The result of the debate was delete all three -- Samir धर्म 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mining (RuneScape). Plus, there's an even better article on the RuneScape wiki. -- Ixfd64 00:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD appended to include Woodcutting (Runescape).
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted all as vandalism (or, if you prefer, A7 since claims are non-credible) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 11:06Z
This person does not exist! There is no such thing as the Lord Officer of the Royal Palaces, the Royalty Protection Branch, the Lord Security Officer for Her Majesty Queen, the Lord Security Officer for The Royal Family or the Lord Officer of the Royal Palaces and this and those articles belong in the bin. The 9th Earl of Jersey didn't have a daughter called Sharon, and Lady Sarah Roberts doesn't exist and certainly didn't have any liasion with the 11th Duke of Marlborough. Also, User:Tvaddict and User:Helloamerica are adding crap to British Royalty pages and seem to be the same person. Craigy ( talk) 00:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for non-notable company. Google for tekplus -wikipedia "market intelligence" [1] finds only 34 unique hits, none to reliable sources. It was CSD tagged as "no context" but I decided that there was context in the article and prod'ed it. Prod was contested without explanation. Delete. Kimchi.sg 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 02:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, only a few Google hits. -- Chris (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD G1, even worse than Captain Dan Splashback. Kimchi.sg 02:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, and nonsense. -- Chris (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 02:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and nonsense. -- Chris (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete textbook CSD G1. Kimchi.sg 02:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and nonsense. -- Chris (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Pokémon index, and a vanity article (primary author of the article is also ONE OF the authors of the program). Zetawoof( ζ) 01:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Beta program, not yet released, also per lack of notability on the JDI Network AFD, its parent company. It also reads like an advertisement. Hbdragon88 01:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD G4. Recreation of Standard definitions of terms relating to mass spectrometry, deleted per link below. -- Samir धर्म 02:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A recreation of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_24#Standard_definitions_of_terms_relating_to_mass_spectrometry, POV, not necessary. It is an article about a draft document and concludes that it is a failure. Author has a history of attacking IUPAC and has a beef with the head of the commitee that produced this particular document. Delete P.S. I would also like to suggest banning the author for ongoing POV pushing and abusiveness. Nick Y. 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The article has no sources, failing the policy at WP:V, and the consensus in this discussion is to delete. Hiding Talk 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible Advertisement, little context (Purifying drinks are controversial lifestyle beverages) NMChico24 01:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Sorry, Malvern, but your article is in another Wikipedia. DS 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This chap is just one of thousands of level designers working in the industry - just a regular guy doing a regular good job but no more notable than any doctor, lawyer, teacher etc BlueValour 01:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Shayne van Vlerken and await the deletion of that article. -- RHaworth 01:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising spam, identical text to Shayne van Vlerken Matticus78 01:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 04:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, advertising spam, identical to article
Mhelp which has since been merged.
Matticus78
01:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Also a redirect at
Mr. Shayne L. van Vlerken, inventor Mhelp. --
RHaworth
01:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD A7, and userfied -- Samir धर्म 02:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is self advertising, the user name is the same as the article name SirGrant 01:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 04:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement Nv8200p talk 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Will ( message me!) 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Annual tournament held by a notable organization is not notable simply by association. After deprodded, the dissenter compared the tournament to the World Cup and the Superbowl. The article itself is nothing more than a collection of lists rather than an actual encyclopedia article that could inform people who are interested. If anything, this should be incorpriated into the NCFL article, but it certainly doesn't deserve a page of its own. Delete as listcruft and NN except by association pm_shef 02:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jeeps2009 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Article has no third party sources, required per policy at WP:V. Claims of notability have been made in the discussion, but no sources have been forthcoming. Hiding Talk 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
OK; its a shopping centre - so? NN BlueValour 02:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Alex S as repost. Kimchi.sg 04:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
repost and wikipedia is NOT a site to promote a person or group Betacommand 02:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Many of the keep comments can be discounted on the basis of their being based on the commentors experience rather than applicable policy. The argument that this should be kept because it doesn't fit in the main article is somewhat redundant, if it is POV there then it is POV here. There don't seem to be enough sources to warrant a separate article from the parent, and with the quotations removed from the article, it would be best presented in the main article, giving the information the due weight it deserves. Information which would unbalance a main article by giving it undue weight is considered a POV fork when split out. Hiding Talk 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Collection of source material, mostly by Falun Gong supporters, supporting health benefits. Apart from mostly being just quotes, this is also highly NPOV, and nearly all of it is of questionable notability. It appears that the researchers for the "journal" article are connected with the editors for the page, so there may be WP:VAIN problems as well. Philosophus T 02:51, 24 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}} . |
But it is not cited by this only one as suggested on liebertonline.com.
"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.
Fnhddzs 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
which suggest everybody know practitioners are usually healthy. Fnhddzs 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC) replyAdministrators tell inquirers: "Yes, it will be a Falun Gong, so it will be clean."
202.83.32.153 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC) reply
although science would probably be unable to completely prove health benefits of Falun Gong and qigong practices - since there is still an issue of belief and enlightening - there are at the same time hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases. Alot are also documented as self evident testimonies.
It would be silly to ignore the experience of such a huge number of people just because they hadn't published it in a well known newspaper.
Falun Dafa never bragged about being able to cure people, this is not a main purpose of the practice and there is no need to show those to prove or validate for Falun Dafa. It stands for itself in all its glory and splendor.
For Wikipedia, which aims to have factual information, health benefits surely happened and there is no problem to mention it.
Just my opinion, Kobi Lurie.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kobi_Lurie (
talk •
contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. – Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability asserted. 6 indoor and 8 outdoor courts = not a U of I landmark. Even the campus history link is only a two-liner. (De-prodded without comment, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois tag added.) ~ trialsanderrors 02:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 02:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-witten and un-notable Wikibout 02:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 04:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Platform of Jessica allanic who has just been Speedily Deleted. Non-notable; a massive 1 Google hits! BlueValour 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merged consensus to merge Pegasus1138 Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparent neologism. My attempts to find these supposed references, aside from the single one externally linked to, have turned up nothing. -- InShaneee 03:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As to InShaneee's comment of not being able to find external sources, here are a few pages with rules for textual roleplay fighting, also known as sparring: http://tcmuseum.proboards54.com/ http://circ.lagedorre.net/rules.shtml http://forums.rpgchat.com/showthread.php?t=36375 -- Circ Thursday, June 29th, 2006.
There's two separate communities here, one for roleplaying and the other for sparring. They tend to not mix well. They should be kept separate.
Alighieri
17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Keep (or Merge). The decision to merge or not is left as an editorial decision apart from this AfD. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A local chili restaurant in Kentucky. I cannot think of a reason why this would be notable. GabrielF 03:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete, fails
WP:CORP. --
Coredesat
06:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyright violation. Kimchi.sg 04:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a book summary that currently resembles an advertisment for the book in question rather than an encyclopedia entry. Netsnipe 03:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 11:46Z
Hoax or non-notable. Neither the name of the "popular TV show" nor any of the mentioned characters can be found on Google. [17] Cinnamon42 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted at request of creator - see below. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't see the point of this article - this Index is available from the Dictionary of Australian Biography website linked via the WP article. We don't need to duplicate something done well on a website. BlueValour 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was originally created by user:Alacrainc (the user's only edit). The tone is of a sales brochure, not an encyclopedia article. It has been unimproved in over two months. The Alexa ranking for this company's website has been highly variable but even at it's best never got into the top 20,000 (and currently ranks at 114,114). The company's website reports only that they have received various amounts of venture capital at different times. They do not report revenues but their reported total headcount is a mere 60 employees. I can find no evidence that this company meets any of the recommended criteria at WP:CORP. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable term, Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary SirGrant 04:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game. Article is basically a how-to, which WP is not; article has been around for quite some time, but does not assert significance or notability. Ghits from lists of game sites and various forums and blogs, but no media citations immediately obvious. Paddles T C 04:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but redirecting seems like a good idea. W.marsh 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded once and deleted as "Unnecessary article about an album track that will not be released and contains no information that is not already included in main articles. No scope for growth." It was recreated and re-prodded, but I've removed the re-prod as recreation of a prodded article is an implicit challenge to the original prod. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Kimchi.sg 04:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (and restore redirect). — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
spam advertising of a "new" product. The article page admits its a new PHP product, undergoing ALPHA TESTING! The page used to be a redirect to polybrominated biphenyls. - 70.51.11.132 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete, per Pascal Tesson --
Alphachimp
talk
05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate information. A list of every comics story from every Looney Tunes comic (or, at any rate, it hopes to be such).-- FuriousFreddy 00:45, 24 June 2006
The result of the debate was redirect no real need to delete to do a redirect, unless the redirected article's history needs to go for some reason. W.marsh 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. This is a difficult debate to close, and I will do my best to explain my logic in closing it as "delete." The nomination has been proposed on grounds of non-notability. This is a common accusation against articles which turn up here, and an important one. Articles which fail to establish notability may be deleted even if they are verifiable and referenced. Now, there are four broad categories of "keep" votes present here.
The first asserts that all high schools are notable. One user cited WP:SCHOOL in support of this; this policy was rejected by the community and has no bearing here. Nowhere is there a binding assertion of notability for high schools, as opposed to four-year colleges and universities. No one has linked to any policies or guidelines which would reinforce such a view. The fact that previous articles on high schools are generally kept does not reinforce this debate. Therefore, such an assertion must be treated as a question of personal preference. The second category brings forth news sources to demonstrate notability. These sources discuss the school's construction. While the design of the school is indeed interesting, discussion of said design belongs in an article on urban design trends or architecture. The school itself cannot be notable in this instance simply for being built. Hundreds if not thousands are built or renovated every year; any local newspaper is bound to cover such a thing. There is no demonstrable evidence of wider notability for the school as opposed to the design. The third category is that of utility. Allow me to quote a user: "This is a valuable article for people that live near the school." That may be the case, but utility is not and never has been a reason to keep an article. Plenty of things are "useful." I find the walk-throughs on gameFaqs.com useful, but that doesn't make them worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (not that such a consideration has prevented the ballooning of some game-related articles). The fourth category, finally, is the X, so Y category. Broadly, this is the assertion that because X exists, Y should exist; conversely, if Y is deleted, so should X. This has never been a proper keep/deletion criteria on Wikipedia. An article must stand or fall on its own merits or lack thereof, particularly when X and Y are not remotely similar in scope or quality.
In summation, then, this debate has failed to demonstrate a wider notability for this high school that would at this time merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It is entirely possible that future events will render said judgement obsolete, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Therefore: delete the current article, without prejudice to re-creation. Thank you for your time, and happy editing. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnotable school. Wikibout- Talk to me! 05:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Not a lot of input here, but considering this could probably have been speedied under CSD A3, it goes. Without prejudice for now -- I don't think we have consensus that it's impossible to write a good article on this topic. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As it stands, the article has no information whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 06:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability, no encyclopaedic value. Pascal.Tesson 06:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No apparent notability or encyclopaedic value. Pascal.Tesson 06:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Oldelpaso 08:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be non-notable as per WP:CORP. I believe this is advert. Pascal.Tesson 06:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete redirect possible if anyone's interested, but if you want to merge content from this article let me know as I'll need to undelete the history (we can't really delete AND merge content). W.marsh 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As someone who lives in Montreal, I can attest that this market has little or no notability. Of course, most people in Montreal will know the name but it isn't even close to having any sort of landmark status. Pascal.Tesson 06:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC) For the same reasons, I am also nominating the Marché Maisonneuve article. Note that the Marché Jean-Talon and Marché Atwater articles, in contrast, have some legitimacy as both are considered as fairly important institutions in Montreal. Pascal.Tesson 06:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant spamming of a non-notable company by a sophisticated spammer, with a record of link-spamming, producing promotional articles, uploading logos and even creating promotional categories, and who has used various methods including null editing on their user page (so they appear as a blue link) and removing speedy deletion notices. TheGrappler 06:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant spamming of a non-notable company by a sophisticated spammer, with a record of link-spamming, producing promotional articles, uploading logos and even creating promotional categories, and who has used various methods including null editing on their user page (so they appear as a blue link) and removing speedy deletion notices. TheGrappler 06:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Notability? KsprayDad 07:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 10:56Z
Delete Random fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.-- Orion Minor 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Notablility not asserted. Reads like an advertisment rather than an independant summary of the school... perhaps is just needs a huge overhaul but the way it is now is unacceptable as an Encylopedic entry. KsprayDad 06:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No real notability. Just another summer camp. Pascal.Tesson 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Google indicates this is a non-notable student organization. Less than 70 hits. OCNative 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
High school choir director. Appears to be copied out of a school rag. Assertions of notability are unverifiable. Would they be notable even if they were verifiable?! Medtopic 07:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge all to URJ Camps. I will add the merge tags to the articles, but my role here is just closing the AfD, not doing the merge. I'll leave that to the people active and knowledgeable in editting these articles. W.marsh 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatanly WP:NPOV. No notability, no history (founded in 1999). Sure, it's run by the Union for Reform Judaism, so what? A line in the URJ article will do just fine. Pascal.Tesson 07:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability. Appears copied from something somewhere. Medtopic 07:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Nn-school. Originally deleted as an uncontested PROD and recreated. AmiDaniel ( talk) 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article on an illeagal station that was posted early March. Since no effort has been made to translate or clean up Nuttah68 07:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable "web based production company", begun in March. Featuring the work of "Etan" ("Actor, photographer, marketing executive, philosopher, musician...is an amazing and humble man) -- which is, coincidentally enough, the name of the article creator, who also removed the "Prod" tag without comment. "Randum Films" gets 553 Google hits, only 28 of which are unique and which are, shall we say, of low quality. Calton | Talk 08:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Consensus is borderline by the numbers. Tipping the balance somewhat for me is the fact that I was unable to locate any sources for the detailed information in the article - which is written in first person, further hinting at Original research and non-verifiability. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
advert for non notable company Nuttah68 08:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I looked up in Google and in a political encyclopedia, and didn't find any movement or well-formed ideology called "No borders." Of course, the meaning is intuitive, and sometimes used as a title ( [20]) but not as a general dogmatic name. It is part of other well-established schools of thought, like anarchism, but cannot exist on its own. -- Gabi S. 08:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, merge possible but I'm not seeing anywhere to merge it yet. W.marsh 18:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor, unnamed character from one episode of a TV show. Despeedied and deprodded by creator without comment. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 08:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There are other minor characters from one episodes/chapter/comic book issue/etc in the whole wikipedia database. This character is not really unnamed, is named in the episode credits. Other interesting point is that, the character has a particular and curious ethnic background. -- Gonzakun 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The last paragraph of this article reads: "Celph Titled has yet to release a solo album, but is slowly gaining popularity, especially since his appearance on track 15, "The Battle" off of Fort Minor's debut album The Rising Tied." Artists who are "slowly gaining popularity" do not meet WP:MUSIC. Neither do artists who have appeared on a single track of the debut album of a self-styled "supergroup" made up mainly of other, similar artists. I cannot see any evidence of notability here. At least one of these self-styled supergroups survived a no-consensus AfD and is of only marginal importance. Just zis Guy you know? 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually, there's 112,000 Google hits for Celph Titled. AFD are not venues for you to tell grandiose lies. Please refrain from doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.24.169 ( talk • contribs)
He has a 4 dics CD out: http://hoodz.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/celph-titled-the-gatalog-a-collection-of-chaos/ He is very well known, and has not only been on the Fort Minor album, but is a part of Army Of The Pharaohs who have released 2 albums and are very well known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.85.197 ( talk) 19:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Previous AFDs
1 &
2. The first time around was a keep consensus, the second time was no consensus.
Still I feel that this article is unmaintainable, and is not likely to be updated for some time considering the author of the article has left Wikipedia. Furthermore it doesnt really look that encyclopedic for a helper article of a major airport, and even if anyone is looking for such data, they'd look up the operating authority themselves. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information -- Arnzy (whats up?) 08:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 13:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Can only ever be a dictionary definition. Might be suitable for a move to Wiktionary. RicDod 08:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
From what I understand from researching, this software was published in 1984 and seems to really just be used by the developer's classes. There's one link [21] to a forum that has an article on it, but no source information on the article. And there's two article abstracts on ERIC but not the full text. One [22] is written by the developer himself. The other [23] is an independent author. Google gets 16 hits, the 3 links mentioned, plus some Xanga entries from his students. Can't find notability or verifiability on this. Metros232 19:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like an ad. It's a self-published book. However, it's got about 1,000 Google hits. At what point does a self-published book become notable? Rklawton 19:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable portal Nuttah68 09:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Googling for "Charles de Granville" gives 287 results (on UK version atleast), with the 2nd being this article itself. I see no real claims of notability. As a side note, the person who made the article claims his version is the "Producer Version" and seems to revert any changes. Now including the company page, and all it's product sub pages as listed below. Ian¹³ /t 17:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, nimblofully. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Protologism, one google hit, deprodded. Weregerbil 10:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 13:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
a blatent ad for a non notable company Nuttah68 10:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge both - CrazyRussian talk/ email 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable radio talk show host and possibly WP:NOT. Article creator has added several articles on radio station 2GB talk show hosts, most of which contain a fair bit of personal opinion and "chat" (which are content rather than deletion issues if otherwise notable) but really there seems little of any real substance to show why they should have a wikipedia article to themselves.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 10:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
=== Energy Enterprise Solutions===www.eesllc.net Seems to be spam. Fails WP:CORP. In previous versions of the article, contact details for the company were even listed! Viridae 11:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep Why is it such an outrage I listed the contact details? I have seen contact details in other articles on Wikipedia! It is a new company (couple of months) that's why there are not many hits on Google. --
Ansett
11:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
*The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
reply--
Ansett
11:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete by King of Hearts. This is already on Wikisource. -- Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Quoted prose with no discussion or reason Nuttah68 12:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Bookstore — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 21:30Z
This seems to be advertising; perhaps it should be part of the Barnes & Noble page (if it is in Wikipedia at all) - Matthew 12:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NN and WP:V. Tangot a ngo 12:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. Fails google test. Fails WP:V. Unfortunately also fails to meet WP:CSD A7 as it asserts notability. – Dicty ( T/ C) 14:08, 24 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}} . |
The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 13:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
According to IMDB, this actor only had unnamed parts in the listed movies [25]. As far as I know, this is below the current degree of notability for actors ( Liberatore, 2006). 14:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Cannot validate that the company or anything they have produced is notable Nv8200p talk 23:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable urban legend. 6 Google hits for "Shawn of the Lake" all of them Wiki or mirrors. Metros232 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom.-- Runcorn 10:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Premature closing and Speedy Delete of all listed articles by Deckiller because of discovered copyright violations (CSD A8) from firststrike.totalbf2.com. A message has been placed on Mathieu121's talk page describing this incident and the site's policy toward copyright violations and non notable content. — Deckill e r 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
An apparently unfinished mod for Battlefield 2, set in the Star Wars universe. No evidence of notability, no links, nothing. Delete (and redirect to first strike). - Mike Rosoft 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I would like to say something, before u decided to delete this, I have been hard at wrok getting it set up. I am NOT by no way finished, this is just being done as I go along, for right now I have exams (finals) right now and I promise it WILL be hdone to the ways of wikipedia and its neutral view. So please take that into consideration. Mathieu121 11:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Another article about a Battlefield 2 mod, created by the same user as First Strike. This one gives a link to the mod website - with an Alexa rank of over 700.000. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete DRV here we come, eh? We shouldn't be keeping articles based on guesses that they might be about important topics. No verifiable sources were presented showing any kind of importance. Verifiability isn't optional. If any kind of a source can be found, let me know and I'll reconsider. W.marsh 13:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 12:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; zero Google hits BlueValour 16:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 12:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 12:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
has been speedy deleted several times, and I told the user that it was an advert, he said it was a copyvio and it has been fixed, so I restored it to make him happy. I will put it on AFD to get a final community consensus on the deletion Kungfu Adam ( talk) 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Archdukefranz ( talk) 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete Proto/// type 12:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded by User:Avraham as having no content or context, deprodded by User:Blotwell, adding a reference to what it's supposed to be about, but still no content (disregarding the figures, which should be in Yield curve, if anywhere) or context. Not expandable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD A8 - copyvio. Kimchi.sg 17:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Practically all taken directly from the artist's own Web page Kelly Roberti's Jazz & World Music which itself is copyrighted. He looks to be of some note, but the material looks like all self-promotion quoting sources of doubtful verifiability in many cases. Alan W 16:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Yours Truly as CSD G2. FYI, there was a previous, more coherent version - but it was deleted as a copyvio. Kimchi.sg 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a nonsense - note to the School Inclusionists - please look at the article before voting. BlueValour 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD A7, no assertion of the fraternity's notability in the article. Kimchi.sg 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fraternity. Crystallina 17:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 12:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is for a new word that has not yet gained wide spread acceptance and is not yet worthy of an entry RicDod 17:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 11:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising, not notable. Created, incidentally, by a " User:Telantek". Sarge Baldy 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 11:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a vanity piece -- BradBeattie 17:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 11:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. No established notability. Pascal.Tesson 17:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 11:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
vanity page for a non notable artist/radio host Nuttah68 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 (review me!) 18:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like a neologism, or something like that. Google in quotes gives 0 results. Staecker 17:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- 9 cds (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN and unencyclopedic. There are many novelty keyboards out on the market, including ones with Disney and Barbie themes. I do not see how this is different from any other. BigE1977 17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 11:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Untranslated Dutch after more than two weeks at WP:PNT. Apparently a martial arts club, I guess it is not notable. Delete unless translated and notability explained at the end of this AfD. Kusma (討論) 18:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect 1000000000000 (number) and delete 1000000000000. W.marsh 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I see no reason for the existance of these two articles. I believe 1000000000000 (number) must redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) while 1000000000000 should be deleted as by conventions it should refer to the year 1000000000000 and it does not make any sense to have an article abou that year.
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000000000. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverified and, more importantly, unencyclopedic; this is important information but it belongs somewhere else. Paul 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per current consensus and implicit user request (page blanked). Dpbsmith (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Article created by User:GabeJohnson whose user page redirects to Gabriel Johnson, strongly suggesting autobiography and vanity. Main stated achievement is being "publisher/editor/Chief Contributor" of Florida Free Press, which gets 20 Google hits, none of them indicative of its being an important journal. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
i am the only one i know ho has an ability to do the types of things such as create wikipedia articles. this is why i do this. i have created several other srticles, one about the word "haterade" which was deleted, and i just dont know what you are looking for here.
i would like to request that reguardless of any degree of fame or notariety which i amy recieve, that i never be included in your encyclopedia. thank you.
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Edit comment on creation says "(putting aiu in the business directory, there are references to it on my page, and so forth," but Wikipedia is not a business directory. Created by User:GabeJohnson whose user page redirects to Gabriel Johnson, who is said to be the founder of AIU Consulting, strongly indicating self-promotion. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable course only available at one university Adolphus79 19:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 21:26Z
This article is already found under the more common spelling, " Bialy" Yoninah 19:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like advert to me. Nothing notable found. Brad101 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article and has a lot of the author's point of view. Alan Davidson 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge into Genealogy software (better location than the LDS page). Proto/// type 11:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. No userbase, no evidence of innovation, no record of coverage in reliable sources etc. Possible LDScruft. Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Advert BennyD 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was listed for deletion using proposed deletion (prod) template for reason "Nn band" after being listed as a speedy candidate for same reason. This appears to be contested as the prod tag was removed so am listing here for the original reason Non-notable band. TheJC Talk Contributions 20:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This doesn't read very well and doesn't make much sense. It points to some religious website, but does not make any claims of any kind. The author, Shirin777 ( talk • contribs) seems to have scrawled this link into a number of pages. — Gareth Hughes 21:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep. Hey, I used to visit this site. Hyatte was funny. Proto/// type 11:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not overly notable website. I couldn't find any reputable sources and there aren't really any cited exactly. This all seems to be original research to me. Delete. Wickethewok 21:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable; no claim to notablility. Unpsecified award; apparently not associated with the Proof of Chaos movie that's listed at IMDB. (And that film is only 7 minutes long.) Doesn't list specific award. Who isn't a podcaster these days? Having "a bone to pick" with the Bush administration isn't notable, either. less than 50 hits on a web search. Mikeblas 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax or unverifiable conspiracy theory. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 21:48Z
The result of the debate was withdrawn (rewrite) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 22:22Z
Hoax or unverifiable. Cryptozoology "source" is user-submitted. Delete —
Quarl (
talk)
2006-06-24 21:57Z
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not really notable. Alexa rating in the 2 millions. Crystallina 20:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge to Crimson Chin. Oldelpaso 07:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Even the article on The Crimson Chin is borderline, this is going a little too far. Delete as fancruft. Was prodded, prod removed. UsaSatsui 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Shows no sign of notability. Reads like an adverstisement. Has been maintained pretty much by a single user who removed a previous prod tag by stating in his edit summary "This is a notable summer camp. Goggle certainly has some stuff on it meaning it is notable. Reads like an advertisiment? How?". Fails all current and proposed guidelines for notability, WP:CORP, WP:ORG. Pascal.Tesson 22:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This was nominated for speedy deletion under A7 (no assertion of notability), but I wasn't sure what the notability criteria are for churches, and felt that an article that has been around for more than a year should at least have a discussion before deletion. No vote. EWS23 ( Leave me a message!) 22:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This minor actor appears insufficiently well known to have a Wikipedia article. Fil e Éireann 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is an autobiography, and although its subject has written some books, the article does not fully assert his notability. – Clockwork Soul 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. DS 03:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a repository for jokes like this. If it was, it would need an entry for every joke every comedian came up with. This stuff might be more appropriate for Uncyclopedia or BJAODN. Jesse Viviano 01:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable author biography... Adolphus79 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
very sparse article that gives no information as to why model is important Fil e Éireann 23:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This very minor writer has no claim to fame in the article as written Fil e Éireann 00:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no indicator of notability in this description of a recent ghost novel Fil e Éireann 00:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all three -- Samir धर्म 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mining (RuneScape). Plus, there's an even better article on the RuneScape wiki. -- Ixfd64 00:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD appended to include Woodcutting (Runescape).
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted all as vandalism (or, if you prefer, A7 since claims are non-credible) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 11:06Z
This person does not exist! There is no such thing as the Lord Officer of the Royal Palaces, the Royalty Protection Branch, the Lord Security Officer for Her Majesty Queen, the Lord Security Officer for The Royal Family or the Lord Officer of the Royal Palaces and this and those articles belong in the bin. The 9th Earl of Jersey didn't have a daughter called Sharon, and Lady Sarah Roberts doesn't exist and certainly didn't have any liasion with the 11th Duke of Marlborough. Also, User:Tvaddict and User:Helloamerica are adding crap to British Royalty pages and seem to be the same person. Craigy ( talk) 00:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for non-notable company. Google for tekplus -wikipedia "market intelligence" [1] finds only 34 unique hits, none to reliable sources. It was CSD tagged as "no context" but I decided that there was context in the article and prod'ed it. Prod was contested without explanation. Delete. Kimchi.sg 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 02:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, only a few Google hits. -- Chris (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD G1, even worse than Captain Dan Splashback. Kimchi.sg 02:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, and nonsense. -- Chris (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 02:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and nonsense. -- Chris (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete textbook CSD G1. Kimchi.sg 02:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and nonsense. -- Chris (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Pokémon index, and a vanity article (primary author of the article is also ONE OF the authors of the program). Zetawoof( ζ) 01:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Beta program, not yet released, also per lack of notability on the JDI Network AFD, its parent company. It also reads like an advertisement. Hbdragon88 01:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD G4. Recreation of Standard definitions of terms relating to mass spectrometry, deleted per link below. -- Samir धर्म 02:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A recreation of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_24#Standard_definitions_of_terms_relating_to_mass_spectrometry, POV, not necessary. It is an article about a draft document and concludes that it is a failure. Author has a history of attacking IUPAC and has a beef with the head of the commitee that produced this particular document. Delete P.S. I would also like to suggest banning the author for ongoing POV pushing and abusiveness. Nick Y. 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. The article has no sources, failing the policy at WP:V, and the consensus in this discussion is to delete. Hiding Talk 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible Advertisement, little context (Purifying drinks are controversial lifestyle beverages) NMChico24 01:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Sorry, Malvern, but your article is in another Wikipedia. DS 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This chap is just one of thousands of level designers working in the industry - just a regular guy doing a regular good job but no more notable than any doctor, lawyer, teacher etc BlueValour 01:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Shayne van Vlerken and await the deletion of that article. -- RHaworth 01:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising spam, identical text to Shayne van Vlerken Matticus78 01:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 04:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, advertising spam, identical to article
Mhelp which has since been merged.
Matticus78
01:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Also a redirect at
Mr. Shayne L. van Vlerken, inventor Mhelp. --
RHaworth
01:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD A7, and userfied -- Samir धर्म 02:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is self advertising, the user name is the same as the article name SirGrant 01:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 04:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement Nv8200p talk 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Will ( message me!) 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Annual tournament held by a notable organization is not notable simply by association. After deprodded, the dissenter compared the tournament to the World Cup and the Superbowl. The article itself is nothing more than a collection of lists rather than an actual encyclopedia article that could inform people who are interested. If anything, this should be incorpriated into the NCFL article, but it certainly doesn't deserve a page of its own. Delete as listcruft and NN except by association pm_shef 02:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jeeps2009 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Article has no third party sources, required per policy at WP:V. Claims of notability have been made in the discussion, but no sources have been forthcoming. Hiding Talk 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
OK; its a shopping centre - so? NN BlueValour 02:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Alex S as repost. Kimchi.sg 04:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
repost and wikipedia is NOT a site to promote a person or group Betacommand 02:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Many of the keep comments can be discounted on the basis of their being based on the commentors experience rather than applicable policy. The argument that this should be kept because it doesn't fit in the main article is somewhat redundant, if it is POV there then it is POV here. There don't seem to be enough sources to warrant a separate article from the parent, and with the quotations removed from the article, it would be best presented in the main article, giving the information the due weight it deserves. Information which would unbalance a main article by giving it undue weight is considered a POV fork when split out. Hiding Talk 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Collection of source material, mostly by Falun Gong supporters, supporting health benefits. Apart from mostly being just quotes, this is also highly NPOV, and nearly all of it is of questionable notability. It appears that the researchers for the "journal" article are connected with the editors for the page, so there may be WP:VAIN problems as well. Philosophus T 02:51, 24 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}} . |
But it is not cited by this only one as suggested on liebertonline.com.
"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.
Fnhddzs 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
which suggest everybody know practitioners are usually healthy. Fnhddzs 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC) replyAdministrators tell inquirers: "Yes, it will be a Falun Gong, so it will be clean."
202.83.32.153 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC) reply
although science would probably be unable to completely prove health benefits of Falun Gong and qigong practices - since there is still an issue of belief and enlightening - there are at the same time hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases. Alot are also documented as self evident testimonies.
It would be silly to ignore the experience of such a huge number of people just because they hadn't published it in a well known newspaper.
Falun Dafa never bragged about being able to cure people, this is not a main purpose of the practice and there is no need to show those to prove or validate for Falun Dafa. It stands for itself in all its glory and splendor.
For Wikipedia, which aims to have factual information, health benefits surely happened and there is no problem to mention it.
Just my opinion, Kobi Lurie.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kobi_Lurie (
talk •
contribs)
The result of the debate was delete. – Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability asserted. 6 indoor and 8 outdoor courts = not a U of I landmark. Even the campus history link is only a two-liner. (De-prodded without comment, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois tag added.) ~ trialsanderrors 02:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 02:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-witten and un-notable Wikibout 02:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 04:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Platform of Jessica allanic who has just been Speedily Deleted. Non-notable; a massive 1 Google hits! BlueValour 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merged consensus to merge Pegasus1138 Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparent neologism. My attempts to find these supposed references, aside from the single one externally linked to, have turned up nothing. -- InShaneee 03:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As to InShaneee's comment of not being able to find external sources, here are a few pages with rules for textual roleplay fighting, also known as sparring: http://tcmuseum.proboards54.com/ http://circ.lagedorre.net/rules.shtml http://forums.rpgchat.com/showthread.php?t=36375 -- Circ Thursday, June 29th, 2006.
There's two separate communities here, one for roleplaying and the other for sparring. They tend to not mix well. They should be kept separate.
Alighieri
17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Keep (or Merge). The decision to merge or not is left as an editorial decision apart from this AfD. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A local chili restaurant in Kentucky. I cannot think of a reason why this would be notable. GabrielF 03:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete, fails
WP:CORP. --
Coredesat
06:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyright violation. Kimchi.sg 04:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a book summary that currently resembles an advertisment for the book in question rather than an encyclopedia entry. Netsnipe 03:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 11:46Z
Hoax or non-notable. Neither the name of the "popular TV show" nor any of the mentioned characters can be found on Google. [17] Cinnamon42 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted at request of creator - see below. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't see the point of this article - this Index is available from the Dictionary of Australian Biography website linked via the WP article. We don't need to duplicate something done well on a website. BlueValour 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was originally created by user:Alacrainc (the user's only edit). The tone is of a sales brochure, not an encyclopedia article. It has been unimproved in over two months. The Alexa ranking for this company's website has been highly variable but even at it's best never got into the top 20,000 (and currently ranks at 114,114). The company's website reports only that they have received various amounts of venture capital at different times. They do not report revenues but their reported total headcount is a mere 60 employees. I can find no evidence that this company meets any of the recommended criteria at WP:CORP. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable term, Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary SirGrant 04:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game. Article is basically a how-to, which WP is not; article has been around for quite some time, but does not assert significance or notability. Ghits from lists of game sites and various forums and blogs, but no media citations immediately obvious. Paddles T C 04:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but redirecting seems like a good idea. W.marsh 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded once and deleted as "Unnecessary article about an album track that will not be released and contains no information that is not already included in main articles. No scope for growth." It was recreated and re-prodded, but I've removed the re-prod as recreation of a prodded article is an implicit challenge to the original prod. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Kimchi.sg 04:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (and restore redirect). — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
spam advertising of a "new" product. The article page admits its a new PHP product, undergoing ALPHA TESTING! The page used to be a redirect to polybrominated biphenyls. - 70.51.11.132 04:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete, per Pascal Tesson --
Alphachimp
talk
05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate information. A list of every comics story from every Looney Tunes comic (or, at any rate, it hopes to be such).-- FuriousFreddy 00:45, 24 June 2006
The result of the debate was redirect no real need to delete to do a redirect, unless the redirected article's history needs to go for some reason. W.marsh 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. This is a difficult debate to close, and I will do my best to explain my logic in closing it as "delete." The nomination has been proposed on grounds of non-notability. This is a common accusation against articles which turn up here, and an important one. Articles which fail to establish notability may be deleted even if they are verifiable and referenced. Now, there are four broad categories of "keep" votes present here.
The first asserts that all high schools are notable. One user cited WP:SCHOOL in support of this; this policy was rejected by the community and has no bearing here. Nowhere is there a binding assertion of notability for high schools, as opposed to four-year colleges and universities. No one has linked to any policies or guidelines which would reinforce such a view. The fact that previous articles on high schools are generally kept does not reinforce this debate. Therefore, such an assertion must be treated as a question of personal preference. The second category brings forth news sources to demonstrate notability. These sources discuss the school's construction. While the design of the school is indeed interesting, discussion of said design belongs in an article on urban design trends or architecture. The school itself cannot be notable in this instance simply for being built. Hundreds if not thousands are built or renovated every year; any local newspaper is bound to cover such a thing. There is no demonstrable evidence of wider notability for the school as opposed to the design. The third category is that of utility. Allow me to quote a user: "This is a valuable article for people that live near the school." That may be the case, but utility is not and never has been a reason to keep an article. Plenty of things are "useful." I find the walk-throughs on gameFaqs.com useful, but that doesn't make them worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (not that such a consideration has prevented the ballooning of some game-related articles). The fourth category, finally, is the X, so Y category. Broadly, this is the assertion that because X exists, Y should exist; conversely, if Y is deleted, so should X. This has never been a proper keep/deletion criteria on Wikipedia. An article must stand or fall on its own merits or lack thereof, particularly when X and Y are not remotely similar in scope or quality.
In summation, then, this debate has failed to demonstrate a wider notability for this high school that would at this time merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It is entirely possible that future events will render said judgement obsolete, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Therefore: delete the current article, without prejudice to re-creation. Thank you for your time, and happy editing. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnotable school. Wikibout- Talk to me! 05:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Not a lot of input here, but considering this could probably have been speedied under CSD A3, it goes. Without prejudice for now -- I don't think we have consensus that it's impossible to write a good article on this topic. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As it stands, the article has no information whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 06:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability, no encyclopaedic value. Pascal.Tesson 06:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No apparent notability or encyclopaedic value. Pascal.Tesson 06:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Oldelpaso 08:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be non-notable as per WP:CORP. I believe this is advert. Pascal.Tesson 06:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete redirect possible if anyone's interested, but if you want to merge content from this article let me know as I'll need to undelete the history (we can't really delete AND merge content). W.marsh 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As someone who lives in Montreal, I can attest that this market has little or no notability. Of course, most people in Montreal will know the name but it isn't even close to having any sort of landmark status. Pascal.Tesson 06:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC) For the same reasons, I am also nominating the Marché Maisonneuve article. Note that the Marché Jean-Talon and Marché Atwater articles, in contrast, have some legitimacy as both are considered as fairly important institutions in Montreal. Pascal.Tesson 06:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant spamming of a non-notable company by a sophisticated spammer, with a record of link-spamming, producing promotional articles, uploading logos and even creating promotional categories, and who has used various methods including null editing on their user page (so they appear as a blue link) and removing speedy deletion notices. TheGrappler 06:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant spamming of a non-notable company by a sophisticated spammer, with a record of link-spamming, producing promotional articles, uploading logos and even creating promotional categories, and who has used various methods including null editing on their user page (so they appear as a blue link) and removing speedy deletion notices. TheGrappler 06:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Notability? KsprayDad 07:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 10:56Z
Delete Random fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.-- Orion Minor 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Notablility not asserted. Reads like an advertisment rather than an independant summary of the school... perhaps is just needs a huge overhaul but the way it is now is unacceptable as an Encylopedic entry. KsprayDad 06:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No real notability. Just another summer camp. Pascal.Tesson 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Google indicates this is a non-notable student organization. Less than 70 hits. OCNative 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
High school choir director. Appears to be copied out of a school rag. Assertions of notability are unverifiable. Would they be notable even if they were verifiable?! Medtopic 07:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge all to URJ Camps. I will add the merge tags to the articles, but my role here is just closing the AfD, not doing the merge. I'll leave that to the people active and knowledgeable in editting these articles. W.marsh 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatanly WP:NPOV. No notability, no history (founded in 1999). Sure, it's run by the Union for Reform Judaism, so what? A line in the URJ article will do just fine. Pascal.Tesson 07:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability. Appears copied from something somewhere. Medtopic 07:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Nn-school. Originally deleted as an uncontested PROD and recreated. AmiDaniel ( talk) 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article on an illeagal station that was posted early March. Since no effort has been made to translate or clean up Nuttah68 07:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable "web based production company", begun in March. Featuring the work of "Etan" ("Actor, photographer, marketing executive, philosopher, musician...is an amazing and humble man) -- which is, coincidentally enough, the name of the article creator, who also removed the "Prod" tag without comment. "Randum Films" gets 553 Google hits, only 28 of which are unique and which are, shall we say, of low quality. Calton | Talk 08:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Consensus is borderline by the numbers. Tipping the balance somewhat for me is the fact that I was unable to locate any sources for the detailed information in the article - which is written in first person, further hinting at Original research and non-verifiability. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
advert for non notable company Nuttah68 08:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I looked up in Google and in a political encyclopedia, and didn't find any movement or well-formed ideology called "No borders." Of course, the meaning is intuitive, and sometimes used as a title ( [20]) but not as a general dogmatic name. It is part of other well-established schools of thought, like anarchism, but cannot exist on its own. -- Gabi S. 08:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, merge possible but I'm not seeing anywhere to merge it yet. W.marsh 18:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Minor, unnamed character from one episode of a TV show. Despeedied and deprodded by creator without comment. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 08:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There are other minor characters from one episodes/chapter/comic book issue/etc in the whole wikipedia database. This character is not really unnamed, is named in the episode credits. Other interesting point is that, the character has a particular and curious ethnic background. -- Gonzakun 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The last paragraph of this article reads: "Celph Titled has yet to release a solo album, but is slowly gaining popularity, especially since his appearance on track 15, "The Battle" off of Fort Minor's debut album The Rising Tied." Artists who are "slowly gaining popularity" do not meet WP:MUSIC. Neither do artists who have appeared on a single track of the debut album of a self-styled "supergroup" made up mainly of other, similar artists. I cannot see any evidence of notability here. At least one of these self-styled supergroups survived a no-consensus AfD and is of only marginal importance. Just zis Guy you know? 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually, there's 112,000 Google hits for Celph Titled. AFD are not venues for you to tell grandiose lies. Please refrain from doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.24.169 ( talk • contribs)
He has a 4 dics CD out: http://hoodz.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/celph-titled-the-gatalog-a-collection-of-chaos/ He is very well known, and has not only been on the Fort Minor album, but is a part of Army Of The Pharaohs who have released 2 albums and are very well known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.85.197 ( talk) 19:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Previous AFDs
1 &
2. The first time around was a keep consensus, the second time was no consensus.
Still I feel that this article is unmaintainable, and is not likely to be updated for some time considering the author of the article has left Wikipedia. Furthermore it doesnt really look that encyclopedic for a helper article of a major airport, and even if anyone is looking for such data, they'd look up the operating authority themselves. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information -- Arnzy (whats up?) 08:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 13:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Can only ever be a dictionary definition. Might be suitable for a move to Wiktionary. RicDod 08:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
From what I understand from researching, this software was published in 1984 and seems to really just be used by the developer's classes. There's one link [21] to a forum that has an article on it, but no source information on the article. And there's two article abstracts on ERIC but not the full text. One [22] is written by the developer himself. The other [23] is an independent author. Google gets 16 hits, the 3 links mentioned, plus some Xanga entries from his students. Can't find notability or verifiability on this. Metros232 19:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like an ad. It's a self-published book. However, it's got about 1,000 Google hits. At what point does a self-published book become notable? Rklawton 19:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable portal Nuttah68 09:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Googling for "Charles de Granville" gives 287 results (on UK version atleast), with the 2nd being this article itself. I see no real claims of notability. As a side note, the person who made the article claims his version is the "Producer Version" and seems to revert any changes. Now including the company page, and all it's product sub pages as listed below. Ian¹³ /t 17:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, nimblofully. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Protologism, one google hit, deprodded. Weregerbil 10:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 13:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
a blatent ad for a non notable company Nuttah68 10:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge both - CrazyRussian talk/ email 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable radio talk show host and possibly WP:NOT. Article creator has added several articles on radio station 2GB talk show hosts, most of which contain a fair bit of personal opinion and "chat" (which are content rather than deletion issues if otherwise notable) but really there seems little of any real substance to show why they should have a wikipedia article to themselves.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 10:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
=== Energy Enterprise Solutions===www.eesllc.net Seems to be spam. Fails WP:CORP. In previous versions of the article, contact details for the company were even listed! Viridae 11:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep Why is it such an outrage I listed the contact details? I have seen contact details in other articles on Wikipedia! It is a new company (couple of months) that's why there are not many hits on Google. --
Ansett
11:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
*The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
reply--
Ansett
11:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete by King of Hearts. This is already on Wikisource. -- Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Quoted prose with no discussion or reason Nuttah68 12:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Bookstore — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 21:30Z
This seems to be advertising; perhaps it should be part of the Barnes & Noble page (if it is in Wikipedia at all) - Matthew 12:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NN and WP:V. Tangot a ngo 12:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. Fails google test. Fails WP:V. Unfortunately also fails to meet WP:CSD A7 as it asserts notability. – Dicty ( T/ C) 14:08, 24 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}} . |
The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 13:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
According to IMDB, this actor only had unnamed parts in the listed movies [25]. As far as I know, this is below the current degree of notability for actors ( Liberatore, 2006). 14:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Cannot validate that the company or anything they have produced is notable Nv8200p talk 23:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 03:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable urban legend. 6 Google hits for "Shawn of the Lake" all of them Wiki or mirrors. Metros232 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom.-- Runcorn 10:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Premature closing and Speedy Delete of all listed articles by Deckiller because of discovered copyright violations (CSD A8) from firststrike.totalbf2.com. A message has been placed on Mathieu121's talk page describing this incident and the site's policy toward copyright violations and non notable content. — Deckill e r 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
An apparently unfinished mod for Battlefield 2, set in the Star Wars universe. No evidence of notability, no links, nothing. Delete (and redirect to first strike). - Mike Rosoft 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I would like to say something, before u decided to delete this, I have been hard at wrok getting it set up. I am NOT by no way finished, this is just being done as I go along, for right now I have exams (finals) right now and I promise it WILL be hdone to the ways of wikipedia and its neutral view. So please take that into consideration. Mathieu121 11:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Another article about a Battlefield 2 mod, created by the same user as First Strike. This one gives a link to the mod website - with an Alexa rank of over 700.000. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete DRV here we come, eh? We shouldn't be keeping articles based on guesses that they might be about important topics. No verifiable sources were presented showing any kind of importance. Verifiability isn't optional. If any kind of a source can be found, let me know and I'll reconsider. W.marsh 13:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No notability whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 12:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; zero Google hits BlueValour 16:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 12:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 12:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
has been speedy deleted several times, and I told the user that it was an advert, he said it was a copyvio and it has been fixed, so I restored it to make him happy. I will put it on AFD to get a final community consensus on the deletion Kungfu Adam ( talk) 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Archdukefranz ( talk) 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete Proto/// type 12:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded by User:Avraham as having no content or context, deprodded by User:Blotwell, adding a reference to what it's supposed to be about, but still no content (disregarding the figures, which should be in Yield curve, if anywhere) or context. Not expandable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD A8 - copyvio. Kimchi.sg 17:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Practically all taken directly from the artist's own Web page Kelly Roberti's Jazz & World Music which itself is copyrighted. He looks to be of some note, but the material looks like all self-promotion quoting sources of doubtful verifiability in many cases. Alan W 16:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Yours Truly as CSD G2. FYI, there was a previous, more coherent version - but it was deleted as a copyvio. Kimchi.sg 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a nonsense - note to the School Inclusionists - please look at the article before voting. BlueValour 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD A7, no assertion of the fraternity's notability in the article. Kimchi.sg 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fraternity. Crystallina 17:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 12:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is for a new word that has not yet gained wide spread acceptance and is not yet worthy of an entry RicDod 17:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 11:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising, not notable. Created, incidentally, by a " User:Telantek". Sarge Baldy 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 11:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a vanity piece -- BradBeattie 17:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 11:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. No established notability. Pascal.Tesson 17:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 11:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
vanity page for a non notable artist/radio host Nuttah68 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 (review me!) 18:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like a neologism, or something like that. Google in quotes gives 0 results. Staecker 17:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- 9 cds (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN and unencyclopedic. There are many novelty keyboards out on the market, including ones with Disney and Barbie themes. I do not see how this is different from any other. BigE1977 17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Proto/// type 11:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Untranslated Dutch after more than two weeks at WP:PNT. Apparently a martial arts club, I guess it is not notable. Delete unless translated and notability explained at the end of this AfD. Kusma (討論) 18:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect 1000000000000 (number) and delete 1000000000000. W.marsh 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I see no reason for the existance of these two articles. I believe 1000000000000 (number) must redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) while 1000000000000 should be deleted as by conventions it should refer to the year 1000000000000 and it does not make any sense to have an article abou that year.
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000000000. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unverified and, more importantly, unencyclopedic; this is important information but it belongs somewhere else. Paul 18:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per current consensus and implicit user request (page blanked). Dpbsmith (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Article created by User:GabeJohnson whose user page redirects to Gabriel Johnson, strongly suggesting autobiography and vanity. Main stated achievement is being "publisher/editor/Chief Contributor" of Florida Free Press, which gets 20 Google hits, none of them indicative of its being an important journal. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
i am the only one i know ho has an ability to do the types of things such as create wikipedia articles. this is why i do this. i have created several other srticles, one about the word "haterade" which was deleted, and i just dont know what you are looking for here.
i would like to request that reguardless of any degree of fame or notariety which i amy recieve, that i never be included in your encyclopedia. thank you.
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Edit comment on creation says "(putting aiu in the business directory, there are references to it on my page, and so forth," but Wikipedia is not a business directory. Created by User:GabeJohnson whose user page redirects to Gabriel Johnson, who is said to be the founder of AIU Consulting, strongly indicating self-promotion. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable course only available at one university Adolphus79 19:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 21:26Z
This article is already found under the more common spelling, " Bialy" Yoninah 19:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like advert to me. Nothing notable found. Brad101 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity article and has a lot of the author's point of view. Alan Davidson 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge into Genealogy software (better location than the LDS page). Proto/// type 11:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. No userbase, no evidence of innovation, no record of coverage in reliable sources etc. Possible LDScruft. Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Advert BennyD 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was listed for deletion using proposed deletion (prod) template for reason "Nn band" after being listed as a speedy candidate for same reason. This appears to be contested as the prod tag was removed so am listing here for the original reason Non-notable band. TheJC Talk Contributions 20:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This doesn't read very well and doesn't make much sense. It points to some religious website, but does not make any claims of any kind. The author, Shirin777 ( talk • contribs) seems to have scrawled this link into a number of pages. — Gareth Hughes 21:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep. Hey, I used to visit this site. Hyatte was funny. Proto/// type 11:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not overly notable website. I couldn't find any reputable sources and there aren't really any cited exactly. This all seems to be original research to me. Delete. Wickethewok 21:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable; no claim to notablility. Unpsecified award; apparently not associated with the Proof of Chaos movie that's listed at IMDB. (And that film is only 7 minutes long.) Doesn't list specific award. Who isn't a podcaster these days? Having "a bone to pick" with the Bush administration isn't notable, either. less than 50 hits on a web search. Mikeblas 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax or unverifiable conspiracy theory. Delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 21:48Z
The result of the debate was withdrawn (rewrite) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-06-24 22:22Z
Hoax or unverifiable. Cryptozoology "source" is user-submitted. Delete —
Quarl (
talk)
2006-06-24 21:57Z
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not really notable. Alexa rating in the 2 millions. Crystallina 20:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge to Crimson Chin. Oldelpaso 07:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Even the article on The Crimson Chin is borderline, this is going a little too far. Delete as fancruft. Was prodded, prod removed. UsaSatsui 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Shows no sign of notability. Reads like an adverstisement. Has been maintained pretty much by a single user who removed a previous prod tag by stating in his edit summary "This is a notable summer camp. Goggle certainly has some stuff on it meaning it is notable. Reads like an advertisiment? How?". Fails all current and proposed guidelines for notability, WP:CORP, WP:ORG. Pascal.Tesson 22:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This was nominated for speedy deletion under A7 (no assertion of notability), but I wasn't sure what the notability criteria are for churches, and felt that an article that has been around for more than a year should at least have a discussion before deletion. No vote. EWS23 ( Leave me a message!) 22:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This minor actor appears insufficiently well known to have a Wikipedia article. Fil e Éireann 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is an autobiography, and although its subject has written some books, the article does not fully assert his notability. – Clockwork Soul 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. DS 03:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a repository for jokes like this. If it was, it would need an entry for every joke every comedian came up with. This stuff might be more appropriate for Uncyclopedia or BJAODN. Jesse Viviano 01:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable author biography... Adolphus79 23:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
very sparse article that gives no information as to why model is important Fil e Éireann 23:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This very minor writer has no claim to fame in the article as written Fil e Éireann 00:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 01:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no indicator of notability in this description of a recent ghost novel Fil e Éireann 00:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply