The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-noteable FlareNUKE 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. At one level this is a cop-out decision, but I have not based it purely on the fact that we have many and strong voices on both sides. There's more to it than that. The issue here is whether a new article should be split off from the existing article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) (I'll call this "the main article"). On one side, it is argued that the main article has become too long and is imbalanced by a very long section relating to criticisms and responses. The editorial strategy is to move this material to a new article, with a much briefer account retained in the main article and a link to the new one. On the other side, it is claimed that the relevant material should be kept in the main article for completeness and ease of access, and that any new article will thus be an unnecessary duplication. Those who oppose the new article, or at least some of them, also say that the editorial strategy of splitting off a new article is actually a bad-faith attempt to make criticisms of Randian Objectivism less prominent on Wikipedia. I am not prepared to draw the inference that anyone is acting in bad faith, though it is clear that some people are quick to assume bad faith in others. It seems to me that either editorial strategy could work and that neither has a complete consensus. However, it can certainly be said that the splitting action has not been taken against any consensus on the talk page of the main article. It was approved by a majority of people discussing it there. I am not prepared to draw the inference from the material available at an AfD that there was an actual consensus to split the articles but nor am I prepared to conclude that the majority view in favour of doing so was a bad-faith attempt by an unprincipled group to railroad a principled minority. I recommend that before any further AfD, which is likely to be just as inconclusive, all involved in the underlying dispute should seek mediation of it as soon as reasonably possible. I also note that the issues are complex and that all involved in the mediation should understand that it will take time and be difficult. Nonetheless, it is the only sensible course of action that I can see. I am not a mediator, but I am prepared to assist informally in any way I can. I have some familiarity with Rand's work, know a lot about legal and political philosophy, and am neither attracted by Rand's ideas nor especially hostile to them. However, I'm sort of on a wikibreak right now, and will be physically away from my computer for most of the next two to three weeks. In that time, the parties should be able to find a competent mediator. I'll see if there's anything I can do when I get back. Metamagician3000 01:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a POV fork from Objectivism (Ayn Rand), which was created against consensus. Historically, the last time the criticism was removed from the main article into a fork, the result was that the main was whitewashed while the fork was eventually deleted, with the net effect of censoring the main. This is yet another effort, as demonstrated by the uniform support given by those who are fans of Rand and the uniform protest by everyone else Al 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert for nn company / product. Author removed prod after a minor copyedit. Deizio talk 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. DS 20:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Is this guy notable enough? RedRollerskate 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Xoloz. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was previously (and erroneously, but in good faith) nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: "original research, potentially infinite, unencyclopedic, inherent npov problems, American bias, etc." While it's not exactly speedy criteria, it's a great reason to have it deleted via the consensus process. —
THIS IS MESSED
OCKER
(TALK) 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable actress (fails WP:BIO): only relevent google hit seems to be a couple forums (and a hit at youtube) [4]. This article tries to piggy-back on the popularity of YouTube itself -- AbsolutDan (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article revised please revote. -- Mlle reisz
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G4 ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer) Naconkantari 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I can find no google references and no references under the list actors/producers/writers. Kershner 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NN This article does not assert the importance or significance of the topic. A music camp is not notable simply for being a music camp, it must have encyclopedic content to be included. Kershner 02:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Barebones list, pointless with the existence of the category. Was Afd'd before, and hasn't been touched since. ' ( Feeling chatty? ) ( Edits!) 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 22:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Quoting from Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." This is exactly that. See Michael (disambiguation) and note that no list of people with that given name exists there. Kershner 03:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As the merge proposal points out, this duplicates an existing article. However, there is no info here not already in the other article and a google search for movicast only gets 70 hits. The only place it is used as in the article are the article and its mirrors. The only reference given is a broken link. Given this, I believe a delete is more appropriate. Ace of Sevens 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as it contained no context. (aeropagitica) (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I have no idea what this page is talking about. Perhaps it's nonsense? — M e ts501 ( talk) 04:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. — ERcheck @ 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, vanity Nv8200p talk 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting the comments by the sockpuppet, and after carefully looking at each comment, I find the consensus, votes, and comments are stronger for deletion than for keeping the article. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:FICT Character which appears in one comic book vaguely associated with Star Wars. John Nagle 04:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics. Same result as for a bunch of similar pages. ImpuMozhi 00:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod, deprodded by me, because of my previous experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages. Prod reason was "Not notable. Arbitrary criteria. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." I agree, and let me add to that: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is totally unverified, and the amount of individual separate verification it would need makes it arguably original research. Furthermore, we have the sidebar for all the relevant pages linking to wikis in other languages. Mango juice talk 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. I voted keep and cleanup in the last AfD, and might have voted again this time, but the consensus to delete is pretty clear. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I have several reasons for nominating this.
For all these reasons, delete. Mango juice talk 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Previous nominations VfD, 1st AfD
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No text, page made because some images were deemed too strong for main article. This is not a valid reason since Wikipedia is not censored. Also other ways around this are presently available, see autofellatio Joelito ( talk) 04:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Then delete it why don't you! It will be back someday whether you like it or not. Complete Neologism - zero Google hits not counting Wikipedia. This is not the place for made up crap. Save that for the Advomentaries. Rklawton 05:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced dicdef, should be deleted or transwikied. Speedy filed in March, deprodded without comment or explanation. RGTraynor 05:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is nothing but a blow-by-blow plot summary of a handful of Blizzard-made downloadable Starcraft missions. It's absolutely excessive plot summary (failing WP:FICT miserably), and has no merge target I can think of. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable attorney, created originally by User:Boblittle, indicating vanity. I think only especially notable lawyers deserve articles. AdamBiswanger1 05:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was recreated after it was deleted on a previous AFD. Not notable. Has a bunch books that never sold. - Ganeshk ( talk) 06:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article on Babu Gogineni was originally contributed by me, user:Skollur. But another user with a similar userid, user:S_kollur started a malicious campaign alleging that I am none other than Babu Gogineni himself. Believing this allegation, a wikipedia administrator User:Gurubrahma categorized the article as one for deletion as it is an autobiographical article.
Though I think that Babu Gogineni is a notable person, other wikipedia users may not think so. Let there be a democratic decision on this point and then decide whether this page should be kept as it is, in a modified form, or deleted completely. Whith this intention I replace the template. Skollur
This article as well as an interview in the newsletter that he edited later, it is claimed that he is the Founder-General Secretary of Rationalist Association of India. Is this correct? In the web site of IHEU where he was employed for nearly 10 years, there are announcements about the 75th anniversary of Rationalist Association of India at Thiruvananthapuram in the year 2006. See links [12] [13]
That means Rationalist Association of India was founded somewhere near the year 1930. How did he become the founder general secretary of it decades before his own birth?
I am a rationalist. Still I vote for deleting this article.
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Very non-notable fansite. Does not meet WP:WEB or any other form of notability check, hence violating the whole Wikipedia not being a web directory thing. Does not show up in the first 5 pages of Google results for bionicle, unlike another fansite that has so far been accepted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Look. I hate arguments and most of all, fights, so:
The result of the debate was Already speedy deleted. — ERcheck ( talk) @ 08:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article. Kf4bdy 07:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. DS 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
essay that fails NPOV Nuttah68 07:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Company does not seem to meet WP:CORP, and has less than 100 Google results. It's an obvious advertisement. I don't know if it meets CSD, and attempts at prodding have been resisted, so here be the AfD. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, in addition, references not provided per Mikka's request. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable Benjaminstewart05 07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Del Foreign dicdef. A Slavic word for medicineman and nothing more. `' mikka (t) 08:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Spamming of original research. User has spammed this content to several other articles also. Barrylb 08:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, per author's request. -- Joanne B 10:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears non-notable; only three google hits. -- Robert Merkel 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
IN REPLY FROM AUTHOR
this story has been published. If you do a google search as simply "Island of Mogulus", you get the following result [15] I sat with the author of the book today and spent 4 hours on this entry. please provide advice as to what needs to be done to comply. I would be more than happy to do so.
I am the original author of the flagged entry and used the authors' name to sign up. But it was my idea to post the article for him. Glenn King
IN REPLY FROM AUTHOR
this is not a fanfic. reading the article would have shown you would know this.
As per the fact that the author doesnt' have an Isbn number, there are articles on this site that I have read that have not been flagged about things as irrelevant as FORUM THREADS. this led me to believe this site was something it is not.
I also suggest if articles like this are irrelevant, and editing is so reversible, to hold higher standards as per who gets to edit and who gets to create articles.
I am the original author of the flagged entry and used the authors' name to sign up. But it was my idea to post the article for him.
Glenn King
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. She ran in the "Democratic nomination for Governor for the State of Oklahoma" in 1986, and got 4 % there. In other words, not close to being a holder of public office. 28 Google hits. Punkmorten 08:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This list is not useful. "They usually have high quality beaches, a hot climate, and they are known to produce many varieties of exotic fruits and vegetables." Punkmorten 08:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. No one wants this deleted, thank goodness. As it is, we have a 60% vote for merge, but I'm going to exercise a bit of discretion here -- the Chairman is a very important person, and a frequent spokesperson for the US military. In my view, Jayzel's points are well-taken, so I'll keep outright. Xoloz 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
this article is a almost exact duplicate of what is already written in Joint Chiefs of Staff#Chairman A mon avis, there is no point in having two articles listing the same things. Knows it all 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Defeated city council candidate with only limited claim to notability apart from that; page created by User:Goldlist and hence most likely WP:VANITY. Previously had a {{ prod}} notice on it, which was removed by an anon IP with no discussion or reason given. Delete, sez I, though I'd settle for a userfy, too. Bearcat 08:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted -- cesarb 00:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Only author of the page, Joe Chick ( contribs), has tagged it for AfD, but never completed this article, so I have tagged it for Speedy db-author. Fan1967 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert and not a notable company Benjaminstewart05 09:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was moved to correct location. Vary | Talk 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
unnecessary quotation marks. I copied the article to Programming the Universe, linked this page, as it was an orphaned page, to the article Seth Lloyd. Now there are two articles with the same content, "Programming the Universe" and Programming the Universe and I'd propose the former to be deleted. VStM Mari 09:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant adcruft; created by user with same handle as owner of spectrumology.com CH 09:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Another NN child actor. Has a few film credits, but these are in bit parts. Has a handful of TV credits as well. Besides these credits there is no biographical infomation available. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO in my books, nn voice actor and casting director with most of the work related to the Survivor tv series, and only 137 ghits. It may deserve some minor mention in the main Survivor article, but otherwise a clear case of survivorcruft. -- Arnzy (whats up?) 11:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy and delete. I moved the text to a subpage of the user's page and left a message. Hope that will be it. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn bio BillC 11:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 12:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Xoloz 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local politician. Does not meet notibility under WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge tags added. This AfD has inadequately addressed the question of whether an article on a "film" distributed via the Internet with no third-party sources and no assertion of notability belongs anywhere in an encyclopaedia, and I am not prepared to call this a 'keep somewhere' consensus. We'll see if someone actually cares enough to merge the material, and whether it sticks. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Film made by "a group of citizens" in response to a documentary on Hugo Chavez, found only on Google video; nonnotable NawlinWiki 12:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
possible vanity page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daviddariusbijan ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Kimchi.sg 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sure how to handle this one (or the redirect Dr. Brian J.G. Pereira). Questionable notability and article appears to be largely lifted from this website: [18]. Medtopic 05:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete Non notable site. Author has removed three speedy templates Nuttah68 13:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep nom withdrawn Eluchil404 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I found this as a speedy delete and changed it into a redirect to
Flag. That was reverted so I tried a Prod but that was removed. I don't think there is a need for an Islamic flag article that is seperate from Flag. This material right now is original research, has no references and and seems a bit POV. Also a lot of the information does not seem to have anything to do with Islamic flag. Delete or if someone thinks that any of the material is salvageable then merge into flag.
CambridgeBayWeather
(Talk) 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
--Sadullah 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
--Sadullah 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
--Sadullah 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Sadullah (Talk) 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 13:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable blog, c. 100 Google hits. Essentially an advertising/vanity page. GregorB 13:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete them all. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, not verifiable, depends on definition of typicallity. I can't see a speedy deletion category that would satisfy this, so am bringing it to afd. Inner Earth 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnotable MMORPG private server. This article is essentially advertising. Legend of Mir 2 is certainly notable, but an illegal server running out of some guy's bedroom isn't. — Xezbeth 14:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
With the ammount of vandalism this page is recieving it would probably be in everyones best interests to Delete. — TheStinger
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article doesn't assert notability, and I don't think that the person yet satisfies the requirements for notability, having not yet played professionally. Benjaminstewart05 14:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Original reasoning was that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which still holds. This is an article concerning the usage of a single word of German, a topic much better discussed at wikt:zwo. Delete. Angr ( talk) 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography. Delete — M e ts501 ( talk) 14:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to Yahoo!, nothing to merge. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a bad idea, but it couldn't have been more poorly implemented if they tried. Stev0 15:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge merge tags are up and someone has indicated they will do the merge. W.marsh 13:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN band, doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC Wildthing61476 16:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
(Alleged) terrorist that was assasinated by Israel by involvement in the Munich attacks. There are so few English results on google for him though, that I think that is his only claim to notability. There were plenty of terrorists who attacked Israel - I think including all of them if they are not otherwise notable would be glorifying them. -- Where is Where? 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Changed to merge This guy appears to be more notable than initially thought but I'm still not sure this guy needs his own article unless there is more to say on him. Ydam 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet another nonnotable corporate vanity page NawlinWiki 15:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This 1-sentence, 1-ref article on a band, that only says that they were 'popular", was PRODed under A7. It was de-prodded on the basis that it has a single reference. I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including sufficient multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is for the soundtrack that doesn't yet exist for a movie that doesn't yet exist that if it actually occurs will be released straight to video. Not Notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kershner 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, with weak arguments on both sides and no significant majority in numbers. Although those arguing for deletion haven't responded to the references presented, as none of the information Hiding presented is actually used in the article it's unclear how they will affect it. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a vanity article promoting a comic book published by the editor. While my first thoughts were that making it a stub may be more appropriate, other similar articles created by the editor ( Allen Freeman and Fan-Atic Press) seem to have been simply deleted. While I can't seem to find any evidence of them anymore on Wikipedia, I'm sure they existed, as the content still seems to be mirrored on other sites. Dancter 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not particularly notable internet radio show. No claims of notability, press coverage, etc... My vote is clearly delete. Wickethewok 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable road. Last section (Einstein & 100 sexiest roads!) obviously made up. Lancsalot 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
i believe this to violate WP:BAND and to be supporting itself with an intricate network of other NN articles W guice 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
seeming nn, but wrote a famous book (needs verification). Speedy was contested. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable bio Lewispb 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW Eluchil404 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As an encyclopedia wikipedia shouldn't have a page for every referee no matter how popular the sport. Only notable individuals should be given a biographical page. Kode 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Reasons to delete far outweigh the (lacking) reasons to keep. Having other useless articles is never a good reason for an useless article to be kept. And J.smith's request for it to be kept if an article doesn't already exist is negated by the wonder that is Category:Mathematics, probably the most complete category I've ever just looked up to see what was on it, and its subset dedicated to this, Category:Mathematical logic. Proto/// type 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Basically an empty list that has not changed since October 3, 2005. Deprodded by User:Freakofnurture. — M e ts501 ( talk) 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Proto/// type 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per WP:SPAM and WP:CORP, only 812 Google results, prod was contested-- ☆ TBC ☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge to Load (album). Proto/// type 12:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod, deprodded by me; prod concern was for notability of the song. The article claims it received attention for its use of a guitar slide in the guitar solo (no source for this), which is a kind of notability I hadn't seen a debate on, so I brought it here. No vote from me. Mango juice talk 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete - no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form. Reasons to delete (that pesky WP:NOT) were far stronger than reasons to keep ('I think it should be kept', 'weak keep', 'keep although it needs substantial work'. I've dumped a copy in Omagh Bombing/names, if anyone wants to use the information. Proto/// type 12:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WikiP' is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article clearly is. Paul Carpenter 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedied twice at Mego inc. Founded last summer, planned product launch in October. Author/cofounder of the company disputes deletion, see talk. Bringing here to gain consensus. Vary | Talk 16:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Proto/// type 12:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject seems non-notable and books do not exactly appear to be bestsellers from Google results. - Tangot a ngo 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for deletion by Nuwewsco ( contribs). Comment on talk page is "Spam for www.petrolprices.com"'. Just completing the nomination. No Vote. Fan1967 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable commercial outlet, non encyclopedic content. Bob 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Not really suitable for automatically userfying, as he didn't make it himself. Proto/// type 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It is an obvious vanity page created by user 'mcbroom'. It needs to be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wihut ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet inclusion guidelines at WP:BIO — WAvegetarian• (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. W.marsh 13:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Was prodded, editor removed prod without explaination now comes to Afd, nn notable film not yet released googled as in production, no Alexa traffic rank.-- Dakota ~ 18:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete if this content does get merged somewhere let me know so I can undelete the history. W.marsh 13:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This concept exists only within a not (or marginally) notable fringe theory, how to fuel cars with water. Please delete, eventually adding a line to History of perpetual motion machines. -- Pjacobi 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Fang Aili, recreated, re-speedied by me and then protected. It's time this three ring circus left town. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Most of the text came from Kopa. Also, I can't find any reliable information about this Lion King character. Starionwolf 18:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. lots of ghits for "wunderland" none of which are this company. Fails WP:CORP, no evidence of notability in the article -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I just can't see how this passes WP:CORP. UsaSatsui 19:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. No ghits except mirrors of us. Consensus seems clear, funny comments or no. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dyslexia makes no mention of this variant and a quick search on the internet also turns up nothing. I think that this is not a recognised variant and hence is not worthy of an encyclopaedia article RicDod 19:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as whatever that CSD is that is all internal or external links. Kotepho 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Totally inappropriate use of wikipedia. We do not need a list of 36,000 redirects. Nor do we need a list of lists of redirects that together constitute 36,000 redirects. Clinkophonist 19:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Its a list of 2000 articles. All of which are redirects to Gospel of Matthew. Clinkophonist 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so notable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so notable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention added well after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention added well after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention added well after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. 20 ghits for this term. No evidence of notability in the article. Consensus here is clear. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non Notable? You decide. Use Google. Igotsomeapples 19:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. consensus is clear. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
List, non-encyclopaedic, pointless. BlueValour 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I prodded for lack of assertion of notability. Prod removed with comment that hosting notable artists confers notability. I dissagree; notability is not gained by association with notable people. Fails WP:ORG Eluchil404 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 13:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable product, article apparently created by the product's creator. Vanity/spam/advertisement — C.Fred ( talk) 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete- csd g7-- Kungfu Adam ( talk) 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't find any evidence that this radio station ever existed. Appears to be pure conjecture. -- Bill (who is cool!) 20:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. But as this page is on info pre-1987, and is thus very likely to come up with google hits etc, this doesn't mean that verifiability can be ignored - otherwise we'll be in a situation where any old rubbish can be added, and people can claim it was from before the Internet. I will tag the article as requiring citation and get in touch with the article creator. Proto/// type 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Just another non-notable company, has very very few Google results to boot. Cyde↔Weys 20:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable political movement, and WP is not a soapbox or forum for political discussion. mtz206 ( talk) 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to King Kong Lives. Kimchi.sg 01:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is just weird. The movie described in this article doesn't exist, so it seems to be some sort of strange joke/hoax. -- Hetar 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It is a non-fiction, but highly personal essay. Reads like something from a College Creative writing class. No sources are cited, and its not really noteworthy either. V. Joe 20:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete both. Kimchi.sg 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn high school television production. User:Zoe| (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
What should be done to fix the article in order to keep it?, I can assure you this is no joke. - Gategoer 06:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn slang term that gets 26 Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like an advert, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria (on self-produced EP and website downloads), originator removed {prod} notice and then added link to band's website. Delete -- Karada 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was punch out of existence. Kimchi.sg 01:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is about a type of punch that seems to be used over a very limited geographic area by very few people. In addition it is also completely unverifiable. RicDod 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Restaurant in Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario. The article claims that it is well-known, but I doubt it is outside of the area since google returns only about 20 hits for "Real McCoy's" +Scarborough. -- Where is Where? 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is about a small internet business that does not seem to meet the standards for inclusion laid out at WP:CORP. In addition the page seems to have been created as an advert. RicDod 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete to purge copyvio and redirect to adultery. Kimchi.sg 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the place for religous tracts. V. Joe 21:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. W.marsh 13:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Total advert. Brad101 21:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Just an entry on a game that somebody made up. It is nn. -- Where is Where? 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy / deleted (as it's been transwiki'd). Proto/// type 13:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Transwikied to the Latin wikisource. The stuff in the article that isn't source text is original research. TheProject 21:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. 93 ghits. Fails WP:WEB. no evidence of notability in article, no independent sources. -- + + Lar: t/ c 03:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable online game. Their website has an alexa rank of 462,356. Only ranked #28 at the Mud Connector, which means they don't even have enough users to stack that vote until they can get into the top 10. No reliable sources exist for the game and there has been no significant press coverage. While there is no WP:MUD criteria, this is fails both WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE which are the two most appropriate critera. -- Hetar 22:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) FL has been above top #10 on Mud Connector many times, just because they are now does not means nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mya231 ( talk • contribs) . reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a POV FORK of Olivet discourse (aka 'eschatological discourse'). Clinkophonist 22:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus - default to keep. The arguments for keep/merge/delete are equally persuasive. Kimchi.sg 01:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Only 1 known copy in existence by Matt V. Why does this deserve an article, then? User:Zoe| (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, page was nominated in error. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty disambiguation page. Ilse@ 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete This article does not require AfD, it contains no content whatsoever, criteria for speedying.--
The ikiroid (
talk·
desk·
Advise me) 22:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
This article was blanked as an act of vandalism. The nominee accidently listed it. Please withdraw this Afd.-- The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Artists' collective; article doesn't assert sufficient notability NawlinWiki 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax article, no such religion exists. Only non-WP Google hit is this, which lambasts Wikipedia (in Finnish) for allowing such garbage. Jpatokal 22:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep nomination withdrawn Eluchil404 02:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
While the subject appears to have a claim to notability, none of the content can be cleaned-up nor can any of the content be verified due to the original article being written in broken English (mixed in German words). After attempting to clean the document twice, I have come to the conclusion that it cannot be salvaged without being forced to guess as to the actual meaning. Google searches did not yield enough information to correct factual inaccuracies nor validate existing facts. In the simplest terms, delete per Verifiability and Unreadable/Unusable content Kershner 22:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article says he wrote a book and started a graphics studio, but I can't find anything on the website to indicate that either he or is studio is notable. The original article was created by an anonymous user and included an amazon.com affiliate link that included the name of the studio. This made me think it is a vanity article. Wmahan . 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. TigerShark 21:20, 22 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}} . |
A list of very minor characters in the Animal Crossing series. This is very heavy on game-guide content ("You can do this, you can do that"), but if the game-guide content were removed, there wouldn't be anything but a list of character names and one- or two-line descriptions. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - There's a lot you can write about the characters (especially since they talk a lot about their past in Wild World), the article just needs more work done. SNS 23:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep the page, but edit it a little, and restore the free-standing K.K. Slider entry. Just my opinion. K.K. Slider was a nice entry. Why make it only a redirect? little otik 02:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - Agree with SNS, more work needs to be done, however, the characters, in the game, are hardly minor.
ThatSandersKid 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Keep. There is no POV or cruft in describing, say, Tom Nook's store, his personality, etc. I think it's silly to try and delete a list of characters - especially considering the series is massively popular. And to Shadoman, they are not notable enough of characters to warrant their own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
JadeGryphon (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no information on this page that couldn't or shouldn't be on the pages of the three players discussed. Moreover, If you ask one million people what you are referring to when you say "Holy Trinity" not one is going to answer "Baseball shortstops." This was a usage that had a very brief window and was not particularly widespread.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
List; non-encyclopaedic; pointless BlueValour 23:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Advert Brad101 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Xoloz 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A DRV consensus permitted this new recreation to replace an article previously deleted at this title. This article is referred to AfD for a determination of its encyclopedic suitability. As this recreation is new, no reference need be made to the previous AfD debate. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate collection of data, nothing but external links. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete per nom.
BlueValour 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC) In view of below; vote withdrawn while I think this through some more .
BlueValour 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)OK, Keep for the moment. This could prove a useful resource. It can be revisited in a few months to see if it has been completed.
BlueValour 23:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Hezbi Wahdat. Kimchi.sg 01:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is POV! Besides that, there is already an article called Hezbi Wahdat. Tājik 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Makes no claims to notability Pugs Malone 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Almost certainly a hoax. The references appear to be bogus. See the attempts on the talk page to establish the existence of the references with scanned and doctored images. Quite funny actually. Nesbit 01:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-noteable FlareNUKE 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. At one level this is a cop-out decision, but I have not based it purely on the fact that we have many and strong voices on both sides. There's more to it than that. The issue here is whether a new article should be split off from the existing article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) (I'll call this "the main article"). On one side, it is argued that the main article has become too long and is imbalanced by a very long section relating to criticisms and responses. The editorial strategy is to move this material to a new article, with a much briefer account retained in the main article and a link to the new one. On the other side, it is claimed that the relevant material should be kept in the main article for completeness and ease of access, and that any new article will thus be an unnecessary duplication. Those who oppose the new article, or at least some of them, also say that the editorial strategy of splitting off a new article is actually a bad-faith attempt to make criticisms of Randian Objectivism less prominent on Wikipedia. I am not prepared to draw the inference that anyone is acting in bad faith, though it is clear that some people are quick to assume bad faith in others. It seems to me that either editorial strategy could work and that neither has a complete consensus. However, it can certainly be said that the splitting action has not been taken against any consensus on the talk page of the main article. It was approved by a majority of people discussing it there. I am not prepared to draw the inference from the material available at an AfD that there was an actual consensus to split the articles but nor am I prepared to conclude that the majority view in favour of doing so was a bad-faith attempt by an unprincipled group to railroad a principled minority. I recommend that before any further AfD, which is likely to be just as inconclusive, all involved in the underlying dispute should seek mediation of it as soon as reasonably possible. I also note that the issues are complex and that all involved in the mediation should understand that it will take time and be difficult. Nonetheless, it is the only sensible course of action that I can see. I am not a mediator, but I am prepared to assist informally in any way I can. I have some familiarity with Rand's work, know a lot about legal and political philosophy, and am neither attracted by Rand's ideas nor especially hostile to them. However, I'm sort of on a wikibreak right now, and will be physically away from my computer for most of the next two to three weeks. In that time, the parties should be able to find a competent mediator. I'll see if there's anything I can do when I get back. Metamagician3000 01:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a POV fork from Objectivism (Ayn Rand), which was created against consensus. Historically, the last time the criticism was removed from the main article into a fork, the result was that the main was whitewashed while the fork was eventually deleted, with the net effect of censoring the main. This is yet another effort, as demonstrated by the uniform support given by those who are fans of Rand and the uniform protest by everyone else Al 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert for nn company / product. Author removed prod after a minor copyedit. Deizio talk 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. DS 20:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Is this guy notable enough? RedRollerskate 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Xoloz. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was previously (and erroneously, but in good faith) nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: "original research, potentially infinite, unencyclopedic, inherent npov problems, American bias, etc." While it's not exactly speedy criteria, it's a great reason to have it deleted via the consensus process. —
THIS IS MESSED
OCKER
(TALK) 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable actress (fails WP:BIO): only relevent google hit seems to be a couple forums (and a hit at youtube) [4]. This article tries to piggy-back on the popularity of YouTube itself -- AbsolutDan (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article revised please revote. -- Mlle reisz
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G4 ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer) Naconkantari 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I can find no google references and no references under the list actors/producers/writers. Kershner 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NN This article does not assert the importance or significance of the topic. A music camp is not notable simply for being a music camp, it must have encyclopedic content to be included. Kershner 02:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Barebones list, pointless with the existence of the category. Was Afd'd before, and hasn't been touched since. ' ( Feeling chatty? ) ( Edits!) 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 22:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Quoting from Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." This is exactly that. See Michael (disambiguation) and note that no list of people with that given name exists there. Kershner 03:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As the merge proposal points out, this duplicates an existing article. However, there is no info here not already in the other article and a google search for movicast only gets 70 hits. The only place it is used as in the article are the article and its mirrors. The only reference given is a broken link. Given this, I believe a delete is more appropriate. Ace of Sevens 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as it contained no context. (aeropagitica) (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I have no idea what this page is talking about. Perhaps it's nonsense? — M e ts501 ( talk) 04:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. — ERcheck @ 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, vanity Nv8200p talk 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, after discounting the comments by the sockpuppet, and after carefully looking at each comment, I find the consensus, votes, and comments are stronger for deletion than for keeping the article. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:FICT Character which appears in one comic book vaguely associated with Star Wars. John Nagle 04:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics. Same result as for a bunch of similar pages. ImpuMozhi 00:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod, deprodded by me, because of my previous experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages. Prod reason was "Not notable. Arbitrary criteria. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." I agree, and let me add to that: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is totally unverified, and the amount of individual separate verification it would need makes it arguably original research. Furthermore, we have the sidebar for all the relevant pages linking to wikis in other languages. Mango juice talk 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. I voted keep and cleanup in the last AfD, and might have voted again this time, but the consensus to delete is pretty clear. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I have several reasons for nominating this.
For all these reasons, delete. Mango juice talk 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Previous nominations VfD, 1st AfD
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No text, page made because some images were deemed too strong for main article. This is not a valid reason since Wikipedia is not censored. Also other ways around this are presently available, see autofellatio Joelito ( talk) 04:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Then delete it why don't you! It will be back someday whether you like it or not. Complete Neologism - zero Google hits not counting Wikipedia. This is not the place for made up crap. Save that for the Advomentaries. Rklawton 05:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced dicdef, should be deleted or transwikied. Speedy filed in March, deprodded without comment or explanation. RGTraynor 05:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is nothing but a blow-by-blow plot summary of a handful of Blizzard-made downloadable Starcraft missions. It's absolutely excessive plot summary (failing WP:FICT miserably), and has no merge target I can think of. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable attorney, created originally by User:Boblittle, indicating vanity. I think only especially notable lawyers deserve articles. AdamBiswanger1 05:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was recreated after it was deleted on a previous AFD. Not notable. Has a bunch books that never sold. - Ganeshk ( talk) 06:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article on Babu Gogineni was originally contributed by me, user:Skollur. But another user with a similar userid, user:S_kollur started a malicious campaign alleging that I am none other than Babu Gogineni himself. Believing this allegation, a wikipedia administrator User:Gurubrahma categorized the article as one for deletion as it is an autobiographical article.
Though I think that Babu Gogineni is a notable person, other wikipedia users may not think so. Let there be a democratic decision on this point and then decide whether this page should be kept as it is, in a modified form, or deleted completely. Whith this intention I replace the template. Skollur
This article as well as an interview in the newsletter that he edited later, it is claimed that he is the Founder-General Secretary of Rationalist Association of India. Is this correct? In the web site of IHEU where he was employed for nearly 10 years, there are announcements about the 75th anniversary of Rationalist Association of India at Thiruvananthapuram in the year 2006. See links [12] [13]
That means Rationalist Association of India was founded somewhere near the year 1930. How did he become the founder general secretary of it decades before his own birth?
I am a rationalist. Still I vote for deleting this article.
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Very non-notable fansite. Does not meet WP:WEB or any other form of notability check, hence violating the whole Wikipedia not being a web directory thing. Does not show up in the first 5 pages of Google results for bionicle, unlike another fansite that has so far been accepted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Look. I hate arguments and most of all, fights, so:
The result of the debate was Already speedy deleted. — ERcheck ( talk) @ 08:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article. Kf4bdy 07:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. DS 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
essay that fails NPOV Nuttah68 07:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Company does not seem to meet WP:CORP, and has less than 100 Google results. It's an obvious advertisement. I don't know if it meets CSD, and attempts at prodding have been resisted, so here be the AfD. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, in addition, references not provided per Mikka's request. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable Benjaminstewart05 07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Del Foreign dicdef. A Slavic word for medicineman and nothing more. `' mikka (t) 08:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Spamming of original research. User has spammed this content to several other articles also. Barrylb 08:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, per author's request. -- Joanne B 10:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears non-notable; only three google hits. -- Robert Merkel 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
IN REPLY FROM AUTHOR
this story has been published. If you do a google search as simply "Island of Mogulus", you get the following result [15] I sat with the author of the book today and spent 4 hours on this entry. please provide advice as to what needs to be done to comply. I would be more than happy to do so.
I am the original author of the flagged entry and used the authors' name to sign up. But it was my idea to post the article for him. Glenn King
IN REPLY FROM AUTHOR
this is not a fanfic. reading the article would have shown you would know this.
As per the fact that the author doesnt' have an Isbn number, there are articles on this site that I have read that have not been flagged about things as irrelevant as FORUM THREADS. this led me to believe this site was something it is not.
I also suggest if articles like this are irrelevant, and editing is so reversible, to hold higher standards as per who gets to edit and who gets to create articles.
I am the original author of the flagged entry and used the authors' name to sign up. But it was my idea to post the article for him.
Glenn King
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. She ran in the "Democratic nomination for Governor for the State of Oklahoma" in 1986, and got 4 % there. In other words, not close to being a holder of public office. 28 Google hits. Punkmorten 08:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This list is not useful. "They usually have high quality beaches, a hot climate, and they are known to produce many varieties of exotic fruits and vegetables." Punkmorten 08:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. No one wants this deleted, thank goodness. As it is, we have a 60% vote for merge, but I'm going to exercise a bit of discretion here -- the Chairman is a very important person, and a frequent spokesperson for the US military. In my view, Jayzel's points are well-taken, so I'll keep outright. Xoloz 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
this article is a almost exact duplicate of what is already written in Joint Chiefs of Staff#Chairman A mon avis, there is no point in having two articles listing the same things. Knows it all 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Defeated city council candidate with only limited claim to notability apart from that; page created by User:Goldlist and hence most likely WP:VANITY. Previously had a {{ prod}} notice on it, which was removed by an anon IP with no discussion or reason given. Delete, sez I, though I'd settle for a userfy, too. Bearcat 08:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted -- cesarb 00:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Only author of the page, Joe Chick ( contribs), has tagged it for AfD, but never completed this article, so I have tagged it for Speedy db-author. Fan1967 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 14:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert and not a notable company Benjaminstewart05 09:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was moved to correct location. Vary | Talk 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
unnecessary quotation marks. I copied the article to Programming the Universe, linked this page, as it was an orphaned page, to the article Seth Lloyd. Now there are two articles with the same content, "Programming the Universe" and Programming the Universe and I'd propose the former to be deleted. VStM Mari 09:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant adcruft; created by user with same handle as owner of spectrumology.com CH 09:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Another NN child actor. Has a few film credits, but these are in bit parts. Has a handful of TV credits as well. Besides these credits there is no biographical infomation available. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO in my books, nn voice actor and casting director with most of the work related to the Survivor tv series, and only 137 ghits. It may deserve some minor mention in the main Survivor article, but otherwise a clear case of survivorcruft. -- Arnzy (whats up?) 11:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was userfy and delete. I moved the text to a subpage of the user's page and left a message. Hope that will be it. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn bio BillC 11:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 12:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Xoloz 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local politician. Does not meet notibility under WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge tags added. This AfD has inadequately addressed the question of whether an article on a "film" distributed via the Internet with no third-party sources and no assertion of notability belongs anywhere in an encyclopaedia, and I am not prepared to call this a 'keep somewhere' consensus. We'll see if someone actually cares enough to merge the material, and whether it sticks. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Film made by "a group of citizens" in response to a documentary on Hugo Chavez, found only on Google video; nonnotable NawlinWiki 12:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
possible vanity page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daviddariusbijan ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Kimchi.sg 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sure how to handle this one (or the redirect Dr. Brian J.G. Pereira). Questionable notability and article appears to be largely lifted from this website: [18]. Medtopic 05:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete Non notable site. Author has removed three speedy templates Nuttah68 13:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep nom withdrawn Eluchil404 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I found this as a speedy delete and changed it into a redirect to
Flag. That was reverted so I tried a Prod but that was removed. I don't think there is a need for an Islamic flag article that is seperate from Flag. This material right now is original research, has no references and and seems a bit POV. Also a lot of the information does not seem to have anything to do with Islamic flag. Delete or if someone thinks that any of the material is salvageable then merge into flag.
CambridgeBayWeather
(Talk) 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
--Sadullah 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
--Sadullah 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
--Sadullah 22:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Sadullah (Talk) 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 13:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable blog, c. 100 Google hits. Essentially an advertising/vanity page. GregorB 13:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete them all. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, not verifiable, depends on definition of typicallity. I can't see a speedy deletion category that would satisfy this, so am bringing it to afd. Inner Earth 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnotable MMORPG private server. This article is essentially advertising. Legend of Mir 2 is certainly notable, but an illegal server running out of some guy's bedroom isn't. — Xezbeth 14:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
With the ammount of vandalism this page is recieving it would probably be in everyones best interests to Delete. — TheStinger
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article doesn't assert notability, and I don't think that the person yet satisfies the requirements for notability, having not yet played professionally. Benjaminstewart05 14:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Original reasoning was that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which still holds. This is an article concerning the usage of a single word of German, a topic much better discussed at wikt:zwo. Delete. Angr ( talk) 14:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography. Delete — M e ts501 ( talk) 14:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to Yahoo!, nothing to merge. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a bad idea, but it couldn't have been more poorly implemented if they tried. Stev0 15:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge merge tags are up and someone has indicated they will do the merge. W.marsh 13:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN band, doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC Wildthing61476 16:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
(Alleged) terrorist that was assasinated by Israel by involvement in the Munich attacks. There are so few English results on google for him though, that I think that is his only claim to notability. There were plenty of terrorists who attacked Israel - I think including all of them if they are not otherwise notable would be glorifying them. -- Where is Where? 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Changed to merge This guy appears to be more notable than initially thought but I'm still not sure this guy needs his own article unless there is more to say on him. Ydam 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet another nonnotable corporate vanity page NawlinWiki 15:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This 1-sentence, 1-ref article on a band, that only says that they were 'popular", was PRODed under A7. It was de-prodded on the basis that it has a single reference. I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including sufficient multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche ( talk) 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is for the soundtrack that doesn't yet exist for a movie that doesn't yet exist that if it actually occurs will be released straight to video. Not Notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kershner 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, with weak arguments on both sides and no significant majority in numbers. Although those arguing for deletion haven't responded to the references presented, as none of the information Hiding presented is actually used in the article it's unclear how they will affect it. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a vanity article promoting a comic book published by the editor. While my first thoughts were that making it a stub may be more appropriate, other similar articles created by the editor ( Allen Freeman and Fan-Atic Press) seem to have been simply deleted. While I can't seem to find any evidence of them anymore on Wikipedia, I'm sure they existed, as the content still seems to be mirrored on other sites. Dancter 18:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not particularly notable internet radio show. No claims of notability, press coverage, etc... My vote is clearly delete. Wickethewok 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable road. Last section (Einstein & 100 sexiest roads!) obviously made up. Lancsalot 19:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
i believe this to violate WP:BAND and to be supporting itself with an intricate network of other NN articles W guice 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
seeming nn, but wrote a famous book (needs verification). Speedy was contested. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable bio Lewispb 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW Eluchil404 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As an encyclopedia wikipedia shouldn't have a page for every referee no matter how popular the sport. Only notable individuals should be given a biographical page. Kode 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Reasons to delete far outweigh the (lacking) reasons to keep. Having other useless articles is never a good reason for an useless article to be kept. And J.smith's request for it to be kept if an article doesn't already exist is negated by the wonder that is Category:Mathematics, probably the most complete category I've ever just looked up to see what was on it, and its subset dedicated to this, Category:Mathematical logic. Proto/// type 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Basically an empty list that has not changed since October 3, 2005. Deprodded by User:Freakofnurture. — M e ts501 ( talk) 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Proto/// type 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per WP:SPAM and WP:CORP, only 812 Google results, prod was contested-- ☆ TBC ☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge to Load (album). Proto/// type 12:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod, deprodded by me; prod concern was for notability of the song. The article claims it received attention for its use of a guitar slide in the guitar solo (no source for this), which is a kind of notability I hadn't seen a debate on, so I brought it here. No vote from me. Mango juice talk 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete - no prejudice against recreation at a later date in a more encyclopaedic form. Reasons to delete (that pesky WP:NOT) were far stronger than reasons to keep ('I think it should be kept', 'weak keep', 'keep although it needs substantial work'. I've dumped a copy in Omagh Bombing/names, if anyone wants to use the information. Proto/// type 12:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WikiP' is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article clearly is. Paul Carpenter 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedied twice at Mego inc. Founded last summer, planned product launch in October. Author/cofounder of the company disputes deletion, see talk. Bringing here to gain consensus. Vary | Talk 16:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Proto/// type 12:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject seems non-notable and books do not exactly appear to be bestsellers from Google results. - Tangot a ngo 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for deletion by Nuwewsco ( contribs). Comment on talk page is "Spam for www.petrolprices.com"'. Just completing the nomination. No Vote. Fan1967 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable commercial outlet, non encyclopedic content. Bob 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Not really suitable for automatically userfying, as he didn't make it himself. Proto/// type 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It is an obvious vanity page created by user 'mcbroom'. It needs to be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wihut ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet inclusion guidelines at WP:BIO — WAvegetarian• (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. W.marsh 13:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Was prodded, editor removed prod without explaination now comes to Afd, nn notable film not yet released googled as in production, no Alexa traffic rank.-- Dakota ~ 18:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete if this content does get merged somewhere let me know so I can undelete the history. W.marsh 13:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This concept exists only within a not (or marginally) notable fringe theory, how to fuel cars with water. Please delete, eventually adding a line to History of perpetual motion machines. -- Pjacobi 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Fang Aili, recreated, re-speedied by me and then protected. It's time this three ring circus left town. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Most of the text came from Kopa. Also, I can't find any reliable information about this Lion King character. Starionwolf 18:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. lots of ghits for "wunderland" none of which are this company. Fails WP:CORP, no evidence of notability in the article -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I just can't see how this passes WP:CORP. UsaSatsui 19:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. No ghits except mirrors of us. Consensus seems clear, funny comments or no. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dyslexia makes no mention of this variant and a quick search on the internet also turns up nothing. I think that this is not a recognised variant and hence is not worthy of an encyclopaedia article RicDod 19:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as whatever that CSD is that is all internal or external links. Kotepho 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Totally inappropriate use of wikipedia. We do not need a list of 36,000 redirects. Nor do we need a list of lists of redirects that together constitute 36,000 redirects. Clinkophonist 19:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Its a list of 2000 articles. All of which are redirects to Gospel of Matthew. Clinkophonist 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so notable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 15:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so notable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention added well after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention added well after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted A3. Kotepho 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a list of non-existant articles. It assumes that every single verse and chapter in the book is so noteable that they each deserve their own articles. Not only are the chapter and verse divisions an invention added well after the bible was written, but most scholars regard treating the verses separately as totally inappropriate and absolutely no self respecting encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Catholic Encyclopedia, Jewish encyclopedia) does so. Clinkophonist 19:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. 20 ghits for this term. No evidence of notability in the article. Consensus here is clear. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non Notable? You decide. Use Google. Igotsomeapples 19:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. consensus is clear. -- + + Lar: t/ c 04:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
List, non-encyclopaedic, pointless. BlueValour 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I prodded for lack of assertion of notability. Prod removed with comment that hosting notable artists confers notability. I dissagree; notability is not gained by association with notable people. Fails WP:ORG Eluchil404 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 13:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable product, article apparently created by the product's creator. Vanity/spam/advertisement — C.Fred ( talk) 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete- csd g7-- Kungfu Adam ( talk) 22:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I can't find any evidence that this radio station ever existed. Appears to be pure conjecture. -- Bill (who is cool!) 20:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. But as this page is on info pre-1987, and is thus very likely to come up with google hits etc, this doesn't mean that verifiability can be ignored - otherwise we'll be in a situation where any old rubbish can be added, and people can claim it was from before the Internet. I will tag the article as requiring citation and get in touch with the article creator. Proto/// type 13:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Just another non-notable company, has very very few Google results to boot. Cyde↔Weys 20:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 02:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable political movement, and WP is not a soapbox or forum for political discussion. mtz206 ( talk) 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to King Kong Lives. Kimchi.sg 01:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is just weird. The movie described in this article doesn't exist, so it seems to be some sort of strange joke/hoax. -- Hetar 20:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It is a non-fiction, but highly personal essay. Reads like something from a College Creative writing class. No sources are cited, and its not really noteworthy either. V. Joe 20:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete both. Kimchi.sg 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn high school television production. User:Zoe| (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
What should be done to fix the article in order to keep it?, I can assure you this is no joke. - Gategoer 06:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn slang term that gets 26 Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like an advert, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria (on self-produced EP and website downloads), originator removed {prod} notice and then added link to band's website. Delete -- Karada 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was punch out of existence. Kimchi.sg 01:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is about a type of punch that seems to be used over a very limited geographic area by very few people. In addition it is also completely unverifiable. RicDod 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Restaurant in Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario. The article claims that it is well-known, but I doubt it is outside of the area since google returns only about 20 hits for "Real McCoy's" +Scarborough. -- Where is Where? 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is about a small internet business that does not seem to meet the standards for inclusion laid out at WP:CORP. In addition the page seems to have been created as an advert. RicDod 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete to purge copyvio and redirect to adultery. Kimchi.sg 01:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the place for religous tracts. V. Joe 21:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. W.marsh 13:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Total advert. Brad101 21:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Just an entry on a game that somebody made up. It is nn. -- Where is Where? 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy / deleted (as it's been transwiki'd). Proto/// type 13:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Transwikied to the Latin wikisource. The stuff in the article that isn't source text is original research. TheProject 21:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. 93 ghits. Fails WP:WEB. no evidence of notability in article, no independent sources. -- + + Lar: t/ c 03:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable online game. Their website has an alexa rank of 462,356. Only ranked #28 at the Mud Connector, which means they don't even have enough users to stack that vote until they can get into the top 10. No reliable sources exist for the game and there has been no significant press coverage. While there is no WP:MUD criteria, this is fails both WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE which are the two most appropriate critera. -- Hetar 22:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) FL has been above top #10 on Mud Connector many times, just because they are now does not means nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mya231 ( talk • contribs) . reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a POV FORK of Olivet discourse (aka 'eschatological discourse'). Clinkophonist 22:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus - default to keep. The arguments for keep/merge/delete are equally persuasive. Kimchi.sg 01:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Only 1 known copy in existence by Matt V. Why does this deserve an article, then? User:Zoe| (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, page was nominated in error. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty disambiguation page. Ilse@ 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete This article does not require AfD, it contains no content whatsoever, criteria for speedying.--
The ikiroid (
talk·
desk·
Advise me) 22:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
This article was blanked as an act of vandalism. The nominee accidently listed it. Please withdraw this Afd.-- The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Artists' collective; article doesn't assert sufficient notability NawlinWiki 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax article, no such religion exists. Only non-WP Google hit is this, which lambasts Wikipedia (in Finnish) for allowing such garbage. Jpatokal 22:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep nomination withdrawn Eluchil404 02:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
While the subject appears to have a claim to notability, none of the content can be cleaned-up nor can any of the content be verified due to the original article being written in broken English (mixed in German words). After attempting to clean the document twice, I have come to the conclusion that it cannot be salvaged without being forced to guess as to the actual meaning. Google searches did not yield enough information to correct factual inaccuracies nor validate existing facts. In the simplest terms, delete per Verifiability and Unreadable/Unusable content Kershner 22:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article says he wrote a book and started a graphics studio, but I can't find anything on the website to indicate that either he or is studio is notable. The original article was created by an anonymous user and included an amazon.com affiliate link that included the name of the studio. This made me think it is a vanity article. Wmahan . 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. TigerShark 21:20, 22 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}} . |
A list of very minor characters in the Animal Crossing series. This is very heavy on game-guide content ("You can do this, you can do that"), but if the game-guide content were removed, there wouldn't be anything but a list of character names and one- or two-line descriptions. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - There's a lot you can write about the characters (especially since they talk a lot about their past in Wild World), the article just needs more work done. SNS 23:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep the page, but edit it a little, and restore the free-standing K.K. Slider entry. Just my opinion. K.K. Slider was a nice entry. Why make it only a redirect? little otik 02:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - Agree with SNS, more work needs to be done, however, the characters, in the game, are hardly minor.
ThatSandersKid 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Keep. There is no POV or cruft in describing, say, Tom Nook's store, his personality, etc. I think it's silly to try and delete a list of characters - especially considering the series is massively popular. And to Shadoman, they are not notable enough of characters to warrant their own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
JadeGryphon (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no information on this page that couldn't or shouldn't be on the pages of the three players discussed. Moreover, If you ask one million people what you are referring to when you say "Holy Trinity" not one is going to answer "Baseball shortstops." This was a usage that had a very brief window and was not particularly widespread.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
List; non-encyclopaedic; pointless BlueValour 23:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Advert Brad101 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Xoloz 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A DRV consensus permitted this new recreation to replace an article previously deleted at this title. This article is referred to AfD for a determination of its encyclopedic suitability. As this recreation is new, no reference need be made to the previous AfD debate. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate collection of data, nothing but external links. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete per nom.
BlueValour 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC) In view of below; vote withdrawn while I think this through some more .
BlueValour 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)OK, Keep for the moment. This could prove a useful resource. It can be revisited in a few months to see if it has been completed.
BlueValour 23:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Hezbi Wahdat. Kimchi.sg 01:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is POV! Besides that, there is already an article called Hezbi Wahdat. Tājik 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Makes no claims to notability Pugs Malone 00:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Almost certainly a hoax. The references appear to be bogus. See the attempts on the talk page to establish the existence of the references with scanned and doctored images. Quite funny actually. Nesbit 01:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply