grand master ka 05:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a repost. It was largely similar, though this version was longer; the last sentence was the same in both, "the band's future is unknown." Well, duh. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't see how this band meets any of the notability requirements listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music), also no listing on allmusic.com.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Tom harrison as {{db-repost}} material. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It was deprodded, then tagged for speedy with the justification that it violated WP:BEANS and had been deleted before, though I can find no evidence of the latter in the deletion log, so I'm bringin it here. I think the original prod tag is good: Wikipedia is not a game guide. This appears to be original research, which violates official policy. Chaser T 07:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The title itself is POV - "revealed" is a theological term. The article appears to be entirely original research with no sources given, and only one POV represented throughout. From the layout it appears to be a college essay. There are already several related articles, eg Holy Spirit, Acts etc. I suggest anyone with an interest in the article merge any material they feel is important into other articles; then it can be deleted. David L Rattigan 07:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as vandalism. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a poorly-written article which serves little purpose and is plagued with violations of the NPOV. It also uses made-up words and has little reason for existance, as it does not provide a lot of factual information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickv111 ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 13 June 2006
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boring Business Systems) close dno consensus, but all five "keep" voters were later found to be probable sockpuppets of a single editor (now indef-blocked), no editor in good standing with a real edit history voted keep, and several advocated deletion. This article seems to exist solely to allow a small group of people to poke fun at the domain name (the company was founded by a Mr. Boring, incidentally, in case you were wondering). Just zis Guy you know? 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Got the {{unreferenced}} tag weeks ago, but no reliable source were given. Note that the linked article from the Time Magazine doesn't use the term "Asian supremacy". A careful web search turns up Wikipedia and mirrors, some forum postings and places where the words are used in another meaning (most often supremacy within Asia, like "India's South Asian supremacy remains intact.")
Delete as original research and neologism.
Pjacobi 09:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. DS 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, page was created simply for self-promotion, text is taken almost entirely from http://profiles.takingitglobal.org/maulikbaxi Travelbird 10:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Default action is merge to Wellington High School Deathphoenix ʕ 00:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable and uneeded for such a small thing so delete. Matthew Fenton ( TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, do we need an article about a baby?. Matthew Fenton ( TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients and a few uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. — M e ts501 ( talk) 11:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients and a few uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. — M e ts501 ( talk) 11:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unmaintanble spam magnet.There are millions of websites, and tens of thousands that could be described as notable. Category:Websites is quite adequate. Previous nomination ( here) was closed as no consensus, with some reservations. Ezeu 11:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk) 13:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Third place finisher in the National Spelling Bee? NawlinWiki 11:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. Fails WP:CORP. mtz206 ( talk) 12:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article repeats objectivity (philosophy), which itself states that it is "concerned by epistemic and metaphysical discussions of objectivity", the possibility and the various ways (according to different domains - objectivity in physics is not the same as that in history) according to which objectivity can be achieved. It is a pure artificial distinction to radically separate the philosophical discussion of objectivity to other general objectivity articles, since philosophers discuss about this general sense of objectivity. The nature of an objective reality, Kant's distinction between noumenons and phenomenons, the Hegelian dialectic about the spirit and history, marxist materialist conception about reality (necessarily historic reality), is an ontological discussion, which could maybe be better carried on at the being article. If it is decided to be kept to the "objectivity (philosophy)" article, as well as the "propositions" subsection, this doesn't mean that it is necessary to create again ten thousands articles about objectivity in specific fields. The "objectivity (philosophy)" article should be used for a general discussion of objectivity in all fields. Philosophy is not, by definition, radically distinguished from "non-philosophical" topics, such as history, journalism, etc. Henceforth, to avoid noise and multiplication of articles, it would be wise to delete this one, and find a solution for the repeat of a general discussion on objectivity on the objectivity article and the objectivity (philosophy) article. Lapaz 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not encylopaedic - seems more suited to urbandictionary.com Gordonross 22:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if this website is important enough to have an article -- Snailwalker | talk 15:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The whole article seems as if it were written by a studio executive. It also represents crystallballism. Ohyeahmormons 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Greenside, Gauteng. JPD ( talk) 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject too trivial. Xhin 22:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Closed as this is a copyright violation and as such should not appear on AfD. Copyvio tagged as material lifted from [23]. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Unstable use of article. Please write something without copyright violations. LILVOKA.
Keep Than use the "Re-write tag" or "copyvio" or "clean-up". He IS notable. Lajbi 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Borderline violation of WP:NOR and non-notable. Google brings up a very small 110 results. — CRAZY` (IN)` SANE 09:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete ( CSD G1) – Gurch 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. Mo0[ talk] 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is basically an advert and I don't see any other purpose unless it has an important history. Delete Palexandridis 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The reason this article should be deleted is because this article is written regarding someone who has a specific talent and achievement that does not yet merit a page on Wikipedia. There are other students who gain a high caliber of achievement locally, nationally, and internationally, and Wikipedia's policies do not allow a page about them to be published. Danielb087 10:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Elections in India. TigerShark 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was originally marked for merging with Elections in India. However, not all the information was notably related to Elections in India. I've moved the significant information into the main article ( Elections in India) and have marked this page for deletion. -- Chez ( Discuss / Email) • 09:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is vain and not necessary on wikipedia
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Subject is non-notable. Produces only three google hits on "Jewish Camps Association" [24], including the site itself. Jens Nielsen 13:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. feydey 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as Yet another minor music journalist. Greil Marcus he's not. Deprodded on grounds Greil Marcus isn't the cutoff point for journalists, and article asserts regular appearances in major media. This latter point is true as this google search confirms (~600 hits) [25], but is simply organising a symposium (and hence enjoying the brief spotlight of media exposure) actually synonymous with notability? He is an Assistant Professor of Recorded Music. Eusebeus 23:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
the article itself says that the term is not used much. Google agrees, giving it 38 unique hits. delete Wh e re (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. It looks like Learncasting was already deleted per this AfD, but Podagogy was not. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is nothing but a dictionary definition (and a made-up, neologistic one at that), plus a barrage of spammy podcasting links. Delete the damned thing, as this is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary or a linkfarm. Proto|| type 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Second place finisher at national spelling bee -- notable? See above discussion of Saryn Hooks. NawlinWiki 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable hosting service. Haakon 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE (userfied to User:Cole8865). TigerShark 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sure if it qualifies as a speedy (says he's a famous architect), so I decided to revert my own deletion and bring it here. Highly unlikely to meet WP:BIO. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity, non-notability, resume. Interlingua talk 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Well-written and interesting article; unforunately, it's also probably false. Google turns up nada when on both him and Emily Dean (also submitted for deletion) when "-wikipedia" is added. The submitter, ShahXerxes, submitted both of them at once. His main other notable contribution was to defend another article that may have been written by him or a compatriot: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_H._Robertson
Seems like we have one intelligent ringleader, and his (school?) friends. The topic in both is Australian. It's probably of the same variety.
Note that if these two are deleted, the Cainites Category will also be empty. SnowFire 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN-Bio; spam. Userfy or delete. Lupo 15:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
- Hi guys, Sorry I am going to get my agent to do this properly and cite references etc I rushed in a little too eager. Will be sorted within next couple of days - Thomas Cester
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability, advert. Uses (crystal ball) to talk about future notablity, which it clearly lacks now. Interlingua talk 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Listing here because it has an AfD template on it. I gather that there is a notability concern, but I don't have an opinion on the matter. iMeowbot~ Meow 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article for non-notable and insignificant product. Reads like advertising copy, and appears to have sole non-minor contributor as developer of product. Steven Fisher 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. I will consider userfying this to User:Lessirkm if Matthew requests it, but only if he becomes at least a semi-active user on Wikipedia. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Page fails WP:BIO in regards to, "architects...whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." There is no indication of that, the only notable thing that he did was enter the contest to design the new WTC towers [35]. Also, I have the question the purpose of this article when the creator of the article has this edit, Delete as non-notable. Yanksox 16:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
List of the 'best' socialites. Probably falls under WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV. Deprodded by author with explaination "Real list please do not delete." given in article. Matt Eason 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject doesn't seem notable, and it reads like an advertisment. RedRollerskate 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Kindergartens are non-notable and this looks a particularly unremarkable one. BlueValour 16:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable piece of quackery that has no relevant citations and no verifiability to the claims made in the article. Delete as spam. JDoorj a m Talk 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Elementary Schools are not notable. -- Danielrocks123 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following schools for deletion for the same reason. -- Danielrocks123 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Kindergartens are non-notable and this one professes no achievements. BlueValour 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following schools for deletion for the same reason. -- Danielrocks123 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Elementary schools are not notable. -- Danielrocks123 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A DRV consensus found that the previous AfD on this subject was improperly closed. The article is resubmitted to AfD for evaluation of verifiability and notability. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be just a list with no other context Pat Payne 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by request of creator; left talk page. — brighterorange ( talk) 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an attempt at getting consensus on the first paragraph of the Abortion article, with plenty of discussion on the talk page. While the discussion should probably be preserved somewhere, I don't think this belongs in the main article namespace. I suggest moving this somewhere under the talk page for the main abortion article. Hirudo 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- 9 cds (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't actually feel this article should be deleted - I'm the editor who created it. However, Sunholm first listed it as a speedy candidate (which was rejected by Kungfuadam) and has now prodded it. I outlined on its talk page the reasons why I feel the article establishes the subject's notability - most markedly by being a lead character in two notable TV series and being in a band that had four top twenty UK hit singles. I don't feel a simple prod is fair, since the rationale I outlined has been ignored, so I've brought it to AfD to establish consensus. Seb Patrick 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Group doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, not notable group. feydey 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No real point to this article. If someone wants to know the korean names for those seas, all they have to do is go to those seas' artilces. Each of those three seas lists the korean names. I can't see the purpose to this page. Masterhatch 17:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense neologism, only 29 Ghits and only relevant ones are for this page and its mirrors NawlinWiki 17:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete no notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be non-notable (fails WP:MUSIC). Page contributor removed PROD tag from article. -- Chet nc (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, default action is to merge the list back to List of Portable Software. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is a list of non-notable games, full of spam links to game sites, these games are not portable. digital_m e( Talkˑ Contribs) 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was not even funny. DS 05:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like a pretty blatant hoax to me Irongargoyle 17:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is about a small K-8 school in Van Nuys, CA, which seems completely un-notable — Ryan McDaniel 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Accurizer 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not (yet) an etymological dictionary. Does not appear that there's enough info to make a move to Wiktionary useful either. Hirudo 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete all of the above and 95% of articles that start with "List of" BigDT 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising copy for non-notable product. Steven Fisher 18:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising copy for non-notable product. See also: OmniPeek & AiroPeek, additional advertising copy by same author for related products. Listed separately. Steven Fisher 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough. Delete or merge into List of Starfleet ship classes. Also, there is a spelling error in the title. Philip Stevens 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable vanity entry RedRollerskate 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, child of two celebrities. Has one acting credit, in a movie with her parents. Google search mostly turns up their bios. Ckessler 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Adcruft about a non-notable product RedRollerskate 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A8 - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism - 3 Google hits. The only English-language hit does not relate to the term as defined in the article. Perhaps there exists some published work on this that isn't on the Internet..? Rklawton 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Kindergarten to 1st grade with no obvious redeeming features. BlueValour 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to segregated cycle facilities. Two contributors (TedE and SPUI) have hinted that something here might be worth adding to that article. In case that is true, and because redirects are cheap, I will preserve the history. The last version of the article may be viewed here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not an article; it is a collection of disembodied arguments and rebuttals not attributed to any people. Thus, they are not facts and cannot be verifiable. Maybe an article can be made for this topic, but the current contents are unsalvageable. — brighterorange ( talk) 19:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete Wald (onomastics) wasn't included formally in this afd so it stays, I suggest WP:PROD-ing it if anything. W.marsh 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per talk page, extreme form of listcruft - irrelevant, obscure subject, without hope of rescuing page into anything suitably encyclopaedic DWaterson 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep, nominator has voted keep and there have been no other delete votes. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, and name is obscene. george 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn; keep. DarthVad e r 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod contested. {{notability}} & {{expand}} tags removed (several times). Author has yet to address concerns about meeting WP:CORP, either by maintenance tag in the article or messages to user talk page. Latest addition, "Firstrade advertises that both market orders and limit orders can be traded for a flat $6.95 commission fee" reads like a blatant advertisement. "Firstrade Securities" seems like it might be notable, but I don't know enough to expand the article and the article creator seems to reject any notion of meeting Wikipedia guidelines. Scientizzle 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Thank you for the comments. We've made the content less "advertisement-like". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstrade ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Each album could be listed on the Hole page. This is not notable. george 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deoete. W.marsh 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Deletedb empty, no sign of expansion,merge would be good too.-- AeomMai 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete vanity spam. probably WP:CORP. Also attempted to do an end-run around the NP patrol by abandoning the originally created New Video Group Inc. and recreating it here. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is Mary Cheney's partner; no assertion that she has done anything notable other than being Mary Cheney's partner NawlinWiki 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as advertisement, WP:SPAM. See other contributions by creator: [55]. mtz206 ( talk) 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There's absolutely no source for this; one's [57] given in Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game), but it's a GameFAQs topic which seems to go by the reasoning "This is real, trust me! :O"; such a source is fleeting anyway (no GameFAQs topic stays around forever), but that's just unreliable. I don't believe it, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... maybe when there's a better source. Shadow Hog 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising for non-notable company. Haakon 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Weekly local talk show on Christian radio station; nonnotable NawlinWiki 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article can never be more than a dictionary definition and thus should be deleted as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. RicDod 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable pornographic actress, doesn't meet WP:PORN_BIO. feydey 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to speedily keep. Wrong forum as per discussion. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Doesn't even have the potential to be a popular search title. The second name isn't capitalized. Marcus 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks very unencyclopedic to me and almost seems like an online discussion. It is written in the first person and often talks about personal computer game experiences from the author. -- CapitalR 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
not notable. george 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, they admit only having about 100 members and only being a place to chat. Irongargoyle 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nonnotable Indian company NawlinWiki 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Person obscure not well known enough to be included in wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by User0007 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was speedy delete (A6/A7). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Character assassination; claims of fraud but no reference to conviction; references are to forum posts Gtoomey 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SM
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:WEB Non-notable website/podcast, 83 hits in Google excluding blogs. John Nagle 21:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No references even assert notability, let alone demonstrate it. "prod" was deleted by the article creator, so we have to do this the hard way. -- John Nagle 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Just an advertisement, plain and simple. Might or might not be notable, but with content of that sort I'm not inclined to check thoroughly. Delete for needing total rewrite in any case. Deleted via PROD, now recreated. Sandstein 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete ( CSD A7) – Gurch 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable online movie group zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Spam written in second person, even. TheProject 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Article needs better evidence of notability and could use a rewrite to de-brochureise it, but the consensus for Keep seems clear to me. Agree with Alphachimp's (et al) criticisms of the article as it is now, and if it isn't fixed in a few months, that's certainly reason to renominate, but the consensus is clear to me at this time. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Moving nomination from the CFD page. The original nomination is below - EurekaLott 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The page describes a commercial software product and was probably set up by the developer itself --> misplaced advertising Naui 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be someone's small, personal company. I can find no proof of its notability, and indeed, no notability is asserted. Ashenai 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Consensus seems clear here, article is not merely a POV fork but does have information not in the main article. Nothing stopping the nom from proposing a merge later. Aside: I like how the cleanup tags make a neat stylistic pyramid... but maybe they're not all needed any more. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A POV fork with more dispute tags than references. Cleanup, frankly, will probably never happen. Deltabeignet 22:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. The article needs massive cleanup but the artist seems notable, the later keep comments make the case quite cogently and one of the deletes changed their thinking... seems consensus for keep to me. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
doesn't meet WP:MUSIC Rockero 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete It's really hard to tell if he meets
WP:MUSIC, but from the limited amount of information that is floating around, it doesn't appear to be so.
Yanksox 22:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
:Actually, he totally doesn't meet
WP:MUSIC, I was just trying to find the notability of the record label and yeah...
Yanksox 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. No evidence of notability. Game servers don't typically get WP articles. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable... -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable album by a non-notable band. -- Danielrocks123 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Consensus seems clear. No significant evidence of notability, use in media such as newspapers would be better than "small websites". Will userify on request. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Author has repeatedly removed SD tags. Author has only one source for the word, and that source is a personal website. Feel free to speedy this article. I'm posting it here because the speedy tag has been removed several times. Rklawton 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page appears to be a promotion for an economic development scheme, rather than an explanation of a geographical term that is already in common use. I have lived in Cambridge since 1998 and I read the local newspapers and newsgroups, but while I am well aware of Oxford-Cambridge academic links and the term "Oxbridge" I have never heard mention of an "Oxford-Cambridge Arc". Benhutchings 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keeping. I'm taking "already realized I made a mistake" as a tacit request to withdraw the AFD. That, combined with two speedy keeps, is good enough for me. If he wants to renominate it, then so be it. -- Golbez 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. One, only Apure links to it. Two, judging by Google it's not a very noteworthy city. Three, I believe a red link would spur editors to create a stub or perhaps even an article more noteworthy than this one... With love, Jobjörn ( Talk | contribs) 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE — Wh o uk ( talk) 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable IRC channel advertisement — Aiden 16:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Richardcavell 03:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dingo Industries is a multi-national conglomerate is intended for global domination of whichever market it enters as well as to create profit for its owners. Isn't that pretty much the goal of every company? Too bad this one only gets three Google hits. Non-notable company, advertising. The "About" link on their official website links to this Wikipedia article. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, without prejudice against recreation, as long as the editor is neither the subject nor a sockpuppet. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Originally prodded for deletion, but the subject himself, User:Klnorman took it off. I suppose the question is whether he meets the professor test or not. I don't typically like to delete things, but because Kent took it off the delete list himself, I'd really like the community to look at this one. The reasons Ifnord added the proposed deletion tag were as follows:
"Non-notable. ~ 800 Google hits (First two entries are here and mirror site) and fails professor test. Also vanity... Ifnord 03:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)" reply
Sparsefarce 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC, almost eligible for speedy deletion if not for the mention of an "independant label" that Google doesn't know about [66] (edit:bit misleading, there's actually one valid link to myspace and 3 unrelated links), anyway, author removed the "notability" template I added, so I don't expect he would leave a {{ db-bio}} tag either. Equendil Talk 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity, advertisement, contains almost no useful information, not notable, wikipedia is not a travel guide... Richardcavell 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable - if giving money to worthy causes provides notability then my grandmother has an equal claim! BlueValour 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, pulls up a few hundred hits on Google but none of them do more than mention the company in passing.
Aplomado
talk 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, see below.
Aplomado
talk 01:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 05:50, 20 June 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}} . |
As a rule, I don't think information about dining conditions or arrangements at any particular university are at all notable, and this article certainly doesn't assert notability in any way. Also, it's most likely original research, and it is certainly entirely unsourced. -- Captain Disdain 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Whether On Your Feet should be merged into Spoken (band) is a debate that can be made outside of this AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Also their non-notable record On Your Feet Nv8200p talk 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. I hope this doesn't discourage the new users from contributing to Wikipedia, but please note that AfDs are not about counting votes, it's about forming consensus among Wikipedia editors. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:04, 20 June 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}} . |
Video game mod that hasn't even been released yet, thus I don't think it could have achieved any sort of notability standard. Delete. Wickethewok 23:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
no·ta·bil·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "notability" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-bl-t) n. pl. no·ta·bil·i·ties
1. The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice. 2. A prominent or notable person.
This modification is eminent in the modding community, never dropping below fifth on the top 100 half life 2 mods list on moddb. There have also been two magazine articles that found the mod to be worthy of notice. If you have a problem with the mod being free and not a commercial production, then maybe you can understand that it was included in publications that are sold commercially. This mod is very prominent even without being released, which is saying something don't you think? The fact that NMRIH can attain so much publicity and support without even being released yet shows how notable the soon to be released game is. I don't know why people have it out for this article, but there are literally thousands of other articles that are less notable than this. - Bizarro1
The result of the debate was KEEP — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable movement. No Google hits. Has remained a stub since creation on 29 April. — Aiden 17:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This relisting has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism as they seem likely to be in good position to evaluate. GRBerry 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Survivor 15 is not even guarranteed to happen. It hasn't been announced and applications aren't up yet. Unlike Survivor 14, which is definatly happening since there are applications for it on Survivor application page on CBS.com, Survivor 15 may not happen, which is why I'm proposing this page for deletion. The entire page is one sentence: CBS Has Ordered Survivor 15, It Should Premiere In Fall 2007. I would not even put an expand tag because it hasn't been ordered, so it's wrong info, and "it should" sounds like the person that put it in really wasn't sure. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball If there is a Surivor 15, I will re-create the page with the basic info that you find out from the application form on CBS.com. To see what the basic info is look at Survivor 14, which I created. All info is from the application form. TeckWiz Talk Contribs Guestbook 23:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actor. Has appeared in minor roles in a variety of TV shows and movies. Fails WP:BIO. Little biographical information is available. What information is available (birth and death dates) is disputed. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a nonsense page. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Chipka 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to speedily keep. Wrong forum as per discussion. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Doesn't even have the potential to be a popular search title. The second name isn't capitalized. Marcus 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to speedily keep. This should be taken to WP:RFD. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. No one will ever type this into the Wikipedia search engine. They should know the full name. Marcus 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Morgan Wick 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be someones joke page. ScottNestle 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Metamagician3000 10:58, 19 June 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 hate to AfD an article right after the subject's died, but this page seems to be a memorial. It was created just after the death, and is the only page the author has edited. I don't think the subject is notable, but I'm hoping some people who know more about computers than me will have some more informed opinions. I'll abstain, for now. djrobgordon 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Banana04131 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep, This was a person who was a well regarded technical expert in the Mac community. He co-wrote the authoritative technical book for Mac OS X Server. At the time of his death he was employed by Apple as a consultant in Japan. He was a former Apple employee who Apple regarded high enough to actually hire as a consultant (something Apple rarely does). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.58.160 ( talk • contribs)
He seems to be notable enough to have an effect on society through computer software, if not than might as well get rid of people like Charles O'Hea who ever he is. Enlil Ninlil 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity entry, entirely non-notable: googling "josh mcfarland" poker turns up one college link 2005 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
this doesnt look like itll ever be encyclopedic even with a lot of work. just a list of instructions at the moment. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Searching for "Mark Ballard" "tier ethics" is a google wack, only shows the wikipedia page; searching for "tier ethics" with google gives 53 hits, most of which use the concept in a different way that use in the article. -- Koffieyahoo 01:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement, fails WP:CORP. mtz206 ( talk) 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Here's the scoop They will be the first accredited spa in the US within the next month or so...which they believe will start a trend that will revolutionize the spa industry...that's all I got folks. Thanks again for the input. Awennar 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Accredited by IMAPC (see article...there is a link). Apparently they are "the" accreditation organization for legal mail-order pharmacies and medical spas in the USA. They perform extrememly rigorous off- and on-site inspections depending on certain criteria..... Awennar 22:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be a vanity band page and does not meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Bumm13 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Song only appeared on an album, not a single -- Koffieyahoo 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. Mo0[ talk] 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Protologism. Though defined as a standard by the "International Intangible Management Standards Institute" (which itself doesn't seem very notable [9]), the term doesn't appear to have caught on. Google search returns no hits for this term that correspond with this definition [10]. Article created by User:Kenstandfield whose primary edits lately have been to promote himself, his books, and his institute. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related Protologisms:
Please discuss all 4. Thanks -- AbsolutDan (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable theory by a non-notable engineer (just tagged that nn-bio); no interest in this theory beyond the publications of the author. Sdedeo ( tips) 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as advertisement. Fails WP:CORP (despite being "heralded as the first of its kind in Queensland." -- mtz206 ( talk) 01:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable Band Alan 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-published comics, nonnotable NawlinWiki 01:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged as a {{ prod}} as a non-notable website. Tag removed without explanation by original creator of article. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB. Only 5 ghits. Agent 86 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
(Record playing.) Please read WP:WEB and the article. Webby == automatic "keep". Sdedeo ( tips) 22:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me. Frankly, it's now got to the stage where the creator of this crap is being disruptive (he's done it a lot more than once), which I can consider vandalism, which shall be speedied. Proto|| type 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, content in article is largely false. (May meet speedy deletion criteria.) -- ChrisB 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Discusses the act of inverting the colors in an image. I don't know as much about computers as some people do, but this sounds unencyclopedic. Hasn't seen a single major edit since it was created a year ago. See also negative (photography). -- Smack ( talk) 02:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is basically just one sentence at the beginning, a list of ingredients, and two uses for this medicine, and it all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle — M e ts501 ( talk) 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. — M e ts501 ( talk) 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. — M e ts501 ( talk) 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
advertisement, POV Luigivampa 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No information given about notability, site has a low Alexa ranking. If his song was chosen this may be notable, but it wasn't. Crystallina 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients two uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. — M e ts501 ( talk) 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article does not establish any grounds for notability, seems to fail WP:BIO Yamla 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
From time to time, I have come across articles with links to this page, which is written in a vainglorious fashion. Checking the "What links here", I went through the pages where it was listed and investigated whether it would be appropriate to link to a badly written article. The link was something copied and pasted in as it fell out of format with all other links in the "See also" sections of the various pages. Ignoring that aspect, it fell totally out of place when considering the content of the various articles (palaces, new construction, etc) and I thought it appropriate to remove the link case by case. Each case proved to necessitate the removal of the link. The article itself really should be deleted. It is unencyclopedic and even if expanded, it isn't a notable topic. The vague term "castle preservation" redirects to it, created by the creator of the Castles Society page himself. I consider the page to be an advertisement and Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. Some of the pages that formerly linked are below:
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Last AfD had absolutely no hint of discussion whatsoever and resulted in a soft redirect, which I don't find appropriate. Anyways, the soft redirect was reverted because the transwiki move apparently wasn't done properly. It's since been done. TheProject 02:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable primary school with no professed achievements. BlueValour 02:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable primary school with no listed achievements. BlueValour 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Two extracurricular activities at a school (apparently in Hong Kong); school clubs are nonnotable in themselves NawlinWiki 02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Yoshi's Story. JPD ( talk) 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Second nomination, but first under new title. I argue that even if tech demos were applicable to be articles, consider this - it may be that this is a notable tech demo, but it is also another thing - a port. It is known that it is Yoshi's Story, and thusly, like any other port, should not be included as its own page. If the Breath of Fire Game Boy Advance port does not warrant its own page, then even if a tech demo was deserving of being its own article, it's the same as Yoshi's Story, but on a different system. The article should be deleted, as it is an obscure title that people will likely not visit. It does not need any more mention than on Yoshi's Story's page. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like original thought &/or opinion. It is *not* one of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points as stated in the article. I can't think of how to edit this into something usable. NawlinWiki 02:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual/possible vanity Alan 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Leads to a small set of private servers of no great significance; vanity article -- DarkLordSeth 02:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete This is clearly an advertisment. information written and sourced entirely by company. Librarianofages 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G4, already deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Too trivial Geopgeop 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete with witty Family Guy reference. DS 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Mentioned only once on an episode of Family Guy; doesn't warrant its own article — №tǒŖïøŭş 4lĭfė ♫ ♪ 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page has been on WP:PNT for two weeks, and only the first couple of lines are in English (added by someone other than the author, apparently.) From what I can read in the article, this person is a DJ, and is notable if the claims in the article are true (but they're unsourced.) Unless someone is willing to translate this and elevate it above the vanity it looks like right now, I think this should be deleted, without prejudice towards recreation (in English.) Grand master ka 03:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
not notable; one of the least notable Duke basketball players in recent memory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedog423 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a barely anthing more than an elaborate dictionary entry. To make matters worse, it was created by Ray Crowther, the same person who invented the word just two years ago. A google search for the term turns up only 167 results, and the article also seems to be doing some advertising for http://pegularity.org.uk/ which isn't even worthy of an Alexa rank. -- Hetar 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete ( CSD A8) – Gurch 11:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Lack of notability Article is the summary of one band's history. See WP:MUSIC for policies on bands. Interlingua talk 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article seems to have been created for the sole purpose of creating a "counter" to the New anti-Semitism article. It consists entirely of OR (such as the false claim that 'Classic anti-Semitism refers to the the political right's attempts to ..." as well as "Examples" which are irrelevant to "Classical anti-Semitism Isarig 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was boldly redirected by User:Kevin1243 to sex organ. Proto|| type 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic article on a slang term. History shows that it's already been transwikied to Wiktionary, and I can't see how it can be made into a useful encyclopedia article. Warpstar Rider 04:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is minutiae about some multiple-unit housing complex, is in no way encyclopedic. Bumm13 04:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily kept after the article has been rewritten to be about the actual person. Any debate about whether he is encyclopaedic would go through a seperate AFD (and I don't think it will, though) Proto|| type 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This page is about Edgar Winter, not Chuck Ruff. There is no need to move the article, however, because the page Edgar Winter is identical. -- Danielrocks123 04:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was other consensus to delete, but as this has been merged to Shorewood, Wisconsin apparently, we need to preserve the article history so I'm redirecting there. W.marsh 00:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, we've gotten to the point where we need a vote to decide whether the neighbourhood pharmacy is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Harr o 5 04:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename and Keep Eluchil404 05:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete original research. -- Danielrocks123 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I've "Moved" Gated Reverb to Gated reverb as that's the concensus of just about everybody & it makes sense. I've done a little bit more cleanup but I'm not best qualified to do this so it's over to the community. I'm new to this stuff, how long before we lose the deletion tag?
Megamanic 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Are there very many articles about individual games? I'm a big college sports fan, but I have a little problem with recaps of individual games other than maybe national title games. Even then, if we're talking basketball, there's an article on each year's tournament itself, so you don't really need a separate article about the game. (Also, please note that this article is about the women's basketball championship game, so it should probably be renamed if it is kept.) I will not oppose a speedy keep if there is otherwise overwhelming consensus for a keep ... I just think that individual game articles set a dangerous crufty precedent (as much as I hate that word). BigDT 04:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted as apparent hoax. DS 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no such 'golden age' known or recognised by Mayanist scholarship- 1st C. AD would place this in the preclassic era, and there's nowhere near enough known about the details of this period to support any such claim. If not an actual hoax or piece of fiction, it is possible that this is some poor distillation of some LDS account somewhere speculating about this period/region. Even if so, it is better covered somewhere like Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, but I really don't see anything salvagable or sensible here. Delete, as unverified, not useful, and wrong. cjllw | TALK 04:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me. That's right, I'm being bold. It's a hoax, it's A7, and if there is a claim to notability, it's a hoaxy one, and I chose to ignore any such claims for the greater good. Proto|| type 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article about a musician included various faked references (for example, a link to an article in Rolling Stone which turned out to be about a completely different band), which have since been removed from the article. This leaves the rest of the article as unverifiable, vanity, and/or a hoax. I can't find any evidence that this person satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off Puente, where his band's article has been submitted for deletion too. I recommend a delete. -- Metropolitan90 04:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. I noticed the redlinked AFD and that an IP user User:213.122.69.118 had added it to the list and tagged the article with a prod (rather than an AFD). I switched it to an AFD and created this page. As for looking at the article itself, it certainly appears to be more than a vanity page ... can someone familiar with British politics comment on whether this is a real/notable individual or just someone's wishful thinking? No vote. BigDT 05:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I was unable to find prominent news reports or academic papers not associated with Ken Standfield, who is credited with creating the term(and who wrote the article). Therefore, I judge it to be a neologism which has failed to catch on in the wider world of economics, and it's inclusion in Wikipedia to be an attempt at self-promotion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - already at bs:Riblja čorba. - Mike Rosoft 06:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page has been on WP:PNT for the required two weeks. It is about a band. I believe it's in Bosnian. Unless this wall of text is translated and the band is notable, this should be deleted. Grand master ka 05:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a repost. It was largely similar, though this version was longer; the last sentence was the same in both, "the band's future is unknown." Well, duh. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't see how this band meets any of the notability requirements listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music), also no listing on allmusic.com.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Tom harrison as {{db-repost}} material. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It was deprodded, then tagged for speedy with the justification that it violated WP:BEANS and had been deleted before, though I can find no evidence of the latter in the deletion log, so I'm bringin it here. I think the original prod tag is good: Wikipedia is not a game guide. This appears to be original research, which violates official policy. Chaser T 07:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The title itself is POV - "revealed" is a theological term. The article appears to be entirely original research with no sources given, and only one POV represented throughout. From the layout it appears to be a college essay. There are already several related articles, eg Holy Spirit, Acts etc. I suggest anyone with an interest in the article merge any material they feel is important into other articles; then it can be deleted. David L Rattigan 07:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as vandalism. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a poorly-written article which serves little purpose and is plagued with violations of the NPOV. It also uses made-up words and has little reason for existance, as it does not provide a lot of factual information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickv111 ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 13 June 2006
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boring Business Systems) close dno consensus, but all five "keep" voters were later found to be probable sockpuppets of a single editor (now indef-blocked), no editor in good standing with a real edit history voted keep, and several advocated deletion. This article seems to exist solely to allow a small group of people to poke fun at the domain name (the company was founded by a Mr. Boring, incidentally, in case you were wondering). Just zis Guy you know? 08:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Got the {{unreferenced}} tag weeks ago, but no reliable source were given. Note that the linked article from the Time Magazine doesn't use the term "Asian supremacy". A careful web search turns up Wikipedia and mirrors, some forum postings and places where the words are used in another meaning (most often supremacy within Asia, like "India's South Asian supremacy remains intact.")
Delete as original research and neologism.
Pjacobi 09:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. DS 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, page was created simply for self-promotion, text is taken almost entirely from http://profiles.takingitglobal.org/maulikbaxi Travelbird 10:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Default action is merge to Wellington High School Deathphoenix ʕ 00:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable and uneeded for such a small thing so delete. Matthew Fenton ( TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, do we need an article about a baby?. Matthew Fenton ( TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients and a few uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. — M e ts501 ( talk) 11:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement, and is a list of ingredients and a few uses for this medicine which all looks like it came off the side of the medicine bottle. — M e ts501 ( talk) 11:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unmaintanble spam magnet.There are millions of websites, and tens of thousands that could be described as notable. Category:Websites is quite adequate. Previous nomination ( here) was closed as no consensus, with some reservations. Ezeu 11:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk) 13:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Third place finisher in the National Spelling Bee? NawlinWiki 11:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. Fails WP:CORP. mtz206 ( talk) 12:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article repeats objectivity (philosophy), which itself states that it is "concerned by epistemic and metaphysical discussions of objectivity", the possibility and the various ways (according to different domains - objectivity in physics is not the same as that in history) according to which objectivity can be achieved. It is a pure artificial distinction to radically separate the philosophical discussion of objectivity to other general objectivity articles, since philosophers discuss about this general sense of objectivity. The nature of an objective reality, Kant's distinction between noumenons and phenomenons, the Hegelian dialectic about the spirit and history, marxist materialist conception about reality (necessarily historic reality), is an ontological discussion, which could maybe be better carried on at the being article. If it is decided to be kept to the "objectivity (philosophy)" article, as well as the "propositions" subsection, this doesn't mean that it is necessary to create again ten thousands articles about objectivity in specific fields. The "objectivity (philosophy)" article should be used for a general discussion of objectivity in all fields. Philosophy is not, by definition, radically distinguished from "non-philosophical" topics, such as history, journalism, etc. Henceforth, to avoid noise and multiplication of articles, it would be wise to delete this one, and find a solution for the repeat of a general discussion on objectivity on the objectivity article and the objectivity (philosophy) article. Lapaz 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not encylopaedic - seems more suited to urbandictionary.com Gordonross 22:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if this website is important enough to have an article -- Snailwalker | talk 15:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The whole article seems as if it were written by a studio executive. It also represents crystallballism. Ohyeahmormons 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to Greenside, Gauteng. JPD ( talk) 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject too trivial. Xhin 22:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Closed as this is a copyright violation and as such should not appear on AfD. Copyvio tagged as material lifted from [23]. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Unstable use of article. Please write something without copyright violations. LILVOKA.
Keep Than use the "Re-write tag" or "copyvio" or "clean-up". He IS notable. Lajbi 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Borderline violation of WP:NOR and non-notable. Google brings up a very small 110 results. — CRAZY` (IN)` SANE 09:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete ( CSD G1) – Gurch 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECTED. Mo0[ talk] 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is basically an advert and I don't see any other purpose unless it has an important history. Delete Palexandridis 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The reason this article should be deleted is because this article is written regarding someone who has a specific talent and achievement that does not yet merit a page on Wikipedia. There are other students who gain a high caliber of achievement locally, nationally, and internationally, and Wikipedia's policies do not allow a page about them to be published. Danielb087 10:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Elections in India. TigerShark 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was originally marked for merging with Elections in India. However, not all the information was notably related to Elections in India. I've moved the significant information into the main article ( Elections in India) and have marked this page for deletion. -- Chez ( Discuss / Email) • 09:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is vain and not necessary on wikipedia
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Subject is non-notable. Produces only three google hits on "Jewish Camps Association" [24], including the site itself. Jens Nielsen 13:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. feydey 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as Yet another minor music journalist. Greil Marcus he's not. Deprodded on grounds Greil Marcus isn't the cutoff point for journalists, and article asserts regular appearances in major media. This latter point is true as this google search confirms (~600 hits) [25], but is simply organising a symposium (and hence enjoying the brief spotlight of media exposure) actually synonymous with notability? He is an Assistant Professor of Recorded Music. Eusebeus 23:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
the article itself says that the term is not used much. Google agrees, giving it 38 unique hits. delete Wh e re (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. It looks like Learncasting was already deleted per this AfD, but Podagogy was not. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is nothing but a dictionary definition (and a made-up, neologistic one at that), plus a barrage of spammy podcasting links. Delete the damned thing, as this is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary or a linkfarm. Proto|| type 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Second place finisher at national spelling bee -- notable? See above discussion of Saryn Hooks. NawlinWiki 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable hosting service. Haakon 14:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE (userfied to User:Cole8865). TigerShark 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sure if it qualifies as a speedy (says he's a famous architect), so I decided to revert my own deletion and bring it here. Highly unlikely to meet WP:BIO. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity, non-notability, resume. Interlingua talk 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Well-written and interesting article; unforunately, it's also probably false. Google turns up nada when on both him and Emily Dean (also submitted for deletion) when "-wikipedia" is added. The submitter, ShahXerxes, submitted both of them at once. His main other notable contribution was to defend another article that may have been written by him or a compatriot: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_H._Robertson
Seems like we have one intelligent ringleader, and his (school?) friends. The topic in both is Australian. It's probably of the same variety.
Note that if these two are deleted, the Cainites Category will also be empty. SnowFire 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN-Bio; spam. Userfy or delete. Lupo 15:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
- Hi guys, Sorry I am going to get my agent to do this properly and cite references etc I rushed in a little too eager. Will be sorted within next couple of days - Thomas Cester
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability, advert. Uses (crystal ball) to talk about future notablity, which it clearly lacks now. Interlingua talk 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Listing here because it has an AfD template on it. I gather that there is a notability concern, but I don't have an opinion on the matter. iMeowbot~ Meow 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article for non-notable and insignificant product. Reads like advertising copy, and appears to have sole non-minor contributor as developer of product. Steven Fisher 16:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. I will consider userfying this to User:Lessirkm if Matthew requests it, but only if he becomes at least a semi-active user on Wikipedia. Deathphoenix ʕ 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Page fails WP:BIO in regards to, "architects...whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." There is no indication of that, the only notable thing that he did was enter the contest to design the new WTC towers [35]. Also, I have the question the purpose of this article when the creator of the article has this edit, Delete as non-notable. Yanksox 16:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
List of the 'best' socialites. Probably falls under WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV. Deprodded by author with explaination "Real list please do not delete." given in article. Matt Eason 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject doesn't seem notable, and it reads like an advertisment. RedRollerskate 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Kindergartens are non-notable and this looks a particularly unremarkable one. BlueValour 16:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable piece of quackery that has no relevant citations and no verifiability to the claims made in the article. Delete as spam. JDoorj a m Talk 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Elementary Schools are not notable. -- Danielrocks123 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following schools for deletion for the same reason. -- Danielrocks123 16:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Kindergartens are non-notable and this one professes no achievements. BlueValour 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Y.Ichiro ( 会話| +| 投稿記録| メール) 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following schools for deletion for the same reason. -- Danielrocks123 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Elementary schools are not notable. -- Danielrocks123 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A DRV consensus found that the previous AfD on this subject was improperly closed. The article is resubmitted to AfD for evaluation of verifiability and notability. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 05:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be just a list with no other context Pat Payne 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by request of creator; left talk page. — brighterorange ( talk) 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an attempt at getting consensus on the first paragraph of the Abortion article, with plenty of discussion on the talk page. While the discussion should probably be preserved somewhere, I don't think this belongs in the main article namespace. I suggest moving this somewhere under the talk page for the main abortion article. Hirudo 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. -- 9 cds (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't actually feel this article should be deleted - I'm the editor who created it. However, Sunholm first listed it as a speedy candidate (which was rejected by Kungfuadam) and has now prodded it. I outlined on its talk page the reasons why I feel the article establishes the subject's notability - most markedly by being a lead character in two notable TV series and being in a band that had four top twenty UK hit singles. I don't feel a simple prod is fair, since the rationale I outlined has been ignored, so I've brought it to AfD to establish consensus. Seb Patrick 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Group doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, not notable group. feydey 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No real point to this article. If someone wants to know the korean names for those seas, all they have to do is go to those seas' artilces. Each of those three seas lists the korean names. I can't see the purpose to this page. Masterhatch 17:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonsense neologism, only 29 Ghits and only relevant ones are for this page and its mirrors NawlinWiki 17:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete no notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be non-notable (fails WP:MUSIC). Page contributor removed PROD tag from article. -- Chet nc (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, default action is to merge the list back to List of Portable Software. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is a list of non-notable games, full of spam links to game sites, these games are not portable. digital_m e( Talkˑ Contribs) 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was not even funny. DS 05:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like a pretty blatant hoax to me Irongargoyle 17:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is about a small K-8 school in Van Nuys, CA, which seems completely un-notable — Ryan McDaniel 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Accurizer 18:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not (yet) an etymological dictionary. Does not appear that there's enough info to make a move to Wiktionary useful either. Hirudo 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete all of the above and 95% of articles that start with "List of" BigDT 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising copy for non-notable product. Steven Fisher 18:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising copy for non-notable product. See also: OmniPeek & AiroPeek, additional advertising copy by same author for related products. Listed separately. Steven Fisher 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough. Delete or merge into List of Starfleet ship classes. Also, there is a spelling error in the title. Philip Stevens 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable vanity entry RedRollerskate 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, child of two celebrities. Has one acting credit, in a movie with her parents. Google search mostly turns up their bios. Ckessler 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Adcruft about a non-notable product RedRollerskate 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A8 - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism - 3 Google hits. The only English-language hit does not relate to the term as defined in the article. Perhaps there exists some published work on this that isn't on the Internet..? Rklawton 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Kindergarten to 1st grade with no obvious redeeming features. BlueValour 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to segregated cycle facilities. Two contributors (TedE and SPUI) have hinted that something here might be worth adding to that article. In case that is true, and because redirects are cheap, I will preserve the history. The last version of the article may be viewed here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not an article; it is a collection of disembodied arguments and rebuttals not attributed to any people. Thus, they are not facts and cannot be verifiable. Maybe an article can be made for this topic, but the current contents are unsalvageable. — brighterorange ( talk) 19:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete Wald (onomastics) wasn't included formally in this afd so it stays, I suggest WP:PROD-ing it if anything. W.marsh 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per talk page, extreme form of listcruft - irrelevant, obscure subject, without hope of rescuing page into anything suitably encyclopaedic DWaterson 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep, nominator has voted keep and there have been no other delete votes. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, and name is obscene. george 19:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn; keep. DarthVad e r 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod contested. {{notability}} & {{expand}} tags removed (several times). Author has yet to address concerns about meeting WP:CORP, either by maintenance tag in the article or messages to user talk page. Latest addition, "Firstrade advertises that both market orders and limit orders can be traded for a flat $6.95 commission fee" reads like a blatant advertisement. "Firstrade Securities" seems like it might be notable, but I don't know enough to expand the article and the article creator seems to reject any notion of meeting Wikipedia guidelines. Scientizzle 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Thank you for the comments. We've made the content less "advertisement-like". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstrade ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Each album could be listed on the Hole page. This is not notable. george 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deoete. W.marsh 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Deletedb empty, no sign of expansion,merge would be good too.-- AeomMai 19:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete vanity spam. probably WP:CORP. Also attempted to do an end-run around the NP patrol by abandoning the originally created New Video Group Inc. and recreating it here. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is Mary Cheney's partner; no assertion that she has done anything notable other than being Mary Cheney's partner NawlinWiki 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as advertisement, WP:SPAM. See other contributions by creator: [55]. mtz206 ( talk) 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There's absolutely no source for this; one's [57] given in Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game), but it's a GameFAQs topic which seems to go by the reasoning "This is real, trust me! :O"; such a source is fleeting anyway (no GameFAQs topic stays around forever), but that's just unreliable. I don't believe it, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... maybe when there's a better source. Shadow Hog 19:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising for non-notable company. Haakon 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Weekly local talk show on Christian radio station; nonnotable NawlinWiki 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article can never be more than a dictionary definition and thus should be deleted as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. RicDod 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable pornographic actress, doesn't meet WP:PORN_BIO. feydey 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was to speedily keep. Wrong forum as per discussion. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Doesn't even have the potential to be a popular search title. The second name isn't capitalized. Marcus 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks very unencyclopedic to me and almost seems like an online discussion. It is written in the first person and often talks about personal computer game experiences from the author. -- CapitalR 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
not notable. george 20:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, they admit only having about 100 members and only being a place to chat. Irongargoyle 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nonnotable Indian company NawlinWiki 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Person obscure not well known enough to be included in wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by User0007 ( talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was speedy delete (A6/A7). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Character assassination; claims of fraud but no reference to conviction; references are to forum posts Gtoomey 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SM
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:WEB Non-notable website/podcast, 83 hits in Google excluding blogs. John Nagle 21:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No references even assert notability, let alone demonstrate it. "prod" was deleted by the article creator, so we have to do this the hard way. -- John Nagle 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Just an advertisement, plain and simple. Might or might not be notable, but with content of that sort I'm not inclined to check thoroughly. Delete for needing total rewrite in any case. Deleted via PROD, now recreated. Sandstein 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete ( CSD A7) – Gurch 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable online movie group zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Spam written in second person, even. TheProject 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Article needs better evidence of notability and could use a rewrite to de-brochureise it, but the consensus for Keep seems clear to me. Agree with Alphachimp's (et al) criticisms of the article as it is now, and if it isn't fixed in a few months, that's certainly reason to renominate, but the consensus is clear to me at this time. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Moving nomination from the CFD page. The original nomination is below - EurekaLott 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The page describes a commercial software product and was probably set up by the developer itself --> misplaced advertising Naui 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kusma (討論) 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be someone's small, personal company. I can find no proof of its notability, and indeed, no notability is asserted. Ashenai 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Consensus seems clear here, article is not merely a POV fork but does have information not in the main article. Nothing stopping the nom from proposing a merge later. Aside: I like how the cleanup tags make a neat stylistic pyramid... but maybe they're not all needed any more. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A POV fork with more dispute tags than references. Cleanup, frankly, will probably never happen. Deltabeignet 22:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. The article needs massive cleanup but the artist seems notable, the later keep comments make the case quite cogently and one of the deletes changed their thinking... seems consensus for keep to me. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
doesn't meet WP:MUSIC Rockero 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete It's really hard to tell if he meets
WP:MUSIC, but from the limited amount of information that is floating around, it doesn't appear to be so.
Yanksox 22:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
:Actually, he totally doesn't meet
WP:MUSIC, I was just trying to find the notability of the record label and yeah...
Yanksox 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. No evidence of notability. Game servers don't typically get WP articles. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable... -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 22:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable album by a non-notable band. -- Danielrocks123 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Consensus seems clear. No significant evidence of notability, use in media such as newspapers would be better than "small websites". Will userify on request. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism. Author has repeatedly removed SD tags. Author has only one source for the word, and that source is a personal website. Feel free to speedy this article. I'm posting it here because the speedy tag has been removed several times. Rklawton 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page appears to be a promotion for an economic development scheme, rather than an explanation of a geographical term that is already in common use. I have lived in Cambridge since 1998 and I read the local newspapers and newsgroups, but while I am well aware of Oxford-Cambridge academic links and the term "Oxbridge" I have never heard mention of an "Oxford-Cambridge Arc". Benhutchings 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keeping. I'm taking "already realized I made a mistake" as a tacit request to withdraw the AFD. That, combined with two speedy keeps, is good enough for me. If he wants to renominate it, then so be it. -- Golbez 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. One, only Apure links to it. Two, judging by Google it's not a very noteworthy city. Three, I believe a red link would spur editors to create a stub or perhaps even an article more noteworthy than this one... With love, Jobjörn ( Talk | contribs) 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE — Wh o uk ( talk) 08:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable IRC channel advertisement — Aiden 16:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Richardcavell 03:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dingo Industries is a multi-national conglomerate is intended for global domination of whichever market it enters as well as to create profit for its owners. Isn't that pretty much the goal of every company? Too bad this one only gets three Google hits. Non-notable company, advertising. The "About" link on their official website links to this Wikipedia article. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, without prejudice against recreation, as long as the editor is neither the subject nor a sockpuppet. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Originally prodded for deletion, but the subject himself, User:Klnorman took it off. I suppose the question is whether he meets the professor test or not. I don't typically like to delete things, but because Kent took it off the delete list himself, I'd really like the community to look at this one. The reasons Ifnord added the proposed deletion tag were as follows:
"Non-notable. ~ 800 Google hits (First two entries are here and mirror site) and fails professor test. Also vanity... Ifnord 03:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)" reply
Sparsefarce 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC, almost eligible for speedy deletion if not for the mention of an "independant label" that Google doesn't know about [66] (edit:bit misleading, there's actually one valid link to myspace and 3 unrelated links), anyway, author removed the "notability" template I added, so I don't expect he would leave a {{ db-bio}} tag either. Equendil Talk 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity, advertisement, contains almost no useful information, not notable, wikipedia is not a travel guide... Richardcavell 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable - if giving money to worthy causes provides notability then my grandmother has an equal claim! BlueValour 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, pulls up a few hundred hits on Google but none of them do more than mention the company in passing.
Aplomado
talk 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, see below.
Aplomado
talk 01:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 05:50, 20 June 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}} . |
As a rule, I don't think information about dining conditions or arrangements at any particular university are at all notable, and this article certainly doesn't assert notability in any way. Also, it's most likely original research, and it is certainly entirely unsourced. -- Captain Disdain 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Whether On Your Feet should be merged into Spoken (band) is a debate that can be made outside of this AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Also their non-notable record On Your Feet Nv8200p talk 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. I hope this doesn't discourage the new users from contributing to Wikipedia, but please note that AfDs are not about counting votes, it's about forming consensus among Wikipedia editors. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:04, 20 June 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}} . |
Video game mod that hasn't even been released yet, thus I don't think it could have achieved any sort of notability standard. Delete. Wickethewok 23:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
no·ta·bil·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "notability" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-bl-t) n. pl. no·ta·bil·i·ties
1. The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice. 2. A prominent or notable person.
This modification is eminent in the modding community, never dropping below fifth on the top 100 half life 2 mods list on moddb. There have also been two magazine articles that found the mod to be worthy of notice. If you have a problem with the mod being free and not a commercial production, then maybe you can understand that it was included in publications that are sold commercially. This mod is very prominent even without being released, which is saying something don't you think? The fact that NMRIH can attain so much publicity and support without even being released yet shows how notable the soon to be released game is. I don't know why people have it out for this article, but there are literally thousands of other articles that are less notable than this. - Bizarro1
The result of the debate was KEEP — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable movement. No Google hits. Has remained a stub since creation on 29 April. — Aiden 17:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This relisting has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism as they seem likely to be in good position to evaluate. GRBerry 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Survivor 15 is not even guarranteed to happen. It hasn't been announced and applications aren't up yet. Unlike Survivor 14, which is definatly happening since there are applications for it on Survivor application page on CBS.com, Survivor 15 may not happen, which is why I'm proposing this page for deletion. The entire page is one sentence: CBS Has Ordered Survivor 15, It Should Premiere In Fall 2007. I would not even put an expand tag because it hasn't been ordered, so it's wrong info, and "it should" sounds like the person that put it in really wasn't sure. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball If there is a Surivor 15, I will re-create the page with the basic info that you find out from the application form on CBS.com. To see what the basic info is look at Survivor 14, which I created. All info is from the application form. TeckWiz Talk Contribs Guestbook 23:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — Wh o uk ( talk) 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actor. Has appeared in minor roles in a variety of TV shows and movies. Fails WP:BIO. Little biographical information is available. What information is available (birth and death dates) is disputed. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply