The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - that was crap. Tawker 01:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
ridiculous information, the rest belongs in Child Sexuality. List of examples. did you read the part about Ontario? Adambiswanger1 00:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango 123 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete vanity, inanity, hoax, intentional self promotion per his website and per the text of this article ("Fans of Ill Mitch can join his promotional group called the "Spread Team"). Yeah..... - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
-- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Spam JennyRad 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non notable individual with miniscule, if any, following. not all candidates for political office deserve notability. vanity article, WP:VAIN. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Note: Rent Is Too Damn High Party is also nominated for deletion. Strothra 15:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I spotted this map up for a very poorly done mass AFD and also noted that it has been voted on before with an outcome of no consensus. We see arguments in the previous AFD such as "notable warcraft map", I'm sure it was made in good faith, I do however, call bullshits. Another mass AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust resulted in no consensus, yet each of those maps has unique google links in the hundreds or thousands. This doesn't, at all with a paltry 18 Google links for "Vampirism Revolution". This is not a notable or popular warcraft map, at all. - Hahnch e n 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – [ælfəks] 09:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is another non notable custom map that should have been deleted found off of the poorly thought out mass AFD. This isn't an official Warcraft map, this is a fan made map, for a fan made modification of Warcraft which was deleted. I voted to keep on the Counter-Strike maps AFD because each official map has tens of thousands of players at any time, this does not. It generates 150 links on Google for "three corridors" warcraft, which isn't much anyway. But when you look at those links, most of them are irrelevent to this fan map. You can take a look at their website too at http://www.3corridors.com/. This is not a notable map. - Hahnch e n 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Ezeu 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN episode of
That '70s Show - going from the list of episodes page, only notable ones have any content - either delete this or merge. I withdraw this nomination in advance if somebody undertakes to fix the article up with formatting similar to the existing episode pages. Presently it is just badly written fan synopsis with quotes.
SM247
00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Redirect - I'm being bold here - Hahnch e n 00:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per previous afd which resulted in speedy delete for the obvious reason. SM247 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I found this on RC patrol and PRODed it as a neologism, buzzword, and dictdef. PROD was contested. Erik the Rude 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (article userfied to User:Sullivanharvard). Sango 123 02:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject of the article doesn't meet WP:BIO and the article appears to have been written by the suject. Originally prodded, but it was removed by an anonymous editor without comment. Delete-- Ed ( Edgar181) 00:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article has insufficient context or references to establish notability. Prod removed by creator without comment, and without addressing these concerns. Delete-- Ed ( Edgar181) 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus – Gurch 15:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability of a small game development company executive Kickstart70- T- C 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep and expand. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Orphaned article, same couple of sentences years later and still no corresponding French article. Nothing links here either. It seems like a non-notable-philosophy. 2nd vote (see Talk:Non-philosophy) - Rudykog 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
delete or at least boost notability, possible vanity page Chris 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actor. He is credited with appearing in a Barney & Friends video but IMDB only give him one credit in a film in post production. Fails WP:BIO and besides his one, or possibly two credits, there is no other biographical information available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable as a specific high school organization (as opposed to the general JROTC, see here. Crystallina 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to History of Birmingham. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page appears to have been born out of an edit war on the History of Birmingham page about 2 years ago, which led someone to fork off this article. All the useful content appears to be duplicated in articles about specific inventors or companies. There appears to be no particular reason to group this content in this way; "unrelated people and companies who worked in vaguely related fields in the same city over the space of several centuries" strikes me as much too loose an association for an article, and that's more or less what this boils down to. (Note: This was debated and kept in June 2004. See the talk page. Cleanup tagged since June '05.) -- Robth Talk 19:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems there are at least two other editors who would disagree with me that this article fails WP:BIO by a longshot, so I humbly nominate this article for AFD to decide. hateless 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Uh, oh, meat puppet alert. OK, buddies of Mike Gurrie, here is what you can do to preserve your friend's entry for all eternity:
Mildy amusing it is. Encyclopedic it's not. ~ trialsanderrors 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. IMDB gives her three credits. Two minor roles in TV shows and a straight to video film. Someone provided some biographical details which were moved to the talk page as they are un-referenced. Google provides no more biographical information. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. Appeared in one TV show. Fails WP:BIO and besides her acting credit, there is no biographical information available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an advertisement for the Realitydreamship site. The creator of this article has repetedly removed the AfD templates from the page before the problem was resolved. Vaniac 01:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actor. Only has two TV credits to his name and no biographical information available. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable. Nertz 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
We meet the following WP:Music standard: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."
We are the most popular hip hop group in Midlothian, Virginia. And the myspace page has been fixed.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. This article was previously deleted as a copyvio. It has since been re-written. The subject is still, however, non-notable as she only has a single credit in a TV show to her name. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actor. Appeared in a Barney & Friends concert tour. No other biographical information available. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Bio page for a NN author, and minor patent holder and (of all things) car park owner. No indication or citation that these are the same people at all. unsigned nomination by User:Ch'marr.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A cute and adorable, but alas, non-notable child actress with a single TV credit. No other biographical information available. Fails: WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There are thousands of schools in Canada. It would be better to use List of schools in <province or territory>, some of which already exist. Usgnus 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because is a subpage: reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Fails related notablity guidelines. LBMixPro <Sp e ak|on|it!> 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Every so often, I'll search for links to the YTMND article or external YTMND links and delete them from irrelevent pages. And then I found this. This is not a notable recording, there are no decent sources for this meme. The List of YTMND fads was deleted for a good reason, this should be too. - Hahnch e n 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Categorise is an action to be taken after the Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Useless list. SeizureDog 02:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable elementary school that is now defunct. Metros232 02:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, BJAODN. Sango 123 02:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Um...yeah. This shouldn't even be merged. Short list and completely inane. SeizureDog 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable nebula that was mentioned in passing in one episode and could never be more than just a stub. How did this one get missed in the mass Star Trek nominations last night? BigDT 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN theme park that isn't even open yet. User has been adding several articles for NN places and people. Dismas| (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
POV fork of History of Google#Criticism and controversy. waffle iron talk 02:50, 7 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 no consensus to delete. Can't merge and delete, so I've just redirected. Someone else can merge if wanted, that doesn't need afd. Petros471 12:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN campground Dismas| (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Maybe ad or vanity Nv8200p talk 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect Eluchil404 04:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is a larger article on the same subject: Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. The SSAA have said there is no apostrophe in their name, and it seems redundant to have an article stub with a mis-spelt title when there is a larger article on the same topic- with the correct title- on Wikipedia.-- Commander Zulu 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This website does not meet the criteria for notability outlined in WP:WEB. Kershner 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Artist Clearly do not fit the notability policy for wikipedia. Albums aren't listed at Amazon.com or any major online shops. Deletion needed. Fistofphury 18:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Firegirl223 23:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Never listed properly, listing now. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Richardcavell 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Based on the text of the uploader's user page, I'm going to say this looks like original research. I've left a note on the user's talk page requesting sources. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 03:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable number according to these guidelines. (Strange that I found this one on 6/6/6...) Crystallina 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
hELL
. Slightly amusing, but not notable.
JIP |
Talk
08:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. Appeared in a single TV show, though Wikipedia provides an 8 item "filmography" which appears, upon further examination, to be a listing of episode titles. Besides a DOB and credits there is no biographical information available. Fails WP:BIO.
I'm also nominating the remaider of the Barney & Friends kids here. None of these kids has more than a handful of credits, all of which are not notable. Like the other, there is little or no biographical information available. They all also fail WP:BIO.
*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 11:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No opinion. I caught both of these on CSD and rescued them. I'm not sure if they're notable within the animal world, but I figured it at least deserved some input. Ral315 ( talk) 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. Being married to a small-town mayor does not impart notability. Fluit 03:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN child actor. Has appeared in a bit part in one film. Fails WP:BIO and there is no biographical information available. Note, this child has NOT appeared on Barney & Friends. :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sango 123 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Just an online T-shirt shop. Same as every other T-shirt shop out there Phileas 04:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fancruft. Artw 04:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This single was only sold at a school band's concert. Google has zero hits for the artist. Completely non notable. Crystallina 04:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 14:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The event itself is covered n as much detail in the article Ferdinand I of Romania and the ungainly title is not likely to be used as an entry point. If the article were larger or was linked to a similar article on the Romanian wiki I could see keeping it, but neither is the case. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
More unencyclopedic, POV material about the Walt Disney World College Program. Survived a previous AFD though lack of interest. Wikipedia is not an almanac about this institution, delete -- Peta 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable wargaming orgaization, delete -- Peta 04:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, appears to be advert. Artw 04:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:WEB WP:VAIN Self promotion of non-notable web site. John Nagle 05:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Spent a very brief time in February in top 100,000 websites hasn't been there since [7] only 59 hits on google, most of which seem to be junk links. A 126 member forum isn't exactly notable, especially since it doesn't seem to have any claim to fame. Crossmr 05:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't worry guys, but we were down for a LONG time, which is why we dropped in rankings. We get about 200+ posts daily, but ok, let's just wait until we get back up into the higher rankings, :)
Feel free to delete, I totally understand. ^_^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.207.202 ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 June 2006.
-
The result of the debate was delete. Someone can creat a neutral article at World Peace Forum if they want. Petros471 12:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Future event of questionable notability, content as stands is completely unencyclopedic, delete -- Peta 05:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Petros471 12:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There doesn't appear to be a "line of succession to the President of Pakistan": the President is elected for a five-year term by the electoral college. Rather, the article only mentions that if the President dies, the President of the Senate takes over. This is more to do with the role of the president than a "line of succession". If this deletion is passed, then the information should be moved to Politics of Pakistan. Neonumbers 05:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think they pass WP:MUSIC, delete -- Peta 05:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Clearly spam, doesn't seem notable Artw 05:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN person, article says they worked on one game and worked for one small company which is no longer in business. Only 133 Google hits for "Chuck Bilow". Dismas| (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
PS - There's about 811 Google hits ;)...
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable internet neologism, delete -- Peta 05:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect as a normal cleanup edit. Jkelly 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Already covered here. Artw 05:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Frivolous Theorem of Arithmetic. That VfD attracted many IP votes and, for some reason, it was never properly closed. I'm nominating the article again so that the discussion can be brought to completion.
I don't think this "theorem" is in fact being used in mathematics. As the nominator said on the VfD page, it seems to be a "pretty feeble math joke". The article lists four references. The first reference is a one-liner in another online encyclopaedia (and we all know how reliable online encyclopaedia are, don't we?). The second reference is in fact copied from the first reference; I didn't check the book. The third and fourth reference do not mention "frivolous theorem of arithmetic". I don't think that's enough, so delete. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 05:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Sango 123 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Existing page Scenario analysis is already better developed and has a more logical title - no unique content on this page. Merge/redirect? SM247 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, probable spam. Artw 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-maintainable and not highly useful list (what is the media and to what locale if any is this restricted?) SM247 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This phrase, as a pair ( "Chuckling to myself" +CTM) garners around 24 Google hits. It doesn't appear to be notable enough to justify so much as a redirect, so I've brought it here for dele-- er, discussion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia article. But instead seems to be promotional material. Probably something that only Richard Clark knows or cares about. Rob 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The subject does not seem to be notable. Dancter 06:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily redirected. Jkelly 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was created a month and a half ago and yet still contains almost no content. The statement at the beginning of the article is entirely POV, and as I said on the discussion page, is an idea with which a great many people would disagree. Regardless, he has had ample time to expand and improve the article, and has not done so. I propose its deletion. Charles 06:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism from Family Guy episode Blind Ambition that is not notable in its own right -- DLand TALK 06:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It is believed that this article was created to perpetrate a hoax, that a video game was in production for the TLC documentary. While the documentary itself is real, it isn't particularly notable. Dancter 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fairly obvious hoax. (Does anyone not in junior high think that Richard I had a companion named "Sir William the Arcane?") Choess 07:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn person, does not meet WP:BIO, very few google hits Fluit 07:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely non notable. Ben W Bell talk 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - there is no useful or objective definition of "populistic pieces". I noticed this because it was very near the top of the Special page - Oldest articles ( Special:Ancientpages): it has not been edited since 17 July, 2004, and it shows - no-one is remotely interested in it. Mais oui! 07:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn person, fails WP:BIO Kcordina Talk 08:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN charitable foundation. Just founded in '06 so it would be hard for it to have done anything notable but the article also doesn't state how it is any more notable than other charity in that area of the world. Dismas| (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company (fails WP:CORP). Contested prod and remarkably similar (same editor, also part of the Dwyer Group) to the recently unanimously deleted Rainbow International -- Pak21 08:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, possibly OR. Also, after reading this a few times, I'm not sure exactly what an anticompilation film is. Ace of Sevens 11:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:MONGO (See [17]) BigDT 11:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable press release, regardless of company involved Tychocat 07:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with Sports film. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This should be merged to Sports film (which badly needs a rewrite about conventions, etc as it's basically a list right now). Baseball isn't really a genre in and of itself. No other sports have pages like this. I don't see what makes baseball special in this regard. Ace of Sevens 11:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability of this band is asserted, but I could not find evidence that what is reported is true [19] - Liberatore( T) 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism and probably not really a genre anyway. A google ssearch for "bug hunt" - "starship troopers" returned only result about software bugs and entymology. I found no evidence of people using the term as presented here outside Starship Troopers. Ace of Sevens 11:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
According to its 2 Google hits, the site is actually some kind of guesthouse. Article is vain and laughably POV. Moreover, there is no such thing as 'Frequently Visited Landmark' status in the UK, nor does the National Trust give awards to private dwellings. AlexTiefling 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Agreed, this is blatant advertising. otocan
The result of the debate was delete. DS 14:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page about non-notable site, created by owner. On the talk page, he even said: don't delete this e is pretty small. fel64 11:43, 7User June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN Neologism. Dictionary.com doesn't list this word and a google search only turned up hits about a document-processing company in the UK. Ace of Sevens 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Promotional of a non-notable website with an Alexa rank of over two million. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no action taken. This belongs at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, not AfD. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Needs to be merged into Docudrama. They are the same thing and docudrama is by far the more common term. Ace of Sevens 12:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Makes no claims to notability, unranked by Alexa, unable to obtain membership numbers and none in article, Google results show no sign of notability or recognition and not verifiable. Does not meet WP:WEB standards; possible CSD A7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Makes sense. I will try to ask the leadership of the empire for more input on both this and Beach Bash,--Hawk 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 12:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
2-line entry on obscure nightclub with no assertion of notability StuartF 12:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax. No google hits for "Mano Markovic". I doubt anyone was abbreviated to "Vagina", and of course, there are no google hits for "Deutsch Vagin Klub". The picture labelled "Mano throwing the wayward javelin in warm-up" is of Steve Backley (he is in an England shirt, similar picture here). Et ceter, et cetera. Mr Stephen 13:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Excuse me, you sir are a moron. I am insulted that you have not heard of "Deutsch Vagin Club". It is a fairly small organisation started by this great man Mano..and still today helps underprivledged children walk to school every morning. Mano is a great man. Sure, the picture may not be of him exactly, but it is the vibe that is given off that is important. There was no opportunity for photos when Mano enterd the olympics. Do not insult Mano by removing this page.
I agree whole-heartedly with the above comment. If you people cannot simply accept the magnitude of Mano's character, and try to bring him down with false claims then that is just proposterous. I am dissappointed with the ignorance of viewers of this website. How one can not be aware of the Deutsch Vagin Klub is just beyond my comprehension. If this article is taken down, it will be read as no less than a personal prejudiced attack. Mano is a vengeful character, I urge careful consideration to take place.
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 12:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable name, no important people with Kowalysko, and other names are more common Chipka 13:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Subject barely passes WP:BIO, with no compelling reasons to keep, request respected.. Shell babelfish 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject requests deletion. Feels that she doesn't meet criteria under WP:BIO. No opinion on the matter, just bringing it here as requested for a community decision. Shell babelfish 13:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough to deserve it's own article, and already has adequete coverage in the Middlesbrough F.C. and FA Premier League 1996-97 pages. -- DaveJB 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Couldn't find anything to back notability per WP:BIO cholmes75 ( chit chat) 13:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing a nomination started by Spylab. Rationale was given in the talk page: "I don't see the point of this entry. There's already an article on Two Tone. Are there going to be entries listing ska bands from every single country? Spylab 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)spylab" - Liberatore( T) 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. TigerShark 10:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Violates WP:BIO (no widely recognized contribution to any field) and WP:VAIN (current article was written by the subject). The latter creates intractable issues of NPOV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivana Humpalot ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, should the nominator be invited to change his/her username? - Liberatore( T) 14:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Flash animator. Fails WP:BIO with a venegeance. In addition, there are no reliable sources for any of the information in the article. See also David Firth, Jazza. Delete, or at least merge into The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny - Motor ( talk) 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom (me). I stated my opinion concerning the usefulness of this article on its talk page first, and received only agreement on the matter. Cut and paste follows.
I am confident that this article can serve no worthwhile purpose, and should be considered a good reminder that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article seems to me the very definition of indiscriminate. Fearwig 22:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Adding nowiki tags below because the code broke up the AfD, and I can't be bothered fixing it. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 14:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
:{{see also|<noinclude>:Category:Maps showing the history of the Early Middle Ages</noinclude>|:Category:Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages|:Category:Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages|:Category:Maps showing the history of the Middle Ages|:Category:Old maps of Europe|:Category:Maps of the history of Europe}} just for starters, and similar names by period, country, region, etc. Most short confusing category names will soon be tagged with {{tl|category redirect}}, and the sisterproject wide categories will be taking over. The good news is many of our basic article categories of a technical nature are a-Okay, but poorly worded ones that are more 'idiomatic' thus translating badly are being kicked out in favor of those that cross into the other language projects. Best regards! // <B>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</B><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> 07:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
'Keep' - It's good to have them all in one place. Keep the list.
PeregrineV
22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete/Merge per Mike Christie: Instead of a list, I think the way to do this would be to translate this information: (1) categories and subcategories, plus maybe (2) an article explaining what fictional universes are and linking to the categories and subcategories. (I'm not sure if that counts as a "merge" - if so, then I guess I mean "merge"). TheronJ 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Creator of a non-notable show, also nominating the production company, which apparently consists of his 10th grade class. No google hits/sources for "Tom Nobleman". Wickethewok 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, keep by default. Richardcavell 00:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, per the precedent set by deleting Mouhammad Faye's page today Rambler14 14:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 10:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable. Where is this station? Why is this person notable?
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
22:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, insignificant athlete Rambler14 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Does not seem noteable, reads like an advert - Lazydaisy 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The following has been copied from the talk page:
He's not a public figure, and he told me personally that the article is inaccurate. -- Uncle Ed 14:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Jack Corley is a member of the Unification Church personally known to me ( User:Ed Poor). He disputes the statements made by Ed as "inaccurate" (source: personal conversation, 4/25/2006). He specifically objected to being called a leader and to having the picture of him and Arafat - and how this info spread to the Russian Wikipedia.
I'm not going to go "3RR" on this, but I'm removing the information at his request, one last time. -- Uncle Ed 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD discussion
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is not notable and appears to be a vanity article. I'd also propose deleting all the associated images. Alabamaboy 14:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing a nomination by GillsMan, who is also the original creator of the article. See the rationale in the talk page. See also the first AfD of this article. - Liberatore( T) 15:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Few Google hits, film producer that doesn't seem to be notable in the least. Also nominating associated articles:
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Sandison.
Wickethewok 15:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was irrelevant: article correctly speedily deleted by Fang Aili. -- RobertG ♬ talk 16:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page just appears to be a childish insult. Fyver528 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested {{ prod}}. Article had been blanked when I found it. Seems a story of a young career gone unfortunately wrong, but not material for an encyclopedia. RobertG ♬ talk 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A smalltime Ebay criminal and an internet vigilante who both have their three days of fame. Take it to Wikinews if you must.
Dr Zak 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn.
Dr Zak
17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
This is a very real phenomenon, with online users baiting and/or conning scamers such as Nigerian scammers.
This example in question attracted over 3 million unique visitors, and made headlines. Of some note, I would say. Sfacets 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Normally, only having two delete votes is grounds for relisting, but this article actually qualifies for a speedy delete per WP:CSD A7 (Unremarkable people or groups). Deathphoenix ʕ 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This would have fallen under {{ db-repost}} [29], but since the content is different, I am bringing it to AfD. A quick search shows that this group is non-notable and fails WP:BAND. - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
An inconsequential murder that made headlines half a year ago. Not particularly iconic or gruesome or anything; the case is quite forgotten now. Dr Zak 16:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The articles on Rachel and Lilian were nominated for deletion in February. It was argued then that they should be kept because it was a major story. Well, it was a major story then, but now the hubbub has died down. Dr Zak 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 15:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Whether this article is kept, merged, or redirected is a debate that can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. He appears to be a minor league hockey player. I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but it's currently unverified. NickelShoe ( Talk) 16:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with The Immunity Syndrome (TOS episode). Deathphoenix ʕ 14:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. A note to Frank6783: if there are other articles you feel are also non-notable, you can also start AfDs on them, but read this first. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as nn-game. Alexa rank for pcpuzzles.com where this game is hosted is >1,000,000. Alexa rank for Amok Entertainment (creator of the game) is >400,000. Google hits for the game tied to Amok Entertainment number 28 [31]. This is just one of millions of flash games out there. Article as it stands makes no claim of any kind to notability and why this game stands out as notable from the millions of other flash games. I previously speedy deleted this article, but the creator re-created it again. Running AfD now as a means to definitely clarify the status. -- Durin 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I think this game deserves to be listed because it has a unique game concept. Take a look at these reviews:
http://www.pcpuzzles.com/bubblefun-highscore
"I've seen this gametype for the first time and I think it's very innovative." Overall Score: 8 The_Hidden on Newgrounds.com
"It's an amazing work of beauty, from the layout, to the actual game... it's one in a million." Overall Score: 10 Poop4brains on Newgrounds.com
Bubble Fun is the Michael Jordan of flash puzzles. Its beyond awesome. Overall Score: 10 Hard-kore on Newgrounds.com
'This game is a great mind-bender. Even beyond game playing it's addicting to watch the permutations of chain reactions as control of the board changes between the players. Avi Muchnick (aka JaxomLOTUS) of Worth1000.com
Also, it's shareware which means the game is available on dozens of websites, not just the PCpuzzles site. Here are some examples:
http://www.addictinggames.com/bubblefun.html http://www.ugotgames.com/bubblefun.php (among the top 5 most popular games) http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=172233 (silver medal award) http://www.gtds.net/Bubble-Fun/ http://www.funflashgames.com/bubblefun.htm http://www.milkandcookies.com/article/2935/
Alexa traffic rank for Newgrounds.com: 596 Alexa traffic rank for Addictinggames.com: 1224 Alexa traffic rank for Milkandcookies.com: 5736
Just because someone has a silly username doesn't mean their opinion doesn't count. Try actually playing the game before blindly deleting it. It's a very unique game concept.
"Something totally original and fun." Overall Score: 9 Master1n0 on Newgrounds.com
"That's like nothing I've ever seen before! I'd say it's a lot better than old games. It's really addictive." Overall Score: 9 InvaderHaanzi on Newgrounds.com
This game is absolute genius! Horribly addicting! Overall Score: 10 The_Mad_Prophet on Newgrounds.com
"Very original and well presented." Overall Score: 9 over_clock on Newgrounds.com
"Simply amazing. Thanks for the new fun game." Overall Score: 9 -Krossroads- on Newgrounds.com
"Awesome game, and awesome idea." Overall Score: 10 Pink_Floyd on Newgrounds.com
Best puzzle game ever made! Overall Score: 10 Cheesycake on Newgrounds.com
"I didn't think it could be done but you actually made a non-violent game that's fun!" Overall Score: 10 Xtama on Newgrounds.com
But isn't the whole idea behind Wikipedia that the opinions and contributions of unpaid volunteers and regular citizens are of equal, if not greater, value than that of some paid editor? Case in point: how many of you who voted for deletion actually played the game? Shouldn't the opinions of people who did play it hold some value?
And shouldn't the fact that Bubble Fun is available on many popular high-traffic game sites and the fact that so many users gave it rave reviews account for something and lift it above the countless pacman, space invaders, and tetris clones you usually find on game sites?
How about if I add this to the entry:
"Bubble Fun is noteworthy for its unique concept and being the first game to combine the satisfaction of popping virtual bubble wrap with a strategic element."
Being the first of its kind doesn't make it notable? Wasn't Tetris notable for being the first of its kind?
And I find these comments trying to disqualify the opinions of those people who actually played the game and gave it positive reviews a bit elitist. How are your opinions more valuable than their opinions? Isn't this the type of attitute Wikipedia is faced with so often, when people dismiss Wikipedia as nothing more than a bunch of unqualified volunteers? Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you dismiss the opinions of dozens of Newsgrounds users and webmasters who reviewed the game? If all those Newgrounds users became editors at Wikipedia, would that suddenly make their opinions more valuable?
Take a look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games How do any of these games qualify to be listed in Wikipedia as "noteworthy" but Bubble Fun doesn't? Bubble Fun has a unique game concept. Most of the games on that list do not. They're mostly clones of each other or of older game concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatris Hatris gameplay is similar to Tetris
Hatris is a Tetris clone. How is that "noteworthy"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_%28game%29 The gameplay is a mixture between SameGame and Tetris.
How is Collapse noteworthy?
What makes the games on this list noteworthy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games
They're almost all clones of each other, yet they're listed in Wikipedia. By the same standard Bubble Fun should be listed. In fact it has more merit to be listed than a bunch of Tetris and Bejeweled clones, because it is not a clone but an original. But I guess presenting a logical argument for the inclusion of Bubble Fun is a lost cause, because you guys have made up your mind without ever even looking at the game.
The game has been published on dozens of popular websites. You say the high Alexa rankings provide notability for those sites, correct? So we established that numerous notable sources have published the game.
I understand your analogy about uploading a file on Download.com, which is not downloaded by anyone, but the many player reviews prove that a lot of people have played the game. And the fact that many different webmasters commented on the game or published the game also shows that this is not just a file downloaded by only 3 people.
Please explain to me how this game is more "notable" than Bubble Fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniax
And please explain to me how this game is more "notable" than Bubble Fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOXit
Then please explain to me how this game is more notable than Bubble Fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrickShooter
We can go through the entire list on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games
Tetris (the game that started the genre) Bejeweled (aka Diamond Mine) Biniax BOXit BrickShooter Bubble Burst by Zango Bubble Fun by Amok Entertainment Chainz Collapse Columns Devet Diamond Crush Dr. Mario Gorby's Pipeline (for MSX and NES) Hatris Magic Jewelry (Columns-clone for NES) Klax Lines (aka ColorLines) Lumines Magical Drop Meteos Money Puzzle Exchanger (aka Money Idol Exchanger) Panel de Pon (aka Tetris Attack and Pokémon Puzzle League) Puzzle Bobble (aka Bust-a-Move) Puyo Puyo (aka Kirby's Avalanche or Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine) SameGame Sega Swirl Snood Squarez Squarez Deluxe Picross Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo Tetris 2 (aka Tetris Flash) Uo Poko Wario's Woods Welltris Wordtris Yoshi Yoshi's Cookie Zoop [edit] Maze/obstacle course navigation Abashera Atomix (for C64, Amiga, PC etc.) Bomberman ChuChu Rocket! Kuru Kuru Kururin Kururin Paradise Marble Drop Marble Madness Mercury Oxyd Pac-Man series (Ms. Pac-Man et al.) Polarium Puzznic Road Blocks Rush Hour SnakeSlider Sokoban Theseus and the Minotaur Kye [edit] Hidden object Black Box (game) Minesweeper MineSweeper3D [edit] Single character control Bombuzal Eggerland series Krusty's Fun House Oddworld series Professor Fizzwizzle Pushover Repton Deadly Rooms of Death [edit] Multiple character control Gobliiins! Lemmings The Lost Vikings Pingus Pitman (aka Power Paws) for the GameBoy [edit] Construction Bridge Builder The Incredible Machine Picross (aka Mario's Picross) Pipe Mania [edit] Multiple puzzle types Are we There Yet? The Fool's Errand WarioWare, Inc. [edit] Collections 1001 Lines Microsoft Entertainment Pack Zillions of Games Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection [edit] Interactive Word Games Word Sandwich [edit] Other Cuyo Mr Driller Seven Seas Shanghai solitaire Snakes
There is absolutely nothing "notable" about any of the games listed there, with the exception of Tetris and Lemmings. Yet, somehow those hurdles, hoops and strict interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines you impose on Bubble Fun don't seem to apply to any of the other Flash puzzle games listed in Wikipedia.
Now, if I were to strictly apply Wikipedia "notability guidelines" to all the games on that list, and deleted 95% of the games on that list, that would be considered vandalism, not proper editing, right? I have to admit, the logic here escapes me. I guess that's why I'm just a "newbie" and you guys are the "experts."
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, nonsense, etc. See WP:BIO Adambiswanger1 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep.-- Chaser T 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is redundant. The article on Transvestetic Fetismism is in fact about the same exact topic and is more reasoned and rational. Hence I propose this page be deleted and pointers to it redirected to Transvestic fetishism Smartgirl62 17:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Nv8200p talk 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. This was a tough one to close, and the decision was hard to make. I read every comment and !vote here in detail and weighed all the arguments. There was much more of a consensus to delete this article than to keep it, and the arguments to delete were more convincing than the ones to keep it. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is, at its heart, an indiscriminate list of information. There are no connections between any of these crimes, no research has been done about crimes specifically on these campuses, and, lacking sources, even making a statement like "crimes periodically occur on Ivy-League campuses" is original research. This is about as useful an article as, say, Pastries sold in Ivy-League dining halls, except that, because it's about crime, it's more sensational, which is why I imagine it's stayed around as long as it has. Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information that aspires to be original reseach. JDoorj a m Talk 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable species. In the entire series, we meet one member of this species, only one time, in a 2-minute segment of one episode. There is no potential for expansion. Basically, the Zaldan bumps into Wesley, gets upset, and interprets Wesley's apology as an insult. Wesley raises his voice. The Zaldan walks off. Wesley explains that Zaldans have webbed fingers and don't like courtesy. End of story. No non-stub article could ever come from this topic. This is already fully covered in the episode article, Coming of Age (TNG episode), so there is nothing to merge. BigDT 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, delete or redirect to male prostitute, Andeh 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence of meeting any of the proposed criteria from WP:SOFTWARE. Though the word "deme" has a gracious plenty google hits, they are mostly unrelated. Googling for "Deme" with "online deliberation" [35] finds mostly self-gen hits and hits related to the conference mentioned in the article. There has been no news on the official website [36] since February they are currently on version 0.5, which implies that they are still in the beta stage and are not yet up to a ready for prime time release. WP is not a crystal ball. BigDT 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to better generate consensus. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Absence of sources prevent this from ever being more than a dictionary definition. Tom Harrison Talk 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Move discussion to WP:TFD. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The UEFA U-21 Championship 2006 is finish ka la ha 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY REDIRECT. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a stub with absolutly no references about a song of a band Google doesn't seem to know. Hohenberg 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep, nom withdrawn. Punkmorten 09:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Although I have no problems with articles on Medal of Honor recipients, this is not an article, but source text of his medal citation. As such, it should be moved to Wikisource. I have deleted this once. User:Zoe| (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep. Can be merged and and left as redirect. Petros471 12:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
appears to be nn despite the claims; no references and can't immediately find any either. deprodded with the statement that google does turn up some references; all the ones I can find only mention Time Tripper as a sequence in a larger work. Hirudo 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, this was prodded, so two deletes are sufficient in my opinion. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod notice removed: This company is not notable. It doesn't meet the criteria of the WP:CORP guideline. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
it's just another digital camera, nothing notable about it. deprodded with we have articles on other Lumix cameras. I do not think we need an article about every single brand and type of camera Hirudo 19:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete WP:CSD G7 - Liberatore( T) 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no need to have copy and pasted article of the EB, if there is already a well-established and progressive original article. If someone wants the EB article, the 11th edition is widely available. I redirected the article to Ferrol, A Coruña, but the editor reverted it. -- Esprit15d 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD template unfinished by 198.133.105.244 RWR8189 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. He is nothing more than a blogger and his books are published through 'vanity press' sources. If Wikipedia includes every self financed author or blogger, it will be utter chaos. This is nothing more than a vanity posting by Pitt. Also Contains False Information In this site it claims Pitt was Dennis Kucinich's Press Secretary, but on Kucinich's site, it lists otherwise. ( http://kucinich.house.gov) No verification can be found Pitt was Kucinich's official Press Secretary- maybe in his own mind or a title he made up because he had a blog about Kucinich http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich . Book Not Listed. The book this author claims to have written (Our Flag Too) is not listed on Amazon and the ISBN listed is not in the ISBN database. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&y=0&isbn=1893956490&x=0—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.133.105.244 ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this article as this does not meet WP:FICT Pixen 05:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Move to Wikibooks. I'm applying my admin's discretion to this, moving to Wikibooks is equivalent to "Delete", but at least the content is preserved. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Page consists entirely of original research and therefore violates WP:NOR Yamla 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Made-up game played by "upper sixth Parmitarians", which I think is a reference to a UK school year. Prod removed, and recent addition It was created over a few days in school, and is still played regularly appears to be a response to WP:NFT. Delete. bikeable (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
As the author I would like to inform Indrian that this is not a hoax and was actually played in our common room a few times until the head of our sixth form told us not to stack chairs, probably for health and safety reasons. The addition of It was created over a few days in school is indeed a light hearted response to WP:NFT. David Newman, Parmiter's class of '99
The result of the debate was Delete. I looked at all the comments, and the arguments to delete this article definitely outweigh the arguments to keep (or rename) it. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
In addition, I wanted to point out that there is nothing useful here that isn't already in Prayer Book Rebellion. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is completely uncited expect for a page which itself states that it "...sets out the hypothesis that the Cornish people are being subjected to policies of genocide". There's no indication that the concept of a "Cornish Holocaust" exists in general reliably-published historical work; reiterating an original-research source still falls under No original research. It's massively non-neutral, and I honestly doubt it could ever be anything but with a title like that; an article on the "Anglo-Cornish war of 1549" (which seems to be a part of the Prayer Book Rebellion titled as a war, and is itself probably an OR-ish term) might be useful, but this article shows no sign it could ever be it. I honestly don't think Wikipedia would be improved by keeping it. Shimgray | talk | 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted as a non-notable biography. JDoorj a m Talk 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is may be a vanity entry, particularly judging from the horrendously vandalized talk page. Either way, the subject is not
notable. This is an entry repeatedly attacking and harrassing the subject of an Internet meme, a local access TV presenter who received prank calls on-air. The entry was protected due to repeated mean-spirited vandalism. We'd all be better off if it didn't exist.
Chris Griswold
20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Believe entire contents to be nonsense: Benny Goodman did not have a son, and there is no writer of this name creditted on the IMDB page for Good Times. Listing for deletion instead of speedy deletion just in case someone knows differently. Only Google hits from name derived from this page & no internal links to it. JennyRad 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
When I cleaned up this article, I also thought it sounded like pure nonsense... but it's your call. I'm not sure on the specifics. -- Samvscat 06:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Personally, I found this article to be thorough, concise, well researched, and inexpressibly usefull in my scholarly pursuits. I believe this article to be one of the greatest assets to the online wikipedia research community, and it would cause me and countless others indescribable grief to witness the deletion of this rare gem. knowledgeable 07:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics, just like I did with Jadugar Shakoora. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm curious whether lists with mostly redlinks are acceptable. While this would be a great page to encourage people to write articles, they're basically contentless. Until I'm really persuaded in either direction, I'm voting neutral. —
THIS IS MESSED
OCKER
(TALK)
20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Worried that this is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is some unofficial mixtape hosted by an artist who hasn't even released her debut album yet. The mixtape only returns 11 results when searched on Google and is not notable at all. -- Musicpvm 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep I am voting keep because this artist meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Its also in my opinion a valid release as her debut has not been released yet and I believe this mixtape as extensive as it is, is a means of self promotion for the artist without label giving the green light. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets|
00:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an advertisement for the store. Non-notable comic book shop as well. Wildthing61476 20:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 21:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. This could be merged, but probably can stand on its own. -- Tony Sidaway 07:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like more listcruft to me. I don't think this page would be particuarly useful in an encyclopedia. Delete Beno1000 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Platoon (film). – [ælfəks] 09:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wikibooks. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a cookbook —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denni ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was No consensus, after discounting all the invalid votes. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologic term. Main source is article starter's own blog. Seemingly no relevant Google hits. Haakon 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The term is NOT a synonym for "proprietary" as there are closed source packages that are never the less distributed at no-charge, or bundled with other things. The method is also similar to the music industry who tends to associate the selling of plastic discs with the selling of music. cmacd 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep - Richardcavell 01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems to be paraphrasing Caesar, as it stood, but not directly quoting. I'm currently editing out the Caesar and putting it into a more balanced account in my own words (eg the Walmer and Agricola bits). Please don't delete it. Neddyseagoon 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity / promo page Fram 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Has seven hits (4 distinct pages) on Google, none of them interesting. Non notable. Fram 09:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with Replicator (Stargate). Deathphoenix ʕ 16:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Edit This article is in need of revision, however, every human form replicator's aricle features the same information, again and again. The Replicator main article is cluttered as is, and there is certainly plenty of information to include here. Kashami 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page appears to be a quote from a primary source....why is its own article? Dlayiga 21:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Found whilst stub-sorting. Doesn't give any context, too technical, can't figure out if it's notable or not. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 12:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merged to Emma Frost for time being. Madchester 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a movie that has only been mentioned once. The movie doesn't even have an IMDb page. Ixistant 20:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article seems to be just a definition. It is too short and no one has tried to expand it or merge it with another article. BGFMSM 04:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been re-listed to generate a better consensus. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This has been through speedy (as advert -- article de-speedied and further copy added), and prod (which appears to have been simply removed). I continue to consider it an andertisment and request deletion. -- Simon Cursitor 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied. -- Golbez 00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This page seems to be trash. I don't know if the first article is even a serious attempt, and I know the rest is not. - Tjss 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is already plenty of articles (main one being Gravitation) that describe this topic. This one is just a listcruft of references. A merge is not even useful, as the main article is much more advanced. Delete Tony 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Joelito ( talk) 18:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be an advertisement brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Thekohser 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was The result of the debate was keep. This is not a vote count; the IMDB link, award nomination and projects he's worked on suggest notability. Someone should still clean it up. Metamagician3000 15:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Joelito ( talk) 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Shameless self-promotion TheDoctorIsIn 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
http://my7.statcounter.com/project/standard/stats.php?granularity=monthly&project_id=1146899 Ace of Sevens 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Regarding WP:Web one of the criteria is if the site is referenced by other publications. This site has been referenced in three. The first is in print and online while the other two are online:
http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2005/aug/a.htm "Billboard's hate message is short‑lived" August 2005
"Even many critics of chiropractic were put off by the viciousness of the attack. During a discussion of the billboard on a predominantly anti‑chiropractic Internet group (Chirotalk: The Skeptical Chiropractic Discussion Forum), one member called the sign "Fear mongering, nothing more..." Another stated, "It's a cheap tactic to hit the public with a sledgehammer that big." One member made an interesting point by saying: "What if we had one for 'Aspirin can kill you!' or 'Reading this sign while driving can kill you!' That is simply a sensationalized ad to get attention.""
http://www.ncahf.org/digest04/04-11.html "Skeptical chiropractic forum launched. An online discussion forum for the critical investigation of chiropractic topics has been launched by Allen Botnick, DC, who voluntarily surrendered his chiropractic licenses after concluding that his education had not prepared him to practice safely. He started Chirotalk because other discussion groups have expelled people who posted critical comments. Chirotalk is open to anyone who wants to discuss the problems associated with chiropractic theory and practice."
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-01/012006bigfoot.html
"Thank you, Brian. We have here a note from last week’s anonymous ex-chiropractor who was involved, and I think it will be encouraging to others and give a new source of assistance. He writes:
Thanks for forwarding me the nice emails from your readers. While it will probably be a while before I "come out of the chiropractic closet" and use my real name, I do currently participate in an email discussion list called Chirotalk. The address is: http://chirotalk.proboards3.com/index.cgi
The members of this list are mostly former chiropractors along with a few Physical Therapists who are chiro skeptics. The purpose of the list is to support chiropractors trying to get out of the profession (suggestions for new careers, encouragement, etc.) and to keep information on the web to discourage new students from enrolling in chiropractic college.
I have gotten a lot of ideas from this list as to how to move forward with my life. The main reason I wrote you is that I respect your opinion a lot and, also, I wanted to bring attention to the fact that there are students like me who have been ripped off by the chiropractic schools.
I agree that I have a moral obligation to help potential students see the full picture. Chiro college recruiters are very good at painting chiropractors as mainstream healthcare professionals based in science. This is fraud – as far as I'm concerned – since all chiropractic is still based on subluxation theory, although some modern chiros call subluxations different names, like fixations, spinal lesions, etc.
Allen Botnick, D.C., is the chiropractor who started the discussion list. He is also graduated from my college and has written, under his real name, about his experiences as a chiropractor. He has really endured a lot of hatred from the chiropractic profession for his honesty. It’s at: www.chirobase.org/03Edu/botnick.html
Anyway, thanks for spreading the word. While I certainly wouldn't accept donations from anybody, I am inspired to consider telling my story in a more public way in the future. The kind messages from your readers have shown me that skeptics really have big hearts."
The site is volunteer and not for profit-unlike the chiropractors who are bashing it. It deserves mentioning. Abotnick 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
>The sites owner (editor Abotnick) has made many attempts add a link to his forum site on the main Chiropractic article as well.
Levine has a problem with many of the skeptical contributors to the Chiropractic article. I have actually written two of the paragraphs in the current chiropractic article and edited and rewrote the lead. Please see discussion for more information.
>His forum site makes it known that they are focused on boosting the sites PageRank by getting inbound links (from prominent sites such as Wikipedia).
Levine is referring to the writings of one individual member of the forum, not the forum itself. The forum itself is referenced by many individuals outside the forum itself as the statistics show. It is not simply self promotion.
>As for the references by other publications below, it should be known that user Abotnick works with Neck911.com (organization that created the hate-message billboard) in publishing and promoting press releases.
I had nothing to do with the reference posted above. That was independently written.
>With the NCAHF reference, it should be noted that the anti-chiropractic circle is a tight ring (in fact they participate in a Skeptic Web ring). They all link to each other, again to boost PageRank.
NCAHF is a legitimate skeptical newsletter. Levine is implying that any skeptical publication is a conspiracy.
>As far as the James Randi reference goes, the "anonymous ex-chiropractor" that it refers to is in fact Allen Botnick once again self-promoting his website. Doing a cursory web search for his name on Google, I am actually able to find that he has inserted links to his website and cause all over the Internet in seemingly odd and inappropriate places. My feeling is that him creating a Wikipedia article about his forum Chirotalk is just another attempt at - as.
I had no part in writing the Randi article. Please back up your statements with evidence Levine and stop the conjecture. Chirotalk is either the number one or number two top chiropractic discussion forum on the web and has been cited in several publications. It certainly has the most uncensored content as the other sites actively censor skeptical opinions (as I suspect some people are trying to do here by suggesting that Chirotalk's wiki entry be removed). People are going to be curious about its history and goals and it's worth a few bytes on Wikipedia. Abotnick 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I see the pro-chiropractic forces are rallying to do their best to remove a channel for skeptical inquiry into their practices. Abotnick 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this is not a self promotion enter your own articles and websites to get yourself notoriety kind of place. Also, the argument that "the 'pro-chiropractic' forces are mobilizing" is patently moot. It 's like saying the "pro gravity" forces are arguing against commercial flight. The "pro-capitalism" forces are going to walmart to buy groceries today. Sad, and needs to be gone from this forum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.175.2 ( talk • contribs)
The content of this website should play no part in this decision (i.e. it might be totally unreliable for all I know, but if extensively used and influential then it would still merit an article), WP should not engage in censorship. The only significant issues are whether the website is sufficiently notable for inclusion and that the content of the article is a NPOV balanced, verifiable account. The latter is I think now true. The former however is not clearly established; I would suggest that Abotnick consider merging the content with articles on related or similar websites (e.g. Quackwatch) and use redirection to direct searches to the composite article. Gleng 10:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Greng, I think the vandals and poorly qualified editors in the wikipedia process have greatly diminished the quality of the article. Further merging it with other nonrelated sites is no longer specific to the Chirotalk term so that doesn't work. This isn't chirobase-neck911-chirotalk. We are a separate discussion site with a history and individuality that deserves to be listed but was removed due to critical chiroprctors who don't want individuals to know that censorship is common at private nonprofit chiropractic institutions and that they have an accreditor who routinely doesn't enforce its own standards. Most likely we will need to just mount a PR campaign and get a reference in another media source to meet the WP guideline for notoreity. This is sort of ironic because of the biased chiropractors who are screaming that I am using wiki for self promotion. Anyway, wikipedia just isn't worth the bother if their major editors can't see the value of the entry. The information is available elsewhere on the net. Further, despite chiropractic's false assertions of growth they are running scams and it is simply a matter of time before the public hits critical mass and rejects them en mass. Utilization is already down 25% in just four years. So their reframing this as ad hominem attacks on me is really just a reflection of their inability to overcome the handicap. Chiros you can't build a house on a foundation of sand. Your scams won't win. Truth and knowledge have power. Abotnick 11:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sure that 'merging' in this way would be a bad solution. Disambiguation could redirect a search for chirotalk to a larger article on sceptical websites that includes, as a subsection on chirotalk, all the material that you presently have (and more). The case for inclusion on grounds of notability could then be decided by comparison with other websites rather than in isolation, as now. Gleng 11:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Gleng-The merge/subsections idea sounds like it might work. Would it still be under the heading of Chirotalk or another one? A list of Skeptical Sites could include: Chirobase.org, Neck911USA.org, "The Quack Files" and Chirotalk. How about "Skeptical Websites about Chiropractic"? Chirobase alone has a large amount of notoriety. Since this is a big revision can we put a pause on the deletion of this Chirotalk entry? Any suggestions for revision? Abotnick 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn. advert? manchesterstudent 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like an advertisement. Obviously non-notable EdJones 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not appear notable (one user has stated that the division is not even on Motorola's website). Also is a glowing endorsement of the division and its merits - an advertisment, of sorts. Falcon 22:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
What citations do exist in this article are from message board posts. Delete as original research. -- InShaneee 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject is a forum game played on a single forum. Only linked to by a redirect page and the MGS disambiguation page. (There was a reference on forum game, which I've deleted as part of an overall trimming of the article.) Previously listed for WP:PROD by Ashibaka but de-tagged, so I'm putting it here. æ l e ✆ 2006-06-07t22:59z
What do you recommend I do to save this page? -- Stripedtiger 05:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
According to the guidlines, it is notable.
An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:
If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:
The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 13:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable event. Association with Jon Lovitz and David Brimmer (who?) is not verified by anything I can find. ... discospinster talk 23:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Relisted for clearer consensus Computerjoe 's talk 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep MartinRe 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Is not suitable for Wikipedia and Article is biased or has lots of POV Andy Blak 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be a sorry attempt by a satanist to try to take christianity off wikipedia. blatant POV and valdalism. Pathetic..... Pure inuyasha 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Proto/// type 14:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Page seems nonsensical, and discusses a neologism that doesn't seem particularly notable JulesH 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Also, on a second reading, is probably original research. There are certainly no sources, and much of it sounds like it is simply the writer's opinion. JulesH 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A former teenaged hockey player. A total of one Google hit and it's not about hockey. Vanity/not notable. HollyAm 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Proto// type 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
(Auto)biography about a non-notable American journalist. -- David Iberri ( talk) 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - that was crap. Tawker 01:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
ridiculous information, the rest belongs in Child Sexuality. List of examples. did you read the part about Ontario? Adambiswanger1 00:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango 123 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete vanity, inanity, hoax, intentional self promotion per his website and per the text of this article ("Fans of Ill Mitch can join his promotional group called the "Spread Team"). Yeah..... - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
-- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Spam JennyRad 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non notable individual with miniscule, if any, following. not all candidates for political office deserve notability. vanity article, WP:VAIN. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Note: Rent Is Too Damn High Party is also nominated for deletion. Strothra 15:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I spotted this map up for a very poorly done mass AFD and also noted that it has been voted on before with an outcome of no consensus. We see arguments in the previous AFD such as "notable warcraft map", I'm sure it was made in good faith, I do however, call bullshits. Another mass AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust resulted in no consensus, yet each of those maps has unique google links in the hundreds or thousands. This doesn't, at all with a paltry 18 Google links for "Vampirism Revolution". This is not a notable or popular warcraft map, at all. - Hahnch e n 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – [ælfəks] 09:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is another non notable custom map that should have been deleted found off of the poorly thought out mass AFD. This isn't an official Warcraft map, this is a fan made map, for a fan made modification of Warcraft which was deleted. I voted to keep on the Counter-Strike maps AFD because each official map has tens of thousands of players at any time, this does not. It generates 150 links on Google for "three corridors" warcraft, which isn't much anyway. But when you look at those links, most of them are irrelevent to this fan map. You can take a look at their website too at http://www.3corridors.com/. This is not a notable map. - Hahnch e n 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Ezeu 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN episode of
That '70s Show - going from the list of episodes page, only notable ones have any content - either delete this or merge. I withdraw this nomination in advance if somebody undertakes to fix the article up with formatting similar to the existing episode pages. Presently it is just badly written fan synopsis with quotes.
SM247
00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Redirect - I'm being bold here - Hahnch e n 00:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per previous afd which resulted in speedy delete for the obvious reason. SM247 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I found this on RC patrol and PRODed it as a neologism, buzzword, and dictdef. PROD was contested. Erik the Rude 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (article userfied to User:Sullivanharvard). Sango 123 02:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject of the article doesn't meet WP:BIO and the article appears to have been written by the suject. Originally prodded, but it was removed by an anonymous editor without comment. Delete-- Ed ( Edgar181) 00:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article has insufficient context or references to establish notability. Prod removed by creator without comment, and without addressing these concerns. Delete-- Ed ( Edgar181) 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus – Gurch 15:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability of a small game development company executive Kickstart70- T- C 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep and expand. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Orphaned article, same couple of sentences years later and still no corresponding French article. Nothing links here either. It seems like a non-notable-philosophy. 2nd vote (see Talk:Non-philosophy) - Rudykog 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
delete or at least boost notability, possible vanity page Chris 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actor. He is credited with appearing in a Barney & Friends video but IMDB only give him one credit in a film in post production. Fails WP:BIO and besides his one, or possibly two credits, there is no other biographical information available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable as a specific high school organization (as opposed to the general JROTC, see here. Crystallina 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge to History of Birmingham. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page appears to have been born out of an edit war on the History of Birmingham page about 2 years ago, which led someone to fork off this article. All the useful content appears to be duplicated in articles about specific inventors or companies. There appears to be no particular reason to group this content in this way; "unrelated people and companies who worked in vaguely related fields in the same city over the space of several centuries" strikes me as much too loose an association for an article, and that's more or less what this boils down to. (Note: This was debated and kept in June 2004. See the talk page. Cleanup tagged since June '05.) -- Robth Talk 19:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 17:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems there are at least two other editors who would disagree with me that this article fails WP:BIO by a longshot, so I humbly nominate this article for AFD to decide. hateless 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Uh, oh, meat puppet alert. OK, buddies of Mike Gurrie, here is what you can do to preserve your friend's entry for all eternity:
Mildy amusing it is. Encyclopedic it's not. ~ trialsanderrors 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. IMDB gives her three credits. Two minor roles in TV shows and a straight to video film. Someone provided some biographical details which were moved to the talk page as they are un-referenced. Google provides no more biographical information. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. Appeared in one TV show. Fails WP:BIO and besides her acting credit, there is no biographical information available. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an advertisement for the Realitydreamship site. The creator of this article has repetedly removed the AfD templates from the page before the problem was resolved. Vaniac 01:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actor. Only has two TV credits to his name and no biographical information available. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable. Nertz 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
We meet the following WP:Music standard: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."
We are the most popular hip hop group in Midlothian, Virginia. And the myspace page has been fixed.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. This article was previously deleted as a copyvio. It has since been re-written. The subject is still, however, non-notable as she only has a single credit in a TV show to her name. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actor. Appeared in a Barney & Friends concert tour. No other biographical information available. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Bio page for a NN author, and minor patent holder and (of all things) car park owner. No indication or citation that these are the same people at all. unsigned nomination by User:Ch'marr.
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A cute and adorable, but alas, non-notable child actress with a single TV credit. No other biographical information available. Fails: WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer ( talk) 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There are thousands of schools in Canada. It would be better to use List of schools in <province or territory>, some of which already exist. Usgnus 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because is a subpage: reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Fails related notablity guidelines. LBMixPro <Sp e ak|on|it!> 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Every so often, I'll search for links to the YTMND article or external YTMND links and delete them from irrelevent pages. And then I found this. This is not a notable recording, there are no decent sources for this meme. The List of YTMND fads was deleted for a good reason, this should be too. - Hahnch e n 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Categorise is an action to be taken after the Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Useless list. SeizureDog 02:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable elementary school that is now defunct. Metros232 02:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete, BJAODN. Sango 123 02:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Um...yeah. This shouldn't even be merged. Short list and completely inane. SeizureDog 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable nebula that was mentioned in passing in one episode and could never be more than just a stub. How did this one get missed in the mass Star Trek nominations last night? BigDT 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN theme park that isn't even open yet. User has been adding several articles for NN places and people. Dismas| (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
POV fork of History of Google#Criticism and controversy. waffle iron talk 02:50, 7 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 no consensus to delete. Can't merge and delete, so I've just redirected. Someone else can merge if wanted, that doesn't need afd. Petros471 12:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN campground Dismas| (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Maybe ad or vanity Nv8200p talk 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect Eluchil404 04:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is a larger article on the same subject: Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. The SSAA have said there is no apostrophe in their name, and it seems redundant to have an article stub with a mis-spelt title when there is a larger article on the same topic- with the correct title- on Wikipedia.-- Commander Zulu 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This website does not meet the criteria for notability outlined in WP:WEB. Kershner 03:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Artist Clearly do not fit the notability policy for wikipedia. Albums aren't listed at Amazon.com or any major online shops. Deletion needed. Fistofphury 18:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Firegirl223 23:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Never listed properly, listing now. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete Richardcavell 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Based on the text of the uploader's user page, I'm going to say this looks like original research. I've left a note on the user's talk page requesting sources. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 03:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable number according to these guidelines. (Strange that I found this one on 6/6/6...) Crystallina 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
hELL
. Slightly amusing, but not notable.
JIP |
Talk
08:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 15:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN actress. Appeared in a single TV show, though Wikipedia provides an 8 item "filmography" which appears, upon further examination, to be a listing of episode titles. Besides a DOB and credits there is no biographical information available. Fails WP:BIO.
I'm also nominating the remaider of the Barney & Friends kids here. None of these kids has more than a handful of credits, all of which are not notable. Like the other, there is little or no biographical information available. They all also fail WP:BIO.
*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 11:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No opinion. I caught both of these on CSD and rescued them. I'm not sure if they're notable within the animal world, but I figured it at least deserved some input. Ral315 ( talk) 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. Being married to a small-town mayor does not impart notability. Fluit 03:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN child actor. Has appeared in a bit part in one film. Fails WP:BIO and there is no biographical information available. Note, this child has NOT appeared on Barney & Friends. :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sango 123 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Just an online T-shirt shop. Same as every other T-shirt shop out there Phileas 04:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fancruft. Artw 04:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This single was only sold at a school band's concert. Google has zero hits for the artist. Completely non notable. Crystallina 04:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. bainer ( talk) 14:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The event itself is covered n as much detail in the article Ferdinand I of Romania and the ungainly title is not likely to be used as an entry point. If the article were larger or was linked to a similar article on the Romanian wiki I could see keeping it, but neither is the case. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
More unencyclopedic, POV material about the Walt Disney World College Program. Survived a previous AFD though lack of interest. Wikipedia is not an almanac about this institution, delete -- Peta 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable wargaming orgaization, delete -- Peta 04:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, appears to be advert. Artw 04:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 02:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:WEB WP:VAIN Self promotion of non-notable web site. John Nagle 05:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Spent a very brief time in February in top 100,000 websites hasn't been there since [7] only 59 hits on google, most of which seem to be junk links. A 126 member forum isn't exactly notable, especially since it doesn't seem to have any claim to fame. Crossmr 05:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't worry guys, but we were down for a LONG time, which is why we dropped in rankings. We get about 200+ posts daily, but ok, let's just wait until we get back up into the higher rankings, :)
Feel free to delete, I totally understand. ^_^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.207.202 ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 June 2006.
-
The result of the debate was delete. Someone can creat a neutral article at World Peace Forum if they want. Petros471 12:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Future event of questionable notability, content as stands is completely unencyclopedic, delete -- Peta 05:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Petros471 12:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There doesn't appear to be a "line of succession to the President of Pakistan": the President is elected for a five-year term by the electoral college. Rather, the article only mentions that if the President dies, the President of the Senate takes over. This is more to do with the role of the president than a "line of succession". If this deletion is passed, then the information should be moved to Politics of Pakistan. Neonumbers 05:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't think they pass WP:MUSIC, delete -- Peta 05:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Clearly spam, doesn't seem notable Artw 05:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN person, article says they worked on one game and worked for one small company which is no longer in business. Only 133 Google hits for "Chuck Bilow". Dismas| (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
PS - There's about 811 Google hits ;)...
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable internet neologism, delete -- Peta 05:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect as a normal cleanup edit. Jkelly 18:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Already covered here. Artw 05:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Frivolous Theorem of Arithmetic. That VfD attracted many IP votes and, for some reason, it was never properly closed. I'm nominating the article again so that the discussion can be brought to completion.
I don't think this "theorem" is in fact being used in mathematics. As the nominator said on the VfD page, it seems to be a "pretty feeble math joke". The article lists four references. The first reference is a one-liner in another online encyclopaedia (and we all know how reliable online encyclopaedia are, don't we?). The second reference is in fact copied from the first reference; I didn't check the book. The third and fourth reference do not mention "frivolous theorem of arithmetic". I don't think that's enough, so delete. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 05:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Sango 123 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Existing page Scenario analysis is already better developed and has a more logical title - no unique content on this page. Merge/redirect? SM247 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, probable spam. Artw 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-maintainable and not highly useful list (what is the media and to what locale if any is this restricted?) SM247 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This phrase, as a pair ( "Chuckling to myself" +CTM) garners around 24 Google hits. It doesn't appear to be notable enough to justify so much as a redirect, so I've brought it here for dele-- er, discussion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia article. But instead seems to be promotional material. Probably something that only Richard Clark knows or cares about. Rob 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The subject does not seem to be notable. Dancter 06:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedily redirected. Jkelly 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page was created a month and a half ago and yet still contains almost no content. The statement at the beginning of the article is entirely POV, and as I said on the discussion page, is an idea with which a great many people would disagree. Regardless, he has had ample time to expand and improve the article, and has not done so. I propose its deletion. Charles 06:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism from Family Guy episode Blind Ambition that is not notable in its own right -- DLand TALK 06:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It is believed that this article was created to perpetrate a hoax, that a video game was in production for the TLC documentary. While the documentary itself is real, it isn't particularly notable. Dancter 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fairly obvious hoax. (Does anyone not in junior high think that Richard I had a companion named "Sir William the Arcane?") Choess 07:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn person, does not meet WP:BIO, very few google hits Fluit 07:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely non notable. Ben W Bell talk 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - there is no useful or objective definition of "populistic pieces". I noticed this because it was very near the top of the Special page - Oldest articles ( Special:Ancientpages): it has not been edited since 17 July, 2004, and it shows - no-one is remotely interested in it. Mais oui! 07:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn person, fails WP:BIO Kcordina Talk 08:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN charitable foundation. Just founded in '06 so it would be hard for it to have done anything notable but the article also doesn't state how it is any more notable than other charity in that area of the world. Dismas| (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company (fails WP:CORP). Contested prod and remarkably similar (same editor, also part of the Dwyer Group) to the recently unanimously deleted Rainbow International -- Pak21 08:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, possibly OR. Also, after reading this a few times, I'm not sure exactly what an anticompilation film is. Ace of Sevens 11:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:MONGO (See [17]) BigDT 11:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable press release, regardless of company involved Tychocat 07:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with Sports film. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This should be merged to Sports film (which badly needs a rewrite about conventions, etc as it's basically a list right now). Baseball isn't really a genre in and of itself. No other sports have pages like this. I don't see what makes baseball special in this regard. Ace of Sevens 11:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability of this band is asserted, but I could not find evidence that what is reported is true [19] - Liberatore( T) 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism and probably not really a genre anyway. A google ssearch for "bug hunt" - "starship troopers" returned only result about software bugs and entymology. I found no evidence of people using the term as presented here outside Starship Troopers. Ace of Sevens 11:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
According to its 2 Google hits, the site is actually some kind of guesthouse. Article is vain and laughably POV. Moreover, there is no such thing as 'Frequently Visited Landmark' status in the UK, nor does the National Trust give awards to private dwellings. AlexTiefling 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Agreed, this is blatant advertising. otocan
The result of the debate was delete. DS 14:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page about non-notable site, created by owner. On the talk page, he even said: don't delete this e is pretty small. fel64 11:43, 7User June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
NN Neologism. Dictionary.com doesn't list this word and a google search only turned up hits about a document-processing company in the UK. Ace of Sevens 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Promotional of a non-notable website with an Alexa rank of over two million. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no action taken. This belongs at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, not AfD. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Needs to be merged into Docudrama. They are the same thing and docudrama is by far the more common term. Ace of Sevens 12:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Makes no claims to notability, unranked by Alexa, unable to obtain membership numbers and none in article, Google results show no sign of notability or recognition and not verifiable. Does not meet WP:WEB standards; possible CSD A7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Makes sense. I will try to ask the leadership of the empire for more input on both this and Beach Bash,--Hawk 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 12:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
2-line entry on obscure nightclub with no assertion of notability StuartF 12:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Hoax. No google hits for "Mano Markovic". I doubt anyone was abbreviated to "Vagina", and of course, there are no google hits for "Deutsch Vagin Klub". The picture labelled "Mano throwing the wayward javelin in warm-up" is of Steve Backley (he is in an England shirt, similar picture here). Et ceter, et cetera. Mr Stephen 13:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Excuse me, you sir are a moron. I am insulted that you have not heard of "Deutsch Vagin Club". It is a fairly small organisation started by this great man Mano..and still today helps underprivledged children walk to school every morning. Mano is a great man. Sure, the picture may not be of him exactly, but it is the vibe that is given off that is important. There was no opportunity for photos when Mano enterd the olympics. Do not insult Mano by removing this page.
I agree whole-heartedly with the above comment. If you people cannot simply accept the magnitude of Mano's character, and try to bring him down with false claims then that is just proposterous. I am dissappointed with the ignorance of viewers of this website. How one can not be aware of the Deutsch Vagin Klub is just beyond my comprehension. If this article is taken down, it will be read as no less than a personal prejudiced attack. Mano is a vengeful character, I urge careful consideration to take place.
The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 12:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable name, no important people with Kowalysko, and other names are more common Chipka 13:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Subject barely passes WP:BIO, with no compelling reasons to keep, request respected.. Shell babelfish 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject requests deletion. Feels that she doesn't meet criteria under WP:BIO. No opinion on the matter, just bringing it here as requested for a community decision. Shell babelfish 13:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough to deserve it's own article, and already has adequete coverage in the Middlesbrough F.C. and FA Premier League 1996-97 pages. -- DaveJB 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Couldn't find anything to back notability per WP:BIO cholmes75 ( chit chat) 13:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing a nomination started by Spylab. Rationale was given in the talk page: "I don't see the point of this entry. There's already an article on Two Tone. Are there going to be entries listing ska bands from every single country? Spylab 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)spylab" - Liberatore( T) 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. TigerShark 10:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Violates WP:BIO (no widely recognized contribution to any field) and WP:VAIN (current article was written by the subject). The latter creates intractable issues of NPOV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivana Humpalot ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, should the nominator be invited to change his/her username? - Liberatore( T) 14:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Flash animator. Fails WP:BIO with a venegeance. In addition, there are no reliable sources for any of the information in the article. See also David Firth, Jazza. Delete, or at least merge into The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny - Motor ( talk) 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom (me). I stated my opinion concerning the usefulness of this article on its talk page first, and received only agreement on the matter. Cut and paste follows.
I am confident that this article can serve no worthwhile purpose, and should be considered a good reminder that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article seems to me the very definition of indiscriminate. Fearwig 22:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Adding nowiki tags below because the code broke up the AfD, and I can't be bothered fixing it. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 14:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
:{{see also|<noinclude>:Category:Maps showing the history of the Early Middle Ages</noinclude>|:Category:Maps showing the history of the High Middle Ages|:Category:Maps showing the history of the Late Middle Ages|:Category:Maps showing the history of the Middle Ages|:Category:Old maps of Europe|:Category:Maps of the history of Europe}} just for starters, and similar names by period, country, region, etc. Most short confusing category names will soon be tagged with {{tl|category redirect}}, and the sisterproject wide categories will be taking over. The good news is many of our basic article categories of a technical nature are a-Okay, but poorly worded ones that are more 'idiomatic' thus translating badly are being kicked out in favor of those that cross into the other language projects. Best regards! // <B>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</B><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> 07:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
'Keep' - It's good to have them all in one place. Keep the list.
PeregrineV
22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Delete/Merge per Mike Christie: Instead of a list, I think the way to do this would be to translate this information: (1) categories and subcategories, plus maybe (2) an article explaining what fictional universes are and linking to the categories and subcategories. (I'm not sure if that counts as a "merge" - if so, then I guess I mean "merge"). TheronJ 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Creator of a non-notable show, also nominating the production company, which apparently consists of his 10th grade class. No google hits/sources for "Tom Nobleman". Wickethewok 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, keep by default. Richardcavell 00:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, per the precedent set by deleting Mouhammad Faye's page today Rambler14 14:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 10:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable. Where is this station? Why is this person notable?
⇒
SWATJester
Ready
Aim
Fire!
22:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, insignificant athlete Rambler14 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Does not seem noteable, reads like an advert - Lazydaisy 03:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The following has been copied from the talk page:
He's not a public figure, and he told me personally that the article is inaccurate. -- Uncle Ed 14:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply
Jack Corley is a member of the Unification Church personally known to me ( User:Ed Poor). He disputes the statements made by Ed as "inaccurate" (source: personal conversation, 4/25/2006). He specifically objected to being called a leader and to having the picture of him and Arafat - and how this info spread to the Russian Wikipedia.
I'm not going to go "3RR" on this, but I'm removing the information at his request, one last time. -- Uncle Ed 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD discussion
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is not notable and appears to be a vanity article. I'd also propose deleting all the associated images. Alabamaboy 14:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing a nomination by GillsMan, who is also the original creator of the article. See the rationale in the talk page. See also the first AfD of this article. - Liberatore( T) 15:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Few Google hits, film producer that doesn't seem to be notable in the least. Also nominating associated articles:
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Sandison.
Wickethewok 15:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was irrelevant: article correctly speedily deleted by Fang Aili. -- RobertG ♬ talk 16:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page just appears to be a childish insult. Fyver528 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested {{ prod}}. Article had been blanked when I found it. Seems a story of a young career gone unfortunately wrong, but not material for an encyclopedia. RobertG ♬ talk 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A smalltime Ebay criminal and an internet vigilante who both have their three days of fame. Take it to Wikinews if you must.
Dr Zak 16:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn.
Dr Zak
17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
This is a very real phenomenon, with online users baiting and/or conning scamers such as Nigerian scammers.
This example in question attracted over 3 million unique visitors, and made headlines. Of some note, I would say. Sfacets 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Normally, only having two delete votes is grounds for relisting, but this article actually qualifies for a speedy delete per WP:CSD A7 (Unremarkable people or groups). Deathphoenix ʕ 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This would have fallen under {{ db-repost}} [29], but since the content is different, I am bringing it to AfD. A quick search shows that this group is non-notable and fails WP:BAND. - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
An inconsequential murder that made headlines half a year ago. Not particularly iconic or gruesome or anything; the case is quite forgotten now. Dr Zak 16:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The articles on Rachel and Lilian were nominated for deletion in February. It was argued then that they should be kept because it was a major story. Well, it was a major story then, but now the hubbub has died down. Dr Zak 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete – Gurch 15:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Whether this article is kept, merged, or redirected is a debate that can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. He appears to be a minor league hockey player. I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but it's currently unverified. NickelShoe ( Talk) 16:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with The Immunity Syndrome (TOS episode). Deathphoenix ʕ 14:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. A note to Frank6783: if there are other articles you feel are also non-notable, you can also start AfDs on them, but read this first. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as nn-game. Alexa rank for pcpuzzles.com where this game is hosted is >1,000,000. Alexa rank for Amok Entertainment (creator of the game) is >400,000. Google hits for the game tied to Amok Entertainment number 28 [31]. This is just one of millions of flash games out there. Article as it stands makes no claim of any kind to notability and why this game stands out as notable from the millions of other flash games. I previously speedy deleted this article, but the creator re-created it again. Running AfD now as a means to definitely clarify the status. -- Durin 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I think this game deserves to be listed because it has a unique game concept. Take a look at these reviews:
http://www.pcpuzzles.com/bubblefun-highscore
"I've seen this gametype for the first time and I think it's very innovative." Overall Score: 8 The_Hidden on Newgrounds.com
"It's an amazing work of beauty, from the layout, to the actual game... it's one in a million." Overall Score: 10 Poop4brains on Newgrounds.com
Bubble Fun is the Michael Jordan of flash puzzles. Its beyond awesome. Overall Score: 10 Hard-kore on Newgrounds.com
'This game is a great mind-bender. Even beyond game playing it's addicting to watch the permutations of chain reactions as control of the board changes between the players. Avi Muchnick (aka JaxomLOTUS) of Worth1000.com
Also, it's shareware which means the game is available on dozens of websites, not just the PCpuzzles site. Here are some examples:
http://www.addictinggames.com/bubblefun.html http://www.ugotgames.com/bubblefun.php (among the top 5 most popular games) http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=172233 (silver medal award) http://www.gtds.net/Bubble-Fun/ http://www.funflashgames.com/bubblefun.htm http://www.milkandcookies.com/article/2935/
Alexa traffic rank for Newgrounds.com: 596 Alexa traffic rank for Addictinggames.com: 1224 Alexa traffic rank for Milkandcookies.com: 5736
Just because someone has a silly username doesn't mean their opinion doesn't count. Try actually playing the game before blindly deleting it. It's a very unique game concept.
"Something totally original and fun." Overall Score: 9 Master1n0 on Newgrounds.com
"That's like nothing I've ever seen before! I'd say it's a lot better than old games. It's really addictive." Overall Score: 9 InvaderHaanzi on Newgrounds.com
This game is absolute genius! Horribly addicting! Overall Score: 10 The_Mad_Prophet on Newgrounds.com
"Very original and well presented." Overall Score: 9 over_clock on Newgrounds.com
"Simply amazing. Thanks for the new fun game." Overall Score: 9 -Krossroads- on Newgrounds.com
"Awesome game, and awesome idea." Overall Score: 10 Pink_Floyd on Newgrounds.com
Best puzzle game ever made! Overall Score: 10 Cheesycake on Newgrounds.com
"I didn't think it could be done but you actually made a non-violent game that's fun!" Overall Score: 10 Xtama on Newgrounds.com
But isn't the whole idea behind Wikipedia that the opinions and contributions of unpaid volunteers and regular citizens are of equal, if not greater, value than that of some paid editor? Case in point: how many of you who voted for deletion actually played the game? Shouldn't the opinions of people who did play it hold some value?
And shouldn't the fact that Bubble Fun is available on many popular high-traffic game sites and the fact that so many users gave it rave reviews account for something and lift it above the countless pacman, space invaders, and tetris clones you usually find on game sites?
How about if I add this to the entry:
"Bubble Fun is noteworthy for its unique concept and being the first game to combine the satisfaction of popping virtual bubble wrap with a strategic element."
Being the first of its kind doesn't make it notable? Wasn't Tetris notable for being the first of its kind?
And I find these comments trying to disqualify the opinions of those people who actually played the game and gave it positive reviews a bit elitist. How are your opinions more valuable than their opinions? Isn't this the type of attitute Wikipedia is faced with so often, when people dismiss Wikipedia as nothing more than a bunch of unqualified volunteers? Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you dismiss the opinions of dozens of Newsgrounds users and webmasters who reviewed the game? If all those Newgrounds users became editors at Wikipedia, would that suddenly make their opinions more valuable?
Take a look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games How do any of these games qualify to be listed in Wikipedia as "noteworthy" but Bubble Fun doesn't? Bubble Fun has a unique game concept. Most of the games on that list do not. They're mostly clones of each other or of older game concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatris Hatris gameplay is similar to Tetris
Hatris is a Tetris clone. How is that "noteworthy"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_%28game%29 The gameplay is a mixture between SameGame and Tetris.
How is Collapse noteworthy?
What makes the games on this list noteworthy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games
They're almost all clones of each other, yet they're listed in Wikipedia. By the same standard Bubble Fun should be listed. In fact it has more merit to be listed than a bunch of Tetris and Bejeweled clones, because it is not a clone but an original. But I guess presenting a logical argument for the inclusion of Bubble Fun is a lost cause, because you guys have made up your mind without ever even looking at the game.
The game has been published on dozens of popular websites. You say the high Alexa rankings provide notability for those sites, correct? So we established that numerous notable sources have published the game.
I understand your analogy about uploading a file on Download.com, which is not downloaded by anyone, but the many player reviews prove that a lot of people have played the game. And the fact that many different webmasters commented on the game or published the game also shows that this is not just a file downloaded by only 3 people.
Please explain to me how this game is more "notable" than Bubble Fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biniax
And please explain to me how this game is more "notable" than Bubble Fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOXit
Then please explain to me how this game is more notable than Bubble Fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrickShooter
We can go through the entire list on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_puzzle_games
Tetris (the game that started the genre) Bejeweled (aka Diamond Mine) Biniax BOXit BrickShooter Bubble Burst by Zango Bubble Fun by Amok Entertainment Chainz Collapse Columns Devet Diamond Crush Dr. Mario Gorby's Pipeline (for MSX and NES) Hatris Magic Jewelry (Columns-clone for NES) Klax Lines (aka ColorLines) Lumines Magical Drop Meteos Money Puzzle Exchanger (aka Money Idol Exchanger) Panel de Pon (aka Tetris Attack and Pokémon Puzzle League) Puzzle Bobble (aka Bust-a-Move) Puyo Puyo (aka Kirby's Avalanche or Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine) SameGame Sega Swirl Snood Squarez Squarez Deluxe Picross Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo Tetris 2 (aka Tetris Flash) Uo Poko Wario's Woods Welltris Wordtris Yoshi Yoshi's Cookie Zoop [edit] Maze/obstacle course navigation Abashera Atomix (for C64, Amiga, PC etc.) Bomberman ChuChu Rocket! Kuru Kuru Kururin Kururin Paradise Marble Drop Marble Madness Mercury Oxyd Pac-Man series (Ms. Pac-Man et al.) Polarium Puzznic Road Blocks Rush Hour SnakeSlider Sokoban Theseus and the Minotaur Kye [edit] Hidden object Black Box (game) Minesweeper MineSweeper3D [edit] Single character control Bombuzal Eggerland series Krusty's Fun House Oddworld series Professor Fizzwizzle Pushover Repton Deadly Rooms of Death [edit] Multiple character control Gobliiins! Lemmings The Lost Vikings Pingus Pitman (aka Power Paws) for the GameBoy [edit] Construction Bridge Builder The Incredible Machine Picross (aka Mario's Picross) Pipe Mania [edit] Multiple puzzle types Are we There Yet? The Fool's Errand WarioWare, Inc. [edit] Collections 1001 Lines Microsoft Entertainment Pack Zillions of Games Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection [edit] Interactive Word Games Word Sandwich [edit] Other Cuyo Mr Driller Seven Seas Shanghai solitaire Snakes
There is absolutely nothing "notable" about any of the games listed there, with the exception of Tetris and Lemmings. Yet, somehow those hurdles, hoops and strict interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines you impose on Bubble Fun don't seem to apply to any of the other Flash puzzle games listed in Wikipedia.
Now, if I were to strictly apply Wikipedia "notability guidelines" to all the games on that list, and deleted 95% of the games on that list, that would be considered vandalism, not proper editing, right? I have to admit, the logic here escapes me. I guess that's why I'm just a "newbie" and you guys are the "experts."
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, nonsense, etc. See WP:BIO Adambiswanger1 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep.-- Chaser T 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is redundant. The article on Transvestetic Fetismism is in fact about the same exact topic and is more reasoned and rational. Hence I propose this page be deleted and pointers to it redirected to Transvestic fetishism Smartgirl62 17:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Nv8200p talk 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. This was a tough one to close, and the decision was hard to make. I read every comment and !vote here in detail and weighed all the arguments. There was much more of a consensus to delete this article than to keep it, and the arguments to delete were more convincing than the ones to keep it. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is, at its heart, an indiscriminate list of information. There are no connections between any of these crimes, no research has been done about crimes specifically on these campuses, and, lacking sources, even making a statement like "crimes periodically occur on Ivy-League campuses" is original research. This is about as useful an article as, say, Pastries sold in Ivy-League dining halls, except that, because it's about crime, it's more sensational, which is why I imagine it's stayed around as long as it has. Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information that aspires to be original reseach. JDoorj a m Talk 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable species. In the entire series, we meet one member of this species, only one time, in a 2-minute segment of one episode. There is no potential for expansion. Basically, the Zaldan bumps into Wesley, gets upset, and interprets Wesley's apology as an insult. Wesley raises his voice. The Zaldan walks off. Wesley explains that Zaldans have webbed fingers and don't like courtesy. End of story. No non-stub article could ever come from this topic. This is already fully covered in the episode article, Coming of Age (TNG episode), so there is nothing to merge. BigDT 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, delete or redirect to male prostitute, Andeh 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no evidence of meeting any of the proposed criteria from WP:SOFTWARE. Though the word "deme" has a gracious plenty google hits, they are mostly unrelated. Googling for "Deme" with "online deliberation" [35] finds mostly self-gen hits and hits related to the conference mentioned in the article. There has been no news on the official website [36] since February they are currently on version 0.5, which implies that they are still in the beta stage and are not yet up to a ready for prime time release. WP is not a crystal ball. BigDT 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to better generate consensus. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Absence of sources prevent this from ever being more than a dictionary definition. Tom Harrison Talk 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Move discussion to WP:TFD. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The UEFA U-21 Championship 2006 is finish ka la ha 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY REDIRECT. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is a stub with absolutly no references about a song of a band Google doesn't seem to know. Hohenberg 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep, nom withdrawn. Punkmorten 09:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Although I have no problems with articles on Medal of Honor recipients, this is not an article, but source text of his medal citation. As such, it should be moved to Wikisource. I have deleted this once. User:Zoe| (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep. Can be merged and and left as redirect. Petros471 12:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
appears to be nn despite the claims; no references and can't immediately find any either. deprodded with the statement that google does turn up some references; all the ones I can find only mention Time Tripper as a sequence in a larger work. Hirudo 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, this was prodded, so two deletes are sufficient in my opinion. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod notice removed: This company is not notable. It doesn't meet the criteria of the WP:CORP guideline. — WAvegetarian• (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
it's just another digital camera, nothing notable about it. deprodded with we have articles on other Lumix cameras. I do not think we need an article about every single brand and type of camera Hirudo 19:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete WP:CSD G7 - Liberatore( T) 20:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no need to have copy and pasted article of the EB, if there is already a well-established and progressive original article. If someone wants the EB article, the 11th edition is widely available. I redirected the article to Ferrol, A Coruña, but the editor reverted it. -- Esprit15d 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD template unfinished by 198.133.105.244 RWR8189 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. He is nothing more than a blogger and his books are published through 'vanity press' sources. If Wikipedia includes every self financed author or blogger, it will be utter chaos. This is nothing more than a vanity posting by Pitt. Also Contains False Information In this site it claims Pitt was Dennis Kucinich's Press Secretary, but on Kucinich's site, it lists otherwise. ( http://kucinich.house.gov) No verification can be found Pitt was Kucinich's official Press Secretary- maybe in his own mind or a title he made up because he had a blog about Kucinich http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich . Book Not Listed. The book this author claims to have written (Our Flag Too) is not listed on Amazon and the ISBN listed is not in the ISBN database. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&y=0&isbn=1893956490&x=0—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.133.105.244 ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this article as this does not meet WP:FICT Pixen 05:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Move to Wikibooks. I'm applying my admin's discretion to this, moving to Wikibooks is equivalent to "Delete", but at least the content is preserved. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Page consists entirely of original research and therefore violates WP:NOR Yamla 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Made-up game played by "upper sixth Parmitarians", which I think is a reference to a UK school year. Prod removed, and recent addition It was created over a few days in school, and is still played regularly appears to be a response to WP:NFT. Delete. bikeable (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
As the author I would like to inform Indrian that this is not a hoax and was actually played in our common room a few times until the head of our sixth form told us not to stack chairs, probably for health and safety reasons. The addition of It was created over a few days in school is indeed a light hearted response to WP:NFT. David Newman, Parmiter's class of '99
The result of the debate was Delete. I looked at all the comments, and the arguments to delete this article definitely outweigh the arguments to keep (or rename) it. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
In addition, I wanted to point out that there is nothing useful here that isn't already in Prayer Book Rebellion. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is completely uncited expect for a page which itself states that it "...sets out the hypothesis that the Cornish people are being subjected to policies of genocide". There's no indication that the concept of a "Cornish Holocaust" exists in general reliably-published historical work; reiterating an original-research source still falls under No original research. It's massively non-neutral, and I honestly doubt it could ever be anything but with a title like that; an article on the "Anglo-Cornish war of 1549" (which seems to be a part of the Prayer Book Rebellion titled as a war, and is itself probably an OR-ish term) might be useful, but this article shows no sign it could ever be it. I honestly don't think Wikipedia would be improved by keeping it. Shimgray | talk | 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted as a non-notable biography. JDoorj a m Talk 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is may be a vanity entry, particularly judging from the horrendously vandalized talk page. Either way, the subject is not
notable. This is an entry repeatedly attacking and harrassing the subject of an Internet meme, a local access TV presenter who received prank calls on-air. The entry was protected due to repeated mean-spirited vandalism. We'd all be better off if it didn't exist.
Chris Griswold
20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Believe entire contents to be nonsense: Benny Goodman did not have a son, and there is no writer of this name creditted on the IMDB page for Good Times. Listing for deletion instead of speedy deletion just in case someone knows differently. Only Google hits from name derived from this page & no internal links to it. JennyRad 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
When I cleaned up this article, I also thought it sounded like pure nonsense... but it's your call. I'm not sure on the specifics. -- Samvscat 06:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Personally, I found this article to be thorough, concise, well researched, and inexpressibly usefull in my scholarly pursuits. I believe this article to be one of the greatest assets to the online wikipedia research community, and it would cause me and countless others indescribable grief to witness the deletion of this rare gem. knowledgeable 07:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with Raj Comics, just like I did with Jadugar Shakoora. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm curious whether lists with mostly redlinks are acceptable. While this would be a great page to encourage people to write articles, they're basically contentless. Until I'm really persuaded in either direction, I'm voting neutral. —
THIS IS MESSED
OCKER
(TALK)
20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Worried that this is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is some unofficial mixtape hosted by an artist who hasn't even released her debut album yet. The mixtape only returns 11 results when searched on Google and is not notable at all. -- Musicpvm 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep I am voting keep because this artist meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Its also in my opinion a valid release as her debut has not been released yet and I believe this mixtape as extensive as it is, is a means of self promotion for the artist without label giving the green light. --
zero faults
|sockpuppets|
00:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an advertisement for the store. Non-notable comic book shop as well. Wildthing61476 20:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 21:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. This could be merged, but probably can stand on its own. -- Tony Sidaway 07:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like more listcruft to me. I don't think this page would be particuarly useful in an encyclopedia. Delete Beno1000 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Platoon (film). – [ælfəks] 09:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wikibooks. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a cookbook —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denni ( talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was No consensus, after discounting all the invalid votes. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologic term. Main source is article starter's own blog. Seemingly no relevant Google hits. Haakon 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The term is NOT a synonym for "proprietary" as there are closed source packages that are never the less distributed at no-charge, or bundled with other things. The method is also similar to the music industry who tends to associate the selling of plastic discs with the selling of music. cmacd 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep - Richardcavell 01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It seems to be paraphrasing Caesar, as it stood, but not directly quoting. I'm currently editing out the Caesar and putting it into a more balanced account in my own words (eg the Walmer and Agricola bits). Please don't delete it. Neddyseagoon 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity / promo page Fram 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Has seven hits (4 distinct pages) on Google, none of them interesting. Non notable. Fram 09:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merge with Replicator (Stargate). Deathphoenix ʕ 16:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Edit This article is in need of revision, however, every human form replicator's aricle features the same information, again and again. The Replicator main article is cluttered as is, and there is certainly plenty of information to include here. Kashami 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This page appears to be a quote from a primary source....why is its own article? Dlayiga 21:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Found whilst stub-sorting. Doesn't give any context, too technical, can't figure out if it's notable or not. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 12:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Merged to Emma Frost for time being. Madchester 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a movie that has only been mentioned once. The movie doesn't even have an IMDb page. Ixistant 20:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Petros471 12:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article seems to be just a definition. It is too short and no one has tried to expand it or merge it with another article. BGFMSM 04:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been re-listed to generate a better consensus. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This has been through speedy (as advert -- article de-speedied and further copy added), and prod (which appears to have been simply removed). I continue to consider it an andertisment and request deletion. -- Simon Cursitor 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied. -- Golbez 00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This page seems to be trash. I don't know if the first article is even a serious attempt, and I know the rest is not. - Tjss 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There is already plenty of articles (main one being Gravitation) that describe this topic. This one is just a listcruft of references. A merge is not even useful, as the main article is much more advanced. Delete Tony 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Joelito ( talk) 18:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be an advertisement brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Thekohser 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was The result of the debate was keep. This is not a vote count; the IMDB link, award nomination and projects he's worked on suggest notability. Someone should still clean it up. Metamagician3000 15:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Joelito ( talk) 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Shameless self-promotion TheDoctorIsIn 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
http://my7.statcounter.com/project/standard/stats.php?granularity=monthly&project_id=1146899 Ace of Sevens 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Regarding WP:Web one of the criteria is if the site is referenced by other publications. This site has been referenced in three. The first is in print and online while the other two are online:
http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2005/aug/a.htm "Billboard's hate message is short‑lived" August 2005
"Even many critics of chiropractic were put off by the viciousness of the attack. During a discussion of the billboard on a predominantly anti‑chiropractic Internet group (Chirotalk: The Skeptical Chiropractic Discussion Forum), one member called the sign "Fear mongering, nothing more..." Another stated, "It's a cheap tactic to hit the public with a sledgehammer that big." One member made an interesting point by saying: "What if we had one for 'Aspirin can kill you!' or 'Reading this sign while driving can kill you!' That is simply a sensationalized ad to get attention.""
http://www.ncahf.org/digest04/04-11.html "Skeptical chiropractic forum launched. An online discussion forum for the critical investigation of chiropractic topics has been launched by Allen Botnick, DC, who voluntarily surrendered his chiropractic licenses after concluding that his education had not prepared him to practice safely. He started Chirotalk because other discussion groups have expelled people who posted critical comments. Chirotalk is open to anyone who wants to discuss the problems associated with chiropractic theory and practice."
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-01/012006bigfoot.html
"Thank you, Brian. We have here a note from last week’s anonymous ex-chiropractor who was involved, and I think it will be encouraging to others and give a new source of assistance. He writes:
Thanks for forwarding me the nice emails from your readers. While it will probably be a while before I "come out of the chiropractic closet" and use my real name, I do currently participate in an email discussion list called Chirotalk. The address is: http://chirotalk.proboards3.com/index.cgi
The members of this list are mostly former chiropractors along with a few Physical Therapists who are chiro skeptics. The purpose of the list is to support chiropractors trying to get out of the profession (suggestions for new careers, encouragement, etc.) and to keep information on the web to discourage new students from enrolling in chiropractic college.
I have gotten a lot of ideas from this list as to how to move forward with my life. The main reason I wrote you is that I respect your opinion a lot and, also, I wanted to bring attention to the fact that there are students like me who have been ripped off by the chiropractic schools.
I agree that I have a moral obligation to help potential students see the full picture. Chiro college recruiters are very good at painting chiropractors as mainstream healthcare professionals based in science. This is fraud – as far as I'm concerned – since all chiropractic is still based on subluxation theory, although some modern chiros call subluxations different names, like fixations, spinal lesions, etc.
Allen Botnick, D.C., is the chiropractor who started the discussion list. He is also graduated from my college and has written, under his real name, about his experiences as a chiropractor. He has really endured a lot of hatred from the chiropractic profession for his honesty. It’s at: www.chirobase.org/03Edu/botnick.html
Anyway, thanks for spreading the word. While I certainly wouldn't accept donations from anybody, I am inspired to consider telling my story in a more public way in the future. The kind messages from your readers have shown me that skeptics really have big hearts."
The site is volunteer and not for profit-unlike the chiropractors who are bashing it. It deserves mentioning. Abotnick 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
>The sites owner (editor Abotnick) has made many attempts add a link to his forum site on the main Chiropractic article as well.
Levine has a problem with many of the skeptical contributors to the Chiropractic article. I have actually written two of the paragraphs in the current chiropractic article and edited and rewrote the lead. Please see discussion for more information.
>His forum site makes it known that they are focused on boosting the sites PageRank by getting inbound links (from prominent sites such as Wikipedia).
Levine is referring to the writings of one individual member of the forum, not the forum itself. The forum itself is referenced by many individuals outside the forum itself as the statistics show. It is not simply self promotion.
>As for the references by other publications below, it should be known that user Abotnick works with Neck911.com (organization that created the hate-message billboard) in publishing and promoting press releases.
I had nothing to do with the reference posted above. That was independently written.
>With the NCAHF reference, it should be noted that the anti-chiropractic circle is a tight ring (in fact they participate in a Skeptic Web ring). They all link to each other, again to boost PageRank.
NCAHF is a legitimate skeptical newsletter. Levine is implying that any skeptical publication is a conspiracy.
>As far as the James Randi reference goes, the "anonymous ex-chiropractor" that it refers to is in fact Allen Botnick once again self-promoting his website. Doing a cursory web search for his name on Google, I am actually able to find that he has inserted links to his website and cause all over the Internet in seemingly odd and inappropriate places. My feeling is that him creating a Wikipedia article about his forum Chirotalk is just another attempt at - as.
I had no part in writing the Randi article. Please back up your statements with evidence Levine and stop the conjecture. Chirotalk is either the number one or number two top chiropractic discussion forum on the web and has been cited in several publications. It certainly has the most uncensored content as the other sites actively censor skeptical opinions (as I suspect some people are trying to do here by suggesting that Chirotalk's wiki entry be removed). People are going to be curious about its history and goals and it's worth a few bytes on Wikipedia. Abotnick 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I see the pro-chiropractic forces are rallying to do their best to remove a channel for skeptical inquiry into their practices. Abotnick 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this is not a self promotion enter your own articles and websites to get yourself notoriety kind of place. Also, the argument that "the 'pro-chiropractic' forces are mobilizing" is patently moot. It 's like saying the "pro gravity" forces are arguing against commercial flight. The "pro-capitalism" forces are going to walmart to buy groceries today. Sad, and needs to be gone from this forum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.175.2 ( talk • contribs)
The content of this website should play no part in this decision (i.e. it might be totally unreliable for all I know, but if extensively used and influential then it would still merit an article), WP should not engage in censorship. The only significant issues are whether the website is sufficiently notable for inclusion and that the content of the article is a NPOV balanced, verifiable account. The latter is I think now true. The former however is not clearly established; I would suggest that Abotnick consider merging the content with articles on related or similar websites (e.g. Quackwatch) and use redirection to direct searches to the composite article. Gleng 10:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Greng, I think the vandals and poorly qualified editors in the wikipedia process have greatly diminished the quality of the article. Further merging it with other nonrelated sites is no longer specific to the Chirotalk term so that doesn't work. This isn't chirobase-neck911-chirotalk. We are a separate discussion site with a history and individuality that deserves to be listed but was removed due to critical chiroprctors who don't want individuals to know that censorship is common at private nonprofit chiropractic institutions and that they have an accreditor who routinely doesn't enforce its own standards. Most likely we will need to just mount a PR campaign and get a reference in another media source to meet the WP guideline for notoreity. This is sort of ironic because of the biased chiropractors who are screaming that I am using wiki for self promotion. Anyway, wikipedia just isn't worth the bother if their major editors can't see the value of the entry. The information is available elsewhere on the net. Further, despite chiropractic's false assertions of growth they are running scams and it is simply a matter of time before the public hits critical mass and rejects them en mass. Utilization is already down 25% in just four years. So their reframing this as ad hominem attacks on me is really just a reflection of their inability to overcome the handicap. Chiros you can't build a house on a foundation of sand. Your scams won't win. Truth and knowledge have power. Abotnick 11:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Not sure that 'merging' in this way would be a bad solution. Disambiguation could redirect a search for chirotalk to a larger article on sceptical websites that includes, as a subsection on chirotalk, all the material that you presently have (and more). The case for inclusion on grounds of notability could then be decided by comparison with other websites rather than in isolation, as now. Gleng 11:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Gleng-The merge/subsections idea sounds like it might work. Would it still be under the heading of Chirotalk or another one? A list of Skeptical Sites could include: Chirobase.org, Neck911USA.org, "The Quack Files" and Chirotalk. How about "Skeptical Websites about Chiropractic"? Chirobase alone has a large amount of notoriety. Since this is a big revision can we put a pause on the deletion of this Chirotalk entry? Any suggestions for revision? Abotnick 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
nn. advert? manchesterstudent 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like an advertisement. Obviously non-notable EdJones 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not appear notable (one user has stated that the division is not even on Motorola's website). Also is a glowing endorsement of the division and its merits - an advertisment, of sorts. Falcon 22:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
What citations do exist in this article are from message board posts. Delete as original research. -- InShaneee 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel ( talk) 09:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject is a forum game played on a single forum. Only linked to by a redirect page and the MGS disambiguation page. (There was a reference on forum game, which I've deleted as part of an overall trimming of the article.) Previously listed for WP:PROD by Ashibaka but de-tagged, so I'm putting it here. æ l e ✆ 2006-06-07t22:59z
What do you recommend I do to save this page? -- Stripedtiger 05:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
According to the guidlines, it is notable.
An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:
If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:
The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 13:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable event. Association with Jon Lovitz and David Brimmer (who?) is not verified by anything I can find. ... discospinster talk 23:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Relisted for clearer consensus Computerjoe 's talk 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep MartinRe 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Is not suitable for Wikipedia and Article is biased or has lots of POV Andy Blak 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This seems to be a sorry attempt by a satanist to try to take christianity off wikipedia. blatant POV and valdalism. Pathetic..... Pure inuyasha 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Proto/// type 14:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Page seems nonsensical, and discusses a neologism that doesn't seem particularly notable JulesH 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Also, on a second reading, is probably original research. There are certainly no sources, and much of it sounds like it is simply the writer's opinion. JulesH 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A former teenaged hockey player. A total of one Google hit and it's not about hockey. Vanity/not notable. HollyAm 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Proto// type 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
(Auto)biography about a non-notable American journalist. -- David Iberri ( talk) 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply