The result of the debate was SPEEDILY REDIRECTED. I'm closing this one early because the redirects will be useful and the prose has been merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I am nominating the following articles for deletion (ignore the top one, I forgot it was a redirect to the main SSBM article):
All are extraordinarily short articles that have only appeared in one game. Giga Bowser hurts my eyes; it's as if someone copied it from a GameFAQs FAQ. I have merged all relevent information into List of Super Smash Bros. Melee characters but would still like to see the articles deleted and recreated as redirects, if recreated at all. - Hbdragon88 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Self-fashioning. My British English would have the hyphen, so that's where I'll redirect to, but it's not important. The two articles are essentially identical, and it looks like someone just didn't know how to make a redirect. - Splash talk 18:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete original research without references. No major edits in 11 months.-- Porturology 00:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Harr o 5 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. Prod removed seemingly due to misunderstanding of process. Hynca-Hooley 00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
NN/Vanity Advertisement/press release for some schoolkids running a business. -- Aim Here 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delizzle. DS 05:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an urban-music related hoax. No Google references could be found at all. OTOH, May be too "undaground" to verify! Hynca-Hooley 00:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A computer utility. Article has been speedied and reposted a couple of times, looks like consensus might be needed. Hynca-Hooley 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
DELETE This work is not notable or interesting in anyway, is not the work of any prolific author(s) and is not available generally
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity / advert. Originally prodded, but removed by another user because the owner of the company mentioned is of some notability. That may be true, but this page is pure advertisement, and after visiting the company website, I'm not convinced that this article should be kept. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the industry could comment. Tijuana Brass 00:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Band at the boundaries of WP:MUSIC notability. Article is a little promotional of the band also. Abstain as nom. Hynca-Hooley 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a large article and can easily be merged into the Battlefield 2 and Command and Conquer: Red Alert articles without having its own page.-- Zxcvbnm 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Verbose, aggrandising article about a perhaps notable director of an entertainment company. Requires cleanup at the very least. Hynca-Hooley 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, merge/move discussion can be done on the article's talk page. -- W.marsh 21:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This unfortunately-named article only causes confusion. List of Intel microprocessors is quite adequate. Ezeu 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete no established notablity. Kiwidude 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete no established notablity. possible advertising. vanity. Kiwidude 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Harr o 5 06:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Band; does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC, perhaps cultural importance can be argued; but only 66 Google hits suggest probably not. Hynca-Hooley 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod removed. This is supposed to warrant its own encyclopedia article??? Delete! Hynca-Hooley 01:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Montco 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete This is just not needed. Nigelthefish 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Not listed on the IMDB. Very unpromising Google results. [6] Article says she appeared on two shows, but those credits would've been on the IMDB if true.
Second2. "Very Unpromising Google results" has nothing to do with the validity of the actress in question. Having peoples opinions written about you on websites has no validity if you were or were not appearing on a television show. I can say Ashton Kutcher is the worst actor in the world, it doesn't mean he hasn't been on tv.
Third 3. "A 10-year-old extra does not qualify as notable." So I guess Dakota Fanning shouldnt be on here either right?
Fourth 4. "Family is already notorious for self-promotion in theater/TV community. " Unless you know the family personally, or are their agent, then you really don't know, and you base your opinion on other people's opinions.
The point of Wikki is to list FACTS, not OPINIONS. If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little.
I actually am a CD that found this link typing her name into a search engine. She will be appearing with Alyssa Milano in a Humane Society Commercial in June. I know for a FACT because I am the one that cast her.
Vanity that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.17.216 ( talk • contribs)
JackO'Lantern , this may come as a surprise, but Dakata Fanning was in 6 independant movies before she "hit it big" AND 2 commercials ! (Do you think they just pulled her out of daycare?)
I suggest you go see the website in question, you'll see a girl in a picture with THE casting director for Palmetto Pointe, PRACTICING LINES.
The FACT is, she HAS been on TV, she HAS been in independant movies, she WILL be in more commercials.
The opinion (Yours) is, She's not good enough to list on Wikki because you don't think her being 10 years old and being in commercials counts as being on tv.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justadding ( talk • contribs)
"It's standard practice to delete an entry if we can't establish notability (or in this case, the existence of the subject)."
That's a damn realistic mannequin that they're using. It looks just like a little girl. My guess is the cameras are fake too. /end sarcasm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.17.216 ( talk • contribs)
Delete per funky monkey -- pm_shef 01:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I was what? Don't change shit around on this page to make it look like I'm saying stuff I'm not. That's just plain bullshit.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Another one of these CV/resumé-tinged possible vanity biographies of a living person. Here there is assertion of notability (appearances on Tonight Show). {{ nn-bio}} and {{ prod}} tags both removed. Personally vote weak keep, but something of a revamping of the article is needed if that is the outcome of the debate. Hynca-Hooley 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Suspected hoax. "Zukak" gives 800 google hits, mainly to Arab related material. "Noobquest" of "Noob Quest" of "Noob quest" all give less than 3000, which don't appear related. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
nn company. appears to be something which hasn't even started yet. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (CSD A7). kingboyk 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I put this up for speedy, but have copped some flak from the author, and some other editor, who has only about 10 edits, but has been around for one month. "Obidike" has 453 google hits, mostly to people in America, while "Obidike" has only 10. The article also says dubious stuff like the last sentence, which smells of unverifiability. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi BL Nguyen, I'd just like to say that it's local folk lore. I don't know what a person living in australia would know about local folk lore. The story is most often spread by word of mouth, that's how I heard it and apparently someone else has too. The lots of edits are because I'm not a very good typer and i have a tendancy to post and reedit. I know it's a bad habit. Also i missed a couple of things off and added later. I'm a long time reader here, but Until recently I've only read, not contributed. Please don't judge me because of that. I ask you is it the case that you only dislike the article because of the slight mention of "yellow fever" since you are quite obviously asian from your vietnamese name. I'm not being racist here, its not my fault the fabled society was called that. As with all folk lore and legend, it is indeed mostly unverifyable, as are many things in life. I understand that technically it should be verifyable to be on wikipedia, but how is any mythology to be posted if there is no gray area. KX36 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A film that was never made - didn't even make it through pre-production. Prod tag removed by User:Mr. Popadopalis25. - Cnwb 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. Does not look notable to me. Delete DMG413 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a new web2.0 project involving webcomics. Could be the start of new ways publishing comics online. With the coming of new portable devices, particulary with pen, touch screen and wireless connection. This could be a great solutions for amateurs with devices unable to load painter, paint shop pro or other paintng applications. As each and every on of those devices will have a browser, they will be able to draw a comic strip directly online whenever the want. Seems very relevant to me as in a medium term timeline.keep it Tiago.Cardoso 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The road to Hell is paved with...never mind. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian G. Crawford ( talk • contribs)
hmmm, check Alexa ranking to Arbit_Choudhury and check Alexa ranking to Comics@MaiNada.Net. It far to distante. And i'm about 800% better now then 1 month ago. It's growing. So, don't tell me Arbit_Choudhury has notability. Tiago.Cardoso
Just one last comment, I do think you are not being very open to this. I do think this project, this webcomics deserves a article here in WP. If you ask, i'll make an honest effourd to improve it with your help, but saying that you want to delete it because I'm not knowen it a bit far fetched!.. It gives a bad sense of anti-democracy to the project and the user-coorperation. What do you think, want to help me or just want to take privelige of being more senior users ? Tiago.Cardoso
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
INPAX and "rapper" turn up exactly this at Google. [7] Clearly non-notable, vanity, etc. you name it, this article does it.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Listed along with authorised retail Star Trek games.-- PatCheng 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, even discounting all unsigned comments (of which there were plenty), I still count 7 people wanting to keep, merge or redirect, and 10 people wanting to delete. That's still not a consensus to delete. A consensus about what to do with this information (keep as is, merge somewhere, redirect) can be reached on the article's talk page, as consensus for that specific decision is not evident from this AfD. W.marsh 22:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was already deleted once at Articles_for_deletion/27_Club. It is (still) only a neologism with no widespread outside use. -- CrypticBacon 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
KEEP Just the fact that there is so much discussion about this topic warrants it as valid. I am endlessly baffled, fascinated and shocked that all of these important icons died at age 27. It seems more than a coincidence sometimes and I am working on a reasearch project to investigate this more. PLEASE KEEP THIS ENTRY!
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Asserts insufficient notability. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was that the article was deleted after five days on WP:PROD with tag still on page and no followup to talk page protest. —This unsigned comment is by The Epopt ( talk • contribs) .
PRODded on March 10, as failing WP:CORP. The article's creator did not remove the tag, but did protest on the discussion page. Referring to AfD. Abstain. Joyous | Talk 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 31#Traveling Ham Agency and Norwegian Barry; vanity by User:Travelinghamagency. -- TomPreuss 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Cannot be considered an encyclopedic entry. Looks more like a wikiquote page than an wikipedia page. Sharpdust 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy-ly delete. - brenneman {T} {L} 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, borderline original reseaurch Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography, does not appear to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). No sources are cited, and just 34 Google hits for "Maroufi-Collé". Donald Albury( Talk) 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I googled this term and found numerous different definitions for it, including transexual operations, sex toys, and mind control, but not the stated definition. The article is poorly written and is not neutral POV. Ricaud 03:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as reposted AfD'd material. -- RHaworth 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
neologism, apparently made up term: Google search in comes up with less than 900 hits. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was USERFY. JIP | Talk 11:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete.Seems to be about a non-notable musician. Also clearly a vanity page (check the history). Con Dem Talk 03:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete
No evidence of notability. "WikiSonnet" gets 0 Google hits. dbtfz talk 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Basically the same reasons given for Active Server Pages/Hints: This page has no point being in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a usage guide. [17] Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. [18] The article is full of original research. If that's not enough, this article is nothing more than a messy, poorly organized hodgepodge of random thoughts that are available in better form in many other places. Nova SS 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable bio of a writer for http://www.insertcredit.com/ Manmonk 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
either a neologism or dicdef; googling "deep stealth" vaginoplasty gets only 79 hits the second of which seems to contradict the article; "deep stealth" is used to refer to keeping many secrets other than transgender status ➥the Epopt 04:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. kingboyk 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is another article identified as part of the cleanup drive at WP:Beatles. It's about a parody album performed by singing dogs. Sounds fun, but there's no assertion of and no apparent notability and - here's the killer for me - zero links from mainspace. kingboyk 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Husband of K.A. Maroufi-Collé, appears to be non-notable. Son has been adding biographies of the family. Fan1967 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This page does not describe a notable class of statements; it also has no sources that previous described such statements and is therefore original research. The page also fails to describe a paradox. By saying this, I do not mean that one of the apparently true possibilities is obviously false. In fact, there is only one possibility: The speaker hates himself. Superm401 - Talk 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This list is better maintained by IDG Press.
John Wiley & Sons, the current publisher.
FreplySpang
(talk)
04:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Keep - [ [21]] Nothing is lost by keeping it, and it's kind of an interesting overview of the many different subjects covered by the series. I skimmed through it after reading the ...for Dummies article. We should put a note near the top saying that it's not an exhaustive or necessarily up-to-date list, then we don't have to worry about maintaining it as much. 134.173.95.35 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, but I will Transwiki just in case. I am not sure that the redirect suggestion is a great idea given the generic title, as pointed out, and a redirect does discard the content. The merge isn't necessary either. The author's keep is not borne out by Special:Whatlinkshere/Federal recognition, leaving only one editor supporting retention of the content. - Splash talk 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article's title is very ambiguous and it does nothing but directly quote legislation which has nothing to do with federal recognition of Indian tribes. This topic is given a more thorough treatment at Native_Americans_in_the_United_States. Please see talk page for further explanation. -- BWD ( talk) 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Clearly self-promotional, see WP:NOT. Wouldn't seem to meet verifiability standards - just about some website no one's really written anything about. W.marsh 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- maru (talk) contribs 04:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable coffeehouse owner. The biography is trying to make the owner sound more important and have more impact than he really does. Also see articles Jimmy Nil Fishhawk, Ian Meares, and G. M. Palmer, which fail notability and should be deleted, in my opinion, along with the Stephen Dare page. I want to treat the Stephen Dare voting as if all four were up for deletion. Mike H. That's hot 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
De-prodded by article creator. Well, this guy is an "Assistant Producer and co-host of the Texas Music Matters radio program on KUT 90.5 FM in Austin, TX at the University of Texas at Austin." Wikipedia is not a place to write about random radio hosts. Punkmorten 06:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
De-prodded by article creator. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Punkmorten 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Thoroughly non-notable political news pamphlet handed out in Gainesville, Florida. Cúchullain t / c 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:SOFTWARE, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MechZ. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 06:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to Sydney Boys High School. Personally, I think merging some of the lead section is more than adequate, so that's what I'll do. - Splash talk 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The society has had only one mention outside of the school and is not that greatly known within the school AMorris (talk)● (contribs) 06:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable; vanity/advertising page for someone who wrote a book, with article written by his publisher. Joejamboree 06:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as band vanity. - Mike Rosoft 15:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement, no notability established ( WP:CORP/ WP:SOFTWARE). Contested PROD. Sandstein 08:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was closed. This way please. :) Mailer Diablo 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
No articles in category. Mefjord was incorrectly placed in category, which might be the reason for the creation of the category. Nordby73 09:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Non-notable student magazine. It's website is under development, and it just barely started being published. -- Hetar 09:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep but suggest continued discussion for a rename/merge be furtherd in the article talk. — xaosflux Talk 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the place for something that's just a proof. A proof originally written by someone else and available freely belongs in wikisource, math articles can (and probably should) contain proofs, but a proof on its own isn't an encyclopedia article, and the article isn't about the proof, it is the proof and little more. This is an old article, around since 2003 at least, and I think our standards have tightened since then in a way that it wouldn't pass muster if created today. Either merge into something, transwiki to somewhere more appropriate (though I can't think of one) or just delete. Night Gyr 09:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy redirected (as non-notable) to Swastika. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website (
WP:WEB) with no Alexa data. ReDe-PRODded, so to AfD it goes.
Sandstein
11:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography, can't find anything that seems related on google. Speedy deletion contested, see Talk:Kareem Ryan. Weregerbil 11:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to Robert Howard. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
delete no verifiable claim to notability. no imdb entry-- Porturology 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Greek TV director. Non-notable per WP:BIO, no pertinent Google hits. WP:PROD tag was re-added after being contested, which is not permissible, so it goes to AfD. Sandstein 11:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
It has many Google hits if searched with Greek Spelling ("Βασίλης Κοσμόπουλος" or "Βασίλειος Κοσμόπουλος") Skag 11:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, I admit that David Sneek's comment is fair... If the Wikipedia community believes that this is a non-notable BIO , I stand corrected and waiting for deletion. My intention was to add wikipedia entries for many "behind-the-camera" TV persons , but it seems that there is no need for this.... Skag 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist/musician. Most notable claim is having published an album in 2004. Not much on google - a search for "wooden thomas" is pretty much all about the Tank Engine. Article is also POV. It has been around since July 2005 which is why I didn't just prod it. The articles that link to here are Casandra Stark which is tagged for cleanup and verification, and Talk:Pine Barrens (New Jersey) which only references in regard to how to format the Pine Barrens page. MLA 12:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This person is not noteworthy. He is a member of the RPG Maker community, but even in this very small world, he is not really of great significance, even though he made some well-received games. I don't think any author of games from this community should have an article on Wikipedia because the only people who care or could have benefit from it are the fans of that person's games or the person himself. Michiel Sikma 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This person created a few RPG Maker games which some people have played. This is not an official game designer, merely a person who used a game program to make some games. In that way, it falls in the same category as fanfiction writers. Delete. Deckiller 12:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Currently a list of links to HOWTOs. Is there a way to make this into an article? Don't know myself so no vote. Weregerbil 13:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 05:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is looking more and more like an ad, and is being consistently vandalised, filled with more and more untruths about the site and its owner and administration - DELETE BigDan 13:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately it has come to my attention that members are using this Free Encylopedia to advertise Media Spy but to also use it as an outlet for their disapproval of certain aspects of our site. I believe this isn't what Wikipedia was designed for as this page has little to no information contained in it. Most information is wrong and if not, members are changing the info so that is wrong, so I'd like to see this page deleted! DELETE Lepatron 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Various people are making it sound like an ad/being vandalised. Kennethjwebb 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Modify. The thing looks legit, and only a bit promotional.
Delete I'd like to keep most of the content. The 'Criticisms' section is awfully harsh, too, and I had to correct a mistake there (reflex action). The thing is that the vandals are really spoiling it. Such a pity. Cyvros/Marlett 22:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
appears NN. been prodded before. notability asserted via the Anna Nicole Show, but if that is it, does not belong on WP. Abstain Delete.
the.crazy.russian
vent here
13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was renominated; for some reason, this nomination was considered closed as "no consensus", while in fact it was never closed. The article was later renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vercetti's Comrades 2 and deleted. I am closing this one because it is shown up as unclosed by a script of mine ( Liberatore, 2006). 13:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fail to see the noatability. Dlohcierekim 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. - Splash talk 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps the articles could be cleaned up into a simple list, with the quotes and information placed in the articles about the individual people involved, but as it stands, this needs deletion.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they're the same thing:
-- Fuzzie ( talk) 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Comments on some of the comments so far:
Instead of moaning: you could help rephrase what you perceive to be POV and what you perceive to be emotive wording. After all, 108 MEP signed one declaration hence the wording to show it is incomplete -how else do you say it? If someone else can phrase it better then let them help.
The list is also need to counter the comments by some, that there is little support for improvements to the existing laws -which itself is POV. Or do you want to have it both ways?
Also, it is hardly (or wont be) 'indiscriminate'... And Look at all the articles listing just 'highways', etc. Why don't you put them up for deletion? Just go to list of lists and look though a few lists of things.
=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/List_of
As for it being untidy -it is. I am far from happy with it. There is still information to go on and if you look at the creation date it has only just been created . Some of you might have time to sit at the computer all day but some of us have other things to do. Much of this info is being collected be people who have to pick up the pieces (e.g., social workers, probation workers, lecturers in crime prevention etc) after things go wrong from laws that badly need improving. I expect few of you ( by the way you write) have got any crack houses near you, nor have witnessed at first hand the horror of it all, or your mind might be making connections to the wider picture, about what this list represents. Have you had people drop to the floor and turn blue, would you know how to handle it? Do you know were I and all these other people views are coming from?
As for the comment about any body on the lists changing their mind, it can be updated LIKE ANY OTHER ARTICLE that apt to change.
These articles seem to have been picked up by people who have not thought about it, nor realised that will links in with other stuff - do they reasonably expect that whole thing to be set up at once?
Finally: If you look on the first talk page of the first article created it says:
These lists may not make sense to some people who are out of the loop until some of the other templates go on to explain the background and place the lists in context. This maybe finished by the end of the month. But because of what promises to be its eventual size and geographical and political range, the words, phrasing, syntax etc. need to be got right first. --Aspro 10:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) So some of you haven't even bothered to read it properly.--
Aspro
16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was 'Delete — xaosflux Talk 04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
346 Googles for a netlabel does not argue notability. The only external source is the website. Almost all the links are red, and probably best if they stayed that way. Just zis Guy you know? 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I think this might be a hoax. Hpuppet 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable gamecruft vanity, etc. I reckon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TT Players gives authority to speedy these but I will take a second opinion. -- RHaworth 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Well is there another way to include this information with our wikipedia entry without going back to external links? What about using stubs? Paisano® 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete vanity press publications, not for sale on Amazon. Deprodded without reason-- Porturology 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Based on what I find, this band doesn't satisfy WP:NMG [24] & [25]. PJM 15:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Although a notable figure seems to have been involved in Machine Gun Kelly, this seems a non-notable event. To quote from the original version of the article: "...few people know much about it, if anything at all. And Willmar doesn’t celebrate the event or even talk about it." Obviously it needs a massive clean up but I think there's nothing worth saving. It seems that it was copied straight from a local-interest type book by one Terry Shaw who is also apparently the user who created this page. Spondoolicks 15:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete — xaosflux Talk 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Note the similar AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderlands rpg MLA 16:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be self-published local-interest book. Article was created by the book's author. See talk page for more details. Spondoolicks 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like another vanity entry. No IMDB entry (despite the link), Google picks up almost nothing when cross-searching her with the movies she has supposedly appeared in...
The result of the debate was Delete — xaosflux Talk 04:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested {{ prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as nn band. Article was originally {{ prod}}'d, but tag was removed due to claims that the band met WP:MUSIC. While it appears to be true that the band has gone on a tour, and that they have produced two albums...they do not appear to meet WP:MUSIC because touring in and around San Fransisco (with a couple of shows in Seattle and Portland) can hardly be considered a national concert tour, and without a more clear definition of what "one of the more important indie labels" means, the two albums were not released by "one of the more important indie labels". Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete - author request - military secret that leaked out - actually he said more commercial than military. -- RHaworth 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This document defines the requirements for the … test set that will replace. No original research, WP is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia is not a free host (see talk page) all apply. Joe Lombardi - I have just this moment been thanked for pointing someone else towards Wikicities where you can create your own wiki. I think you should go there too. -- RHaworth 17:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Please delete the article at your earliest possible convenience! -- Joe Lombardi 21:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy userfy. - Liberatore( T) 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an autobiography/résumé, made and edited almost solely by its subject. In fact, the vast majority of edits from User:Timo Kouwenhoven have been on this article.
The result of the debate was Keep — xaosflux Talk 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
THis person is not notable. Delete article -- Light current 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as protologism, based on coinage of one a single researcher. Prod tag removed so bringing it here.
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Pathetic article. Bewibes 15:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to List of video game consoles. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was There is already a similair article here: List of video game consoles. It has much more information and consoles on it. [29]. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 17:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Apparent vanity page, notariaty cannot be independently verified. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 17:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio - SCEhard T 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a Vanity Page Steve 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 19:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Initially listed under prod, the tag was removed and then replaced within 24 hours. I've brought it here for a proper evaluation, since the rules of prod specify that the tag cannot be replaced when removed by another user. I'm leaving messages on the users talk pages as well. BTW, I'm neutral on the question. JGF Wilks 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Jerry Jones 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - This article has remained unsourced for a long time. It is one sentence about a novel based on some historical events - I don't think it should be retained in present form. Rama's Arrow 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
User Nri06 added linkspam to "sprachcaffe.com" on six language articles and then created this article. It's an advertisment. Imroy 18:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
University of Illinois is notable. The IT department probably isn't. The helpdesk of the IT department for certain sure is not. WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 18:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
"forthcoming", "will be", "no confirmed members" - you can see where this is leading can't you? WP:NOT a crystal ball. Just zis Guy you know? 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - I consider this non-notable, and it has remained unsourced and unedited for 2 months. Rama's Arrow 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
States he is notable, famous even, but the claim is unverifiable - our survey says four unique hits for "Nigel Kimber" guitar. Some sly digs, I suspect complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete NN duo signed on an unproven label. There was a finding of an assertion of notability by Stifle, who removed db-band. the.crazy.russian vent here 18:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable group. Just zis Guy you know? 22:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. The title can be changed at will. I do observe though, that whilst I assume good faith, no evidence has been presented that this does, in fact, exist. - Splash talk 19:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
As the original PRODder noted, there are no Google hits for "The Schoeners saturday night live". Delete as probable hoax. Sandstein 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Cyde Weys 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Slowmover 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - a non-notable subject; stub has remained one-line for a long while. Seems more like a promo for CMSI. Rama's Arrow 19:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as nomination withdrawn & no delete votes. Renamed to Mass Transit incident (ECW) per recommendation. -- JLaTondre 23:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced confusing nonsense, probable hoax or prank. Apparently copied from the description text of a Youtube video, as found
here, that has since been removed "due to terms of use violation" .
Sandstein 19:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Nomination retracted per Aplomado.
Sandstein
19:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - this article has remained a stub and unsourced for over a year. The subject is only semi-notable. Rama's Arrow 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable neologism Hpuppet - «Talk» 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
(UTC)
The result of the debate was DELETE, although I observe some claimed references at the end. The editor who examined at least one of them found it to be wholly lacking, however. - Splash talk 19:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-styled "philosophy discussion group/academic alliance/secret-society". 200 google hits, and that includes hits for a band of the same name; I can't tell if they're related, but if they're not, they're both even less notable. This page appears to have some of their wicked-deep writings; see also the correspondence course ad at [49]. Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. bikeable (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Copied from the Talk page to this AfD:
Unfortunately, some of your patrols seem to be ignorant college students with little knowledge of the subjects they are policing, thus making this entire "wikiproject" absurd by design. Though I find all of this amusing, I have no desire to engage in a long discussion as to the merits of my entry, I merely posted it on a whim after finding its entry strangely absent from your database. I am a university professor and not only am I aware of the club, I attended the hypermodern lecture series with the esteemed Mr. Baudrillard himself at my institution. The presence of the club has been written up in several books, the authenticity of which I do not doubt, and if that is insufficient I will leave the "google-ing" to you.
I wish wikipedia the best into the future and by all means do what you wish with my entry.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulambery01 ( talk • contribs) bikeable (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Paulambery01 18:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery reply
Paulambery01 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery reply
As a Brooklynite, I am amused to find wikipedia entrys for “Rubulad,” a debaucherous party that occurs every few months on the Northside, and the entry for “East Williamsburg Industrial Park,” which is where I live, described condescendingly in its sophomoric entry, and to LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin resolution which could be assailed by number of history professors. Being an academic myself, I am curious to understand why references to both Jean Baudrillard and Martin Heidegger cannot philosophically legitimize an “entry” into your ghoulish dream of information consolidation. Also, I would like to know how many moderators and even "philosophical grad students" are not only versed in Attic and Homeric Greek, but are intimate with those earliest of thinkers, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Thales, Parmenides, Anaximenes, that forcefully mark the inception of "Western thinking."
You allow entire entries which are devoted to “reptoid conspiracies,” which allege that the ruling global elite are actually shape-shifting reptilian creatures who sprung from an ancient genetic experiment, perpetrated by a dim race of ET visitors. The entry for this is quite exhaustive, preposterous, and downright insulting to those of us who do, in fact, descend from the reptoid bloodline, and do not have some insidious dream to enslave humanity through domestic internment camps, internet regulation, and RFID bio-metric ID cards. Please, show some discretion, and permit these people who, like bees flung from their hive, and deep into the mists of fragrant gardens, seek only to pollinate and prolong their sweet, succulent existence.
Most respectfully yours,
Professor J.P.W. Cragglestocker
While I believe it is irrelevant to dicker over the fine points of this entry. I cannot help but remark when the pot calls the kettle black. Just the other day, I was reading how political yes-men had been consistently ammending and omitting submited data for Wikipedia entries on various politicians. What we have here is a fine object lesson in information theory. Wikipedia itself represents the hypermodern attitude toward information - vis a vis the flux, eternal expansion and user generation that categorize the internet as a whole. If the mavens of Wikipedia believe themselves to be one iota holier than the myspace whores, with regard to self-promotion by users, they have a tragic lack of self-insight. The roots of the Wiki project and the internet itself are in a mistrust of absolute truth, cancerous generation and alternative history, which come together like Voltron to form the god Narrative. If ya don't know your roots, then you got no culture. And I'll shed no tears when big Fox Murdoch separates your wheat from its chaff.
sincerely, L. O'Hara
Comment. My sympathies to the Admin who closes this one out. Slowmover 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. I have just confirmed gone out of my way to verify that Davidson and Northwestern, as I stated in the initial entry, have *confirmed* chapters for the Hypermodernity Club. Please call them yourselves if you must verify this even further. Moreover, a colleague of mine, the head of philosophy at Tulane university, served as US chapter President for 2004, thus confirming that the group is "notable". As far as anyone with any sort of intellectual acumen is concerned, Now the burden of proof as to the club's worthiness for inclusion into the Wikipedia database falls on the above moderators (students) who so rashly dismissed it.
Edit: Paulambery01 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery reply
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/french/maison/events/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulambery01 ( talk • contribs)
Baudrillard, Jean. Le complot de l'art suivi de Entrevues à propos du complot de l'art. Sens & Tonka. Paris, 1999, pgs. 45, 62, Paperback
Baudrillard, Jean. The End of the Millennium or the Countdown. Theory, Culture & Society. February 1998, pp. 1-9
Finally, I echo ZornArmand's educated understanding of what is at play here.
Paulambery01 19:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Appears to be a non-notable vanity entry, promoting Endless Online. Zelphar 20:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
"RPG server", so notable that it gets 1 new member a day. I wish I could say this article, complete with leet-speak and disparaging comments is a joke one, but I don't think it is. Strong Delete. Hynca-Hooley 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable software, possible advert RJFJR 20:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Flower party■ 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
"Noise and conceptual art troupe". Hard to tell if the WP:MUSIC criteria are even applicable, never mind passed by this article. Abstain as nom. Hynca-Hooley 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, without prejudice to the creation at any time of a neutral article about the company. I appreciate that whatever decision I reached this would likely end up on DRV, so I will explain my findings and how I reached this decision. First of all, I excluded alleged sockpuppets and weighted down one opinion for the reasons stated. I then checked the contribs of names I didn't recognise (which revealed no new cause for concern). I then looked at the numbers; deletion is the favoured outcome numerically but not by a landslide. Finally, I used my discretion in evaluating the arguments and who made them. AFD regulars favour deletion, whereas Australian contributors have argued that this is a reasonably notable company. My decision ultimately is that both sides have a case; the article shouldn't be allowed to stand as a POV fork, but that the company in question is not undeserving of an article. My summation of the debate is, therefore, that the article is not acceptable as it stands but an article on this company could be acceptable; the result of the debate is therefore delete without prejudice to a clean start. WP:NOT a soapbox is most relevant here. kingboyk 10:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Jinian 22:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet another article by User:Torshaw - this time it's about his brother. If he's world famous as the article claims then there must be something wrong with this Google search. Delete Spondoolicks 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to American School in London, somewhat surprisingly given the course of things. I do wonder if those suggesting a merge are short of due diligence in determining whether this actually has any merit. Nevertheless, I'll simply apply the redirect. - Splash talk 19:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
Delete-Non notable middle school paper PlasmaDragon
Delete- I go to the school right now, and the paper is not notable. Please notice that our school IP address is the one that has made all of these edits related to the school newspaper. Its probably some kid from the school paper self advertising. It's fine enough just to keep the content we have in American School in London and forget about The Scroll.-- Urthogie 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I disagree; the Scroll is a notable middle school newspaper, as it wins awards and the editing staff are generally invited to a journalistic conference because of their hard work. Saying that someone on the paper is self advertising is absurd: it is a free newspaper given out to all ASL middle schoolers. I don't know what kind of personal vendetta you have against the scroll, but there is no need for you to do this. The Scroll wikipedia entry is not violating any wiki or school rules, and therefore your arguments are not valid. (Nakan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.37.20 ( talk • contribs)
"KEEP IT" What on earth do you have against the scroll!?! The Scroll is a notable paper and scored first class in a recent rating. it also won best of show for middle school newspapers during an NSPA confrence. I agree with the above when it says that " Saying that someone on the paper is self advertising is absurd: it is a free newspaper given out to all ASL middle schoolers." He has a perfect point; why on earth would a FREE newspaper that contains NO advertisments and sole purpose is to inform the population of the american school about goings on, want to advertise. The Scroll is a fabulous example of students trying (and succeding) to be heard in their community. scroll editors spend at least 2 hours a week working on the paper plus many of their weekends trying to put out the best paper they can. if you think that the paper is "bad" then take it up with the editors, but keep this page open to all that want to read about it. When you say "some kid" you are talking about 14 students selected out of 400 to represent their fellow students and voice issue concerning them. Please, at least treat the editors with some respect. (David)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.46.9 ( talk • contribs)
P.S. What is the NSPA? I couldn't find an article for it here. If the organization that gave the prize isn't notable enough for one, the paper who uses that prize as its sole reason for notability is not either.- PlasmaDragon 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
just a wuick thing about the NSPA, it is the sumber one Student newspaper prize giving organization in the world. when you apply for the New York Times (possibly the best paper on the planet) you are asked as one of the questions, weither or not you have ever recived 'any awards such as ones from the NSPA.'
We cannot; one of you have already deleted all mention of the Scroll on the American School in London page. There are other Middle School newspapers on this website; maybe you should target them instead of us. Or perhaps, you should just grow up and stop acting like an eight year old. (Nakan).
Mr. Ben, may i say one thing. this is not a vanity page. this page was not created with the purpose to promore ourselfs. we simply wanted people to know more about our paper. if you have an issue with, dare i say it, making information public and availible, i suggest you stop waundering around wiki.
Excuse me, dear sir, but direct me to the place where it says my name in glorious letters on the Scroll wikipedia page? This is about the Scroll itself. A concious decision was made when the page was made; we didn't use any names because we thought than we might avoid the accusation that you are making right now. This is not an attempt to make us feel better, but to inform other people from other schools about the Scroll. Wikipedia is supposed to be the ultimate encyclopedia, where every term can be defined. The Scroll is just as worthy to hold a single page of explanation as any other newspaper. There are some pages on Wikipedia which take up a lot more room and serve a lot less purpose than this one. Perhaps you should dedicate your noble efforts to those sites more worthy of your exaulted attention. (Nakan)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.24.83 ( talk • contribs)
I was not aware I could say something perfeclty. Look, if this is some sort of vendetta against all middle school and high school newspapers, then I could accept it. But its not; for some reason you have singled out your own middle school newspaper for abuse. Why don't you go after the Trojan Times? They are a middle school newspaper. They have virtually the same layout as us. Go and flag them for deletion, just let us have our few kilobytes of space.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.37.20 ( talk • contribs)
As i said before, the awards it wins are not minor ("and has won a minor award," ) they are the best that is avaible for any student newpaper. "Beyond the few people that already know about your paper, nobody cares about it. Sorry. It's a bit harsh, but it's a bit true. " Mr ben it would seem that you think that your veiws represtent the rest of the world. Sir, they do not. it seems to me like you think that you are the ultimate wiki man and you alone have to power to say what is right and what is wrong, what people should read, what people should not. sounds a tad bit like Hitler to me.
Well, good sir plasmadragon (nice name, by the way, extraordinarily manly), you have outdone yourself once again. In suggesting that this is the first middle school paper that you "chanced" upon, also serves to suggest that you did not attempt to merely look through wiki's search engine. The first item that you find when searching "middle school newspaper" is "the trojan times," which is nearly identical to the page that the Scroll has set up. Why don't you go and flag their site for deletion, and dash their humble dreams upon the rocks? You claim that the Scroll is a "average middle school newspaper," which has won "a minor award." Well, that really depends on your definition of minor. My definition of minor is something that is not important; perhaps something that no-one notices. Well, it would be difficult for someone not to notice the Scroll if it was announced in front of 60,000 people who all heard about it win this "minor" award (an award you obviously know nothing about, and you merely assume that it a minor one). You are correct in claiming that what you wrote is a "bit true," but incorrect in claiming that no-one cares. Four hundred people, plus 200 faculty members all care. The award board who gave us our "minor" award cares. The dozens of schools we have sent the Scroll to all care. No sir, you are not picking an argument with the Scroll, but rather with all middle school newspapers; you are suggesting that even a newspaper that wins one of the most prestigious awards available to it is still worthless, minor, and not even deserving of a wikipedia entry, is suggesting that no middle school newspapers amount to anything. You see, sir, all middle school newspapers have the same limits; they do not really reach a large audience past their schools, none of them are particularly famous or unusual, and as you say, they have no worth. Indeed, while I might have a problem with Wikipedia itself, than you, dear sir, have a problem with all middle school newspapers, not just this one. And if that is a battle you are willing to take, than good luck to you, sir. (Nakan)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.37.20 ( talk • contribs)
But this does not end at the merger. There was a mention of the Scroll on the American School in London page, but it was deleted, by one of the posters above. The Scroll received the award in front of 60,000 people, all of whom were invited for their contribution to the school newspaper community. And your little division problem hardly strikes fear into my heart; seeing as only a billion or so have internet acess, your division problem works against you; the most any internet site can garner is 1/6 of the world population. You claim that the award that the Scroll wins (most every year), is "not the pulitzer." Well, of course it isn't. The Scroll cannot win a pulitzer, because that prize is not available to them. However, the Scroll can compete against schools from other continents in an attempt to win the prize that you are slamming. You obviously have not done very much research on the very thing that you say does not matter. And saying that no-one cares is incorrect; apparently you care quite a lot, otherwise maybe you wouldn't continue in this persecution of your own school newspaper. You might be claiming that the Scroll, and other pages like it are wasting space on the Wiki server; perhaps you don't realize that this page that you have created takes up at least double the space that our small, supposedly insignifigant page takes up. At the beginning of this argument, you claimed that you "chanced upon" this page. I find this highly unlikely; we put this page up nary a week ago, and you flagged it for deletion less than two days afterwords. Someone told you about this page, and you took as an oppurtunity to continue your personal vendetta against the Scroll. The Scroll is as notable as a Middle School newspaper can be, and maybe you should just accept that and stop whining about Middle School newspapers. Just allow the few of MS newspapers that are trying to expand into the internet to do so, instead of hindering them at every step. (Nakan)
Peace, -- Urthogie 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Urthogie, do not try and make out as if the removal of the text from the American School in London page was an error; you were the one who deleted it. And why do you have any doubts about what my name is? You could look me up in the directories right now, if you so desired (assuming you go to my school, which I think is very possible, Mr. Greenberg). I think that my arguements above speak for themselves, and if you have any desire to dislodge them you must give proof that the Scroll is non-notable. As I said above, the Scroll is as notable as it could possibly be; it cannot go beyond where it currently is. Just let us be, for the love of God; this is your school as well, have a little spirit. (Nakan)
After you're done reading these, you'll see that the wiki-world is not a place for self promotion. In fact, its discouraged that people write about things they're involved in, or about themselves-- creates bias. -- Urthogie 20:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
We are NOT self promoting; we are merely presenting information. There is no benefit that we can gain by self promoting, no amount of money, or cars, or even women. You make the same point again and again; please, spare me your stupidity.
Who is David Max? (Nakan)
Plasmadragon, you merely prove that you cannot let this go by checking this page every few hours, and posting everytime I respond. I will repeat my point: the Scroll is a notable MS paper. It has every right to be here. You are not part of this "conspiracy," but urthogie is. He went on to the ASL page and took out all references to the scroll. And you have not adressed how you found this page; surely it was not by an honest search?
Who do you think the person who proposed this page for deletion was? This is not a conspiracy, and stop calling it one. the fact remains that someone (and according to the history of the page, Urthogie) deleted all references to the Scroll on the ASL wiki page. Please, just let this one go! What personal motivation do you have for keeping this fight going? The newspaper is notable. The newspaper deserves a wiki page as much as any other. And repeatedly claiming that the newspaper is non-notable and has won a minor award (an award it wins most every year), will not win you any respect. Just let this one go; prove yourself the bigger man and walk away. And Urthogie, if you do not go to this school you do not know if the Scroll is notable or not; you have never seen an issue.
Urthogie, did you not claim at the beginning of this argument that you go to the school right now? So wouldn;t it be easy for you to delete the Scroll information? You can say that you are done with this, but you are not. This is not an argument about me or my aggressive posting habits, but about the Scroll. And merely claiming again and again that the Scroll is not notable (when in fact it certainly is, as proved above) does not automatically make you the victor. (Nakan)
Oh no, woe is me! I'm not the wikipedia policy. Oh no! If I were you, I'd refuse to talk to me, because I have commited a most heinous crime! Go on, walk away, with your tail between your legs, refuse to speak to me. I am not considering you in good faith, because to date you have not given a plausible why the Scroll should be deleted. The Scroll has won many major awards and has achieved the highest possible acclaim that a MS newspaper can achieve. If you really think that it is not worth a few kilobytes of wiki's server, than you are a cold, black hearted man. Walking away does make you a bigger man, but you have not finished the argument; you have not rebuffed any of my points. (Nakan)
Then there is the claim that the Scroll was awarded best in show. That is not true. It was given third place best in show for junior high papers. [53] So, as we can see, the scroll has won one minor award (if the NSPA rankings are so important, why does the NSPA barely acknowledge their existance?), and almost won one other minor award (I doubt that the junior high papers were the highlight of the evening). Anyway, even if it had achieved the highest possible praise that could be given to a junior high paper, it would still not be notable. There are some things that, due to their limited geographical relevance, are simply not notable enough for wikipedia. For example, if I put together the best possible computer, overclocked it with liquid nitrogen, and got the highest 3D Mark score in the world, would my computer deserve an article on wikipedia? No, because it would still just be my computer that only I, my friends, my family, and possibly my neighbors would care about. It would do pretty much anything any other mid- to high-end computer purchased in the last year or two could do, except at a few more frames per second. The Scroll is the same way. It has nothing that any other middle school paper wouldn't also have (photos, editorials), and it isn't even the best. There is nothing notable about it. Who, outside of your school, do you think would see this wiki page and say "Wow! A first class middle school paper! With photos!"?
Maybe if your paper won 10 "All-American" rankings and was inducted into the Hall of Fame, as described on the NSPA webpage, it would be notable. Or maybe if there was some sort of landmark 1st Amendment court case involving your paper, it would be notable. But until then, it is not. And we cannot give you a few kilobytes. If we gave a few kilobytes to every middle school paper that won a minor award, then, as I touched upon earlier, there would be an overwhelming glut of articles on papers that few would care about, and wikipedia would be seen as only a massive jungle of vanity pages, from which the rare flowers of good articles on notable topics would be all but impossible to locate and extract.
In conclusion: the Scroll is not nearly as notable as its staff would have you believe, there is nothing about it that makes it sufficiently notable, and this article should therefore be deleted. -- PlasmaDragon 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I am sorry. I do not know when I made a big mistake and made this personal, but reading back over this argument, I realize that I have looked like an idiot. I have been attacking the personal lives of people I don't even know, and making claims that are not grounded in fact. While I still disagree about the notability of the Scroll, I am not going to argue any more. My above arguments have ruined my credibilty, and I simply did not acknowledge the links that you sent me. You have tried to make this more a true argument, but everytime you did I attempted to call you out on personal details that I do not know for certain. My arguments have reflected poorly upon the whole Scroll staff, and I am truly sorry. I realize now that the Scroll wikipedia entry has no chance of surviving; perhaps if I had argued better, with your level of research, then it would have been different, but as it stands now, the Scroll wiki entry has no hope. I am throwing in the towel, and I can only hope that this final apology will return some dignity in the eyes of my peers and fellow wikipedia users.
I am truly sorry, (Nakan)
The result of the debate was USERFY. JIP | Talk 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A college student with a piecemeal claim to notability. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. Grandmasterka 21:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MOVE to Wikipedia namespace. The article is in the wrong namespace but otherwise I don't see much problems with it. JIP | Talk 06:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-referential in the article namespace, irrelevant given WP:YFA and others Batmanand | Talk 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable professor. Article was nominated for deletion previously (see here), but the debate was largely about academics in general, and was moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics and no consensus was reached. Nicholas Hopper is a promising young crypto researcher, and an assistant prof (not tenured) at UMN, and has about 10 technical papers of varying quality; the best has about 50 citations, which makes it a good paper, but not an especially important one. Not much more could be added to this article, apart from a CV-style list of papers. As nominator, I abstain; I'm relisting this because it didn't get consensus (or quality discussion) last time. Mangojuice 21:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD G1/A7 Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 00:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Unless anyone can prove otherwise, I think this is made up. IronGiant 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination WP:POINT. Ezeu 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Anti-notable. This AFD is being placed because the NYT is anti-notable, namely, that anyone mentioned in its pages, despite its preeminence, popularity, and market penetration, is instantly cast into non-notability. The precedent for this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review#John Bambenek where the subject was deleted because he was in the New York Times on the front page and that made him non-notable. It is time that the NYT come off the pages of wikipedia like the blackhole of notability it is. -- Alpha269 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Flower party■ 05:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable athlete, and it's also a repost. Prod was removed. dcandeto 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod contested. It's a website. NickelShoe 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a real person, or just very non-notable-- 152.163.100.13 22:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy, but contested. Geogre's Law failure, no real evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 23:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. The article makes it sound as though all of Kaufman is buzzing, but neither the county website nor the city paper mentions this at all. Joyous | Talk 23:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Score is 5 deletes, 3 keeps. Martial Law 05:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC) :) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Article on a band whihc may or may not have been locally notable, little if any evidence of that notability survives. Content is not formally a copyvio as it was posted by the original author, self-publicist User:Torshaw. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable user of a game maker; see WP:BIO and the other two RPG Maker designer nomintaions. Deckiller 23:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Lack of notability in relevant communities. Ashwinr 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. Jinian 22:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This was speedily deleted as "discussion of a term coined on a blog. No claim to notability", an action that WP:DRV overturned and sent here for consideration. - Splash talk 23:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. The best argument presented about this being notable is coverage in a local newspaper, and the argument that this is a fairly weak claim to notability seems has been made by Rossami. I am not altogether convinced by the "Digimon-comparison" argument either since Digimon is a series, while this is presently a one-time event. With a greater than two-thirds majority for deletion, I am calling this a delete decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This was previously deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llamacon, but WP:DRV overturned this for a mixture of concerns over lack of involvement. See here. - Splash talk 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete — xaosflux Talk 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - this is promo article. Rama's Arrow 23:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Flower party■ 05:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedied, undeleted by WP:DRV, on a request that indicated merging, but at least two people wanted it listed here, so here it is. - Splash talk 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete — xaosflux Talk 04:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as hoax or fan fiction. I am also including Pwogwopa in this listing, as it was created at the same time and claims to be part of this sector. Note that both Google and Wookieepedia searches turned up no results for either. BryanG 23:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE based on the opinions of those few who voted here who were established Wikipedians. I'm closing this early because it has turned into a cesspool. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:36, 18 March 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}} . |
In contradiction with the above notice: Voting - Wikipedia uses a one person, one vote principle for all votes and similar discussions from the following page - WP:SOCK
Delete unverifiable vanity religion. This "new faith" gets 0 google hits outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. [57] Postdlf 00:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This should not be deleted...if you need to verify the existence of the religion, get in contact with the british government at directgov.helpdesk@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk -- and since when did google become the standard of verification? Dig a little harder, the religion has a small internet following, and attempts have been made to register it with the government.—This unsigned comment is by Innatheism ( talk • contribs) .
No, that was media hype. The government didn't register jedi as a religion, and they repeatedly said they would not before the census went out. It was a rumour that started in Australia, a completely different country. Don't throw around faulty anecdotes as evidence
On top of this, I chose to start the wikipedia entry BECAUSE I could find so little about it on the internet. If this doesn't fit with your policy, I apologise, but I was under the impression that seeing as how I'm not in any way affiliated with the religion, and therefore not publicising, say, a business or venture of my own, this would be ok.
I'm merely trying to inform the world of a viewset that does not exist anywhere else. I actually gained information about the religion myself through a leaflet that came through my front door. Usually I discard religious material, being a strong atheist, but this caught my eye (due to the use of the word atheist in the title).
I wouldn't say it converted me, but I couldn't fit anything about it on the net, so decided to put a small stub here, allowing others the opportunity to expand on it. Does that run contrary to your policy of freely sharing information?
If you wait a while (it's 1:35 in the morning in England, I need to go to sleep for now), I can scan in the leaflet I was given -- would that provide verification that this is genuine? —This unsigned comment is by 88.109.78.41 ( talk • contribs) .
So basically, you're telling me that even though you COULD very easily phone the government, who would verify the existence of this religion for you, you won't, because it hasn't yet recieved any notable media coverage or google hits? I appreciate that it may not be your place to check the validity that extensively, but then why are you bothering at all? If it's not immediately at your fingertips, you're not interested? I'm placing it at your fingertips. You could verify it with one email -- to a Mr Stephen Wilkins, I've already given you the email address.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.184.204 ( talk • contribs)
On top of all this, has no one noticed that Innatheism has been on the list of newly founded religions in wikipedia since the summer? I noticed it a while back, and have been waiting for someone to write an article explaining to me exactly what it is ToMySurprise_81 13:37, 16 March 2006
Also, I'd point out that the pages of every user who has suggested the deletion of this article are a bigger waste of wikipedia's time and virtual space - they are all vanity pages, and get 0 google hits outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors ToMySurprise_81 13:41, 16 March 2006
Note to Fan-1967 - I was under the impression that I had to validify that the religion existed. According to the leaflet I was handed out, (which I've offered to scan in and post here, I did not contact the government myself and have no personal connection to this church), the church contacted the government last year. Presumably you agree with me that something must exist in order to contact the government. The fact that they hold no register is neither here nor there, I'm working on the assumption that their correspondance will have been recorded. Or at least remembered.
I only wrote this article, as I have already stated, because I received the leaflet and could find no great information on it on the net. I did find this - [ [58]] - which I think you'll agree is quite uninformative. Searching in Wikipedia, results came up with several pages - one of which was a list of religions. Since there was no page on it, I typed up the article we're currently discussing from information in the pamphlet (which I'm still happy to provide for you).
As I've REPEATEDLY said, I have no personal connection to this religion. I'm an atheist. I merely found information on it, and tried to put it on the internet when I found there was no information here already (though the religion WAS already mentioned on wikipedia).
Personally, I think the attitude of wikipedians is ridiculous. I can provide you with a copy of hard media which represents this church, which was delivered through my door. But you won't accept it because google doesn't turn anything up? Two of your policies contradict each other - you'll take information that has a media representation, but only if that representation is already in digital media. The real world exists just as much as the internet does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.27.34 ( talk • contribs)
This is a blatent lie. According to wikipedia's page on notability - "Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied...There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Alexa and Google tests (note: many editors do not consider those tests to be objective or reliable)...The person who authored the article clearly believes that the topic is notable enough to be included..."Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance)...The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable." -- The fact that you don't consider this to be of note (or, more probably, disagree with the belief system it outlines), according to wikipedia guidelines, is neither here nor there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.37.190 ( talk • contribs)
I also find this whole debate highly hypocritical, since on this page - [ [59]] - you list Wikipedeism as a religion. Misinformation or vanity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellmonkey42 ( talk • contribs)
As already discussed, it is NOT wikipedia's policy to delete articles based on notability. It states this on the notability page itself, and I have quoted it above. To keep parroting "non notable, non notable, non notable" like a broken record is pedantic and irrelevent. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Several users have now described encounters with Innatheists in the real world (myself included), and I can only presume these users are from different places. I, myself, encountered the people handing out leaflets in Milton Keynes, and a user above has encountered them in London. Printed media can also be provided - maybe not information published in a newspaper or a magazine, but that would only prove that the religion was attracting the attention of the media at large - and that's not the question being debated. Nor is it necessary - by wikipedia's policies, peer review or publishment is only necessary for academic claims. I quote: For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. - and even then, this is only a preference, not a necessity.
I hate to repeat myself, but to requote: "Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied...The person who authored the article clearly believes that the topic is notable enough to be included..."Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one If you're going to object to this article, could you at least do it on grounds based in wikipedia's policies, rather than the fact that you personally think it's not worthy of comment?
In Summary: There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, in the rules for submitting articles that means this particular one should be deleted.
1 - It's been commented that it's not notable - that's your opinion, and not grounds for deletion, by wikipedia's rules.
2 - It's been said that this is unverified - at this moment in time, maybe so, but only because I'm unsure what verification you require. The wikipedia page on verification demands only a fulfillment of the burden of evidence -- the media which contained this information can be provided, which would make wikipedia a secondary source, fulfilling this.
3 - There MAY be grounds for deletion, on a case of dubious reliability. However, according to the verification page, if a source is dubious it should simply be quoted. I can do more than that, I can scan in and upload the document itself.
4 - as for the ignorant question made above: Can we have something more than "some guy gave me a leaflet"? - no, you don't need any more than that. Again, I quote from the verification page -- Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them.
Having just following the link (thanks DM) and found out what you mean by "sockpuppet" -- check the IP addresses. How could I make a comment, log off to change IP's, make another comment in another name, log back on WITH THE SAME IP ADDRESS and make more comments? I couldn't. You're accusing me of something that's impossible. Though I'll ignore this insult, as it says on the sockpuppet page - things will only get uglier.
The result of the debate was SPEEDILY REDIRECTED. I'm closing this one early because the redirects will be useful and the prose has been merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I am nominating the following articles for deletion (ignore the top one, I forgot it was a redirect to the main SSBM article):
All are extraordinarily short articles that have only appeared in one game. Giga Bowser hurts my eyes; it's as if someone copied it from a GameFAQs FAQ. I have merged all relevent information into List of Super Smash Bros. Melee characters but would still like to see the articles deleted and recreated as redirects, if recreated at all. - Hbdragon88 05:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Self-fashioning. My British English would have the hyphen, so that's where I'll redirect to, but it's not important. The two articles are essentially identical, and it looks like someone just didn't know how to make a redirect. - Splash talk 18:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete original research without references. No major edits in 11 months.-- Porturology 00:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Harr o 5 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. Prod removed seemingly due to misunderstanding of process. Hynca-Hooley 00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
NN/Vanity Advertisement/press release for some schoolkids running a business. -- Aim Here 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delizzle. DS 05:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an urban-music related hoax. No Google references could be found at all. OTOH, May be too "undaground" to verify! Hynca-Hooley 00:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A computer utility. Article has been speedied and reposted a couple of times, looks like consensus might be needed. Hynca-Hooley 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
DELETE This work is not notable or interesting in anyway, is not the work of any prolific author(s) and is not available generally
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity / advert. Originally prodded, but removed by another user because the owner of the company mentioned is of some notability. That may be true, but this page is pure advertisement, and after visiting the company website, I'm not convinced that this article should be kept. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the industry could comment. Tijuana Brass 00:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Band at the boundaries of WP:MUSIC notability. Article is a little promotional of the band also. Abstain as nom. Hynca-Hooley 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a large article and can easily be merged into the Battlefield 2 and Command and Conquer: Red Alert articles without having its own page.-- Zxcvbnm 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Verbose, aggrandising article about a perhaps notable director of an entertainment company. Requires cleanup at the very least. Hynca-Hooley 01:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, merge/move discussion can be done on the article's talk page. -- W.marsh 21:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This unfortunately-named article only causes confusion. List of Intel microprocessors is quite adequate. Ezeu 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete no established notablity. Kiwidude 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete no established notablity. possible advertising. vanity. Kiwidude 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Harr o 5 06:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Band; does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC, perhaps cultural importance can be argued; but only 66 Google hits suggest probably not. Hynca-Hooley 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod removed. This is supposed to warrant its own encyclopedia article??? Delete! Hynca-Hooley 01:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Montco 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete This is just not needed. Nigelthefish 20:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Not listed on the IMDB. Very unpromising Google results. [6] Article says she appeared on two shows, but those credits would've been on the IMDB if true.
Second2. "Very Unpromising Google results" has nothing to do with the validity of the actress in question. Having peoples opinions written about you on websites has no validity if you were or were not appearing on a television show. I can say Ashton Kutcher is the worst actor in the world, it doesn't mean he hasn't been on tv.
Third 3. "A 10-year-old extra does not qualify as notable." So I guess Dakota Fanning shouldnt be on here either right?
Fourth 4. "Family is already notorious for self-promotion in theater/TV community. " Unless you know the family personally, or are their agent, then you really don't know, and you base your opinion on other people's opinions.
The point of Wikki is to list FACTS, not OPINIONS. If you cannot PROOVE she has NOT been on television then you cannot say that she hasn't, opinions matter little.
I actually am a CD that found this link typing her name into a search engine. She will be appearing with Alyssa Milano in a Humane Society Commercial in June. I know for a FACT because I am the one that cast her.
Vanity that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.17.216 ( talk • contribs)
JackO'Lantern , this may come as a surprise, but Dakata Fanning was in 6 independant movies before she "hit it big" AND 2 commercials ! (Do you think they just pulled her out of daycare?)
I suggest you go see the website in question, you'll see a girl in a picture with THE casting director for Palmetto Pointe, PRACTICING LINES.
The FACT is, she HAS been on TV, she HAS been in independant movies, she WILL be in more commercials.
The opinion (Yours) is, She's not good enough to list on Wikki because you don't think her being 10 years old and being in commercials counts as being on tv.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justadding ( talk • contribs)
"It's standard practice to delete an entry if we can't establish notability (or in this case, the existence of the subject)."
That's a damn realistic mannequin that they're using. It looks just like a little girl. My guess is the cameras are fake too. /end sarcasm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.17.216 ( talk • contribs)
Delete per funky monkey -- pm_shef 01:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I was what? Don't change shit around on this page to make it look like I'm saying stuff I'm not. That's just plain bullshit.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Another one of these CV/resumé-tinged possible vanity biographies of a living person. Here there is assertion of notability (appearances on Tonight Show). {{ nn-bio}} and {{ prod}} tags both removed. Personally vote weak keep, but something of a revamping of the article is needed if that is the outcome of the debate. Hynca-Hooley 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Suspected hoax. "Zukak" gives 800 google hits, mainly to Arab related material. "Noobquest" of "Noob Quest" of "Noob quest" all give less than 3000, which don't appear related. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
nn company. appears to be something which hasn't even started yet. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (CSD A7). kingboyk 02:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I put this up for speedy, but have copped some flak from the author, and some other editor, who has only about 10 edits, but has been around for one month. "Obidike" has 453 google hits, mostly to people in America, while "Obidike" has only 10. The article also says dubious stuff like the last sentence, which smells of unverifiability. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi BL Nguyen, I'd just like to say that it's local folk lore. I don't know what a person living in australia would know about local folk lore. The story is most often spread by word of mouth, that's how I heard it and apparently someone else has too. The lots of edits are because I'm not a very good typer and i have a tendancy to post and reedit. I know it's a bad habit. Also i missed a couple of things off and added later. I'm a long time reader here, but Until recently I've only read, not contributed. Please don't judge me because of that. I ask you is it the case that you only dislike the article because of the slight mention of "yellow fever" since you are quite obviously asian from your vietnamese name. I'm not being racist here, its not my fault the fabled society was called that. As with all folk lore and legend, it is indeed mostly unverifyable, as are many things in life. I understand that technically it should be verifyable to be on wikipedia, but how is any mythology to be posted if there is no gray area. KX36 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A film that was never made - didn't even make it through pre-production. Prod tag removed by User:Mr. Popadopalis25. - Cnwb 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement. Does not look notable to me. Delete DMG413 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a new web2.0 project involving webcomics. Could be the start of new ways publishing comics online. With the coming of new portable devices, particulary with pen, touch screen and wireless connection. This could be a great solutions for amateurs with devices unable to load painter, paint shop pro or other paintng applications. As each and every on of those devices will have a browser, they will be able to draw a comic strip directly online whenever the want. Seems very relevant to me as in a medium term timeline.keep it Tiago.Cardoso 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The road to Hell is paved with...never mind. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian G. Crawford ( talk • contribs)
hmmm, check Alexa ranking to Arbit_Choudhury and check Alexa ranking to Comics@MaiNada.Net. It far to distante. And i'm about 800% better now then 1 month ago. It's growing. So, don't tell me Arbit_Choudhury has notability. Tiago.Cardoso
Just one last comment, I do think you are not being very open to this. I do think this project, this webcomics deserves a article here in WP. If you ask, i'll make an honest effourd to improve it with your help, but saying that you want to delete it because I'm not knowen it a bit far fetched!.. It gives a bad sense of anti-democracy to the project and the user-coorperation. What do you think, want to help me or just want to take privelige of being more senior users ? Tiago.Cardoso
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
INPAX and "rapper" turn up exactly this at Google. [7] Clearly non-notable, vanity, etc. you name it, this article does it.
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Listed along with authorised retail Star Trek games.-- PatCheng 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, even discounting all unsigned comments (of which there were plenty), I still count 7 people wanting to keep, merge or redirect, and 10 people wanting to delete. That's still not a consensus to delete. A consensus about what to do with this information (keep as is, merge somewhere, redirect) can be reached on the article's talk page, as consensus for that specific decision is not evident from this AfD. W.marsh 22:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was already deleted once at Articles_for_deletion/27_Club. It is (still) only a neologism with no widespread outside use. -- CrypticBacon 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
KEEP Just the fact that there is so much discussion about this topic warrants it as valid. I am endlessly baffled, fascinated and shocked that all of these important icons died at age 27. It seems more than a coincidence sometimes and I am working on a reasearch project to investigate this more. PLEASE KEEP THIS ENTRY!
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Asserts insufficient notability. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was that the article was deleted after five days on WP:PROD with tag still on page and no followup to talk page protest. —This unsigned comment is by The Epopt ( talk • contribs) .
PRODded on March 10, as failing WP:CORP. The article's creator did not remove the tag, but did protest on the discussion page. Referring to AfD. Abstain. Joyous | Talk 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 31#Traveling Ham Agency and Norwegian Barry; vanity by User:Travelinghamagency. -- TomPreuss 03:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Cannot be considered an encyclopedic entry. Looks more like a wikiquote page than an wikipedia page. Sharpdust 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy-ly delete. - brenneman {T} {L} 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
nn, borderline original reseaurch Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography, does not appear to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). No sources are cited, and just 34 Google hits for "Maroufi-Collé". Donald Albury( Talk) 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. I googled this term and found numerous different definitions for it, including transexual operations, sex toys, and mind control, but not the stated definition. The article is poorly written and is not neutral POV. Ricaud 03:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as reposted AfD'd material. -- RHaworth 08:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
neologism, apparently made up term: Google search in comes up with less than 900 hits. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was USERFY. JIP | Talk 11:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete.Seems to be about a non-notable musician. Also clearly a vanity page (check the history). Con Dem Talk 03:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete
No evidence of notability. "WikiSonnet" gets 0 Google hits. dbtfz talk 04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Basically the same reasons given for Active Server Pages/Hints: This page has no point being in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a usage guide. [17] Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. [18] The article is full of original research. If that's not enough, this article is nothing more than a messy, poorly organized hodgepodge of random thoughts that are available in better form in many other places. Nova SS 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable bio of a writer for http://www.insertcredit.com/ Manmonk 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
either a neologism or dicdef; googling "deep stealth" vaginoplasty gets only 79 hits the second of which seems to contradict the article; "deep stealth" is used to refer to keeping many secrets other than transgender status ➥the Epopt 04:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. kingboyk 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is another article identified as part of the cleanup drive at WP:Beatles. It's about a parody album performed by singing dogs. Sounds fun, but there's no assertion of and no apparent notability and - here's the killer for me - zero links from mainspace. kingboyk 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Husband of K.A. Maroufi-Collé, appears to be non-notable. Son has been adding biographies of the family. Fan1967 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This page does not describe a notable class of statements; it also has no sources that previous described such statements and is therefore original research. The page also fails to describe a paradox. By saying this, I do not mean that one of the apparently true possibilities is obviously false. In fact, there is only one possibility: The speaker hates himself. Superm401 - Talk 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This list is better maintained by IDG Press.
John Wiley & Sons, the current publisher.
FreplySpang
(talk)
04:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Keep - [ [21]] Nothing is lost by keeping it, and it's kind of an interesting overview of the many different subjects covered by the series. I skimmed through it after reading the ...for Dummies article. We should put a note near the top saying that it's not an exhaustive or necessarily up-to-date list, then we don't have to worry about maintaining it as much. 134.173.95.35 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, but I will Transwiki just in case. I am not sure that the redirect suggestion is a great idea given the generic title, as pointed out, and a redirect does discard the content. The merge isn't necessary either. The author's keep is not borne out by Special:Whatlinkshere/Federal recognition, leaving only one editor supporting retention of the content. - Splash talk 18:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article's title is very ambiguous and it does nothing but directly quote legislation which has nothing to do with federal recognition of Indian tribes. This topic is given a more thorough treatment at Native_Americans_in_the_United_States. Please see talk page for further explanation. -- BWD ( talk) 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Clearly self-promotional, see WP:NOT. Wouldn't seem to meet verifiability standards - just about some website no one's really written anything about. W.marsh 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- maru (talk) contribs 04:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable coffeehouse owner. The biography is trying to make the owner sound more important and have more impact than he really does. Also see articles Jimmy Nil Fishhawk, Ian Meares, and G. M. Palmer, which fail notability and should be deleted, in my opinion, along with the Stephen Dare page. I want to treat the Stephen Dare voting as if all four were up for deletion. Mike H. That's hot 05:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
De-prodded by article creator. Well, this guy is an "Assistant Producer and co-host of the Texas Music Matters radio program on KUT 90.5 FM in Austin, TX at the University of Texas at Austin." Wikipedia is not a place to write about random radio hosts. Punkmorten 06:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
De-prodded by article creator. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Punkmorten 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Thoroughly non-notable political news pamphlet handed out in Gainesville, Florida. Cúchullain t / c 06:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet WP:SOFTWARE, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MechZ. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 06:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to Sydney Boys High School. Personally, I think merging some of the lead section is more than adequate, so that's what I'll do. - Splash talk 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The society has had only one mention outside of the school and is not that greatly known within the school AMorris (talk)● (contribs) 06:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable; vanity/advertising page for someone who wrote a book, with article written by his publisher. Joejamboree 06:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as band vanity. - Mike Rosoft 15:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement, no notability established ( WP:CORP/ WP:SOFTWARE). Contested PROD. Sandstein 08:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was closed. This way please. :) Mailer Diablo 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
No articles in category. Mefjord was incorrectly placed in category, which might be the reason for the creation of the category. Nordby73 09:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete: Non-notable student magazine. It's website is under development, and it just barely started being published. -- Hetar 09:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep but suggest continued discussion for a rename/merge be furtherd in the article talk. — xaosflux Talk 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the place for something that's just a proof. A proof originally written by someone else and available freely belongs in wikisource, math articles can (and probably should) contain proofs, but a proof on its own isn't an encyclopedia article, and the article isn't about the proof, it is the proof and little more. This is an old article, around since 2003 at least, and I think our standards have tightened since then in a way that it wouldn't pass muster if created today. Either merge into something, transwiki to somewhere more appropriate (though I can't think of one) or just delete. Night Gyr 09:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy redirected (as non-notable) to Swastika. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website (
WP:WEB) with no Alexa data. ReDe-PRODded, so to AfD it goes.
Sandstein
11:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography, can't find anything that seems related on google. Speedy deletion contested, see Talk:Kareem Ryan. Weregerbil 11:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirected to Robert Howard. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
delete no verifiable claim to notability. no imdb entry-- Porturology 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Greek TV director. Non-notable per WP:BIO, no pertinent Google hits. WP:PROD tag was re-added after being contested, which is not permissible, so it goes to AfD. Sandstein 11:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
It has many Google hits if searched with Greek Spelling ("Βασίλης Κοσμόπουλος" or "Βασίλειος Κοσμόπουλος") Skag 11:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, I admit that David Sneek's comment is fair... If the Wikipedia community believes that this is a non-notable BIO , I stand corrected and waiting for deletion. My intention was to add wikipedia entries for many "behind-the-camera" TV persons , but it seems that there is no need for this.... Skag 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 11:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable artist/musician. Most notable claim is having published an album in 2004. Not much on google - a search for "wooden thomas" is pretty much all about the Tank Engine. Article is also POV. It has been around since July 2005 which is why I didn't just prod it. The articles that link to here are Casandra Stark which is tagged for cleanup and verification, and Talk:Pine Barrens (New Jersey) which only references in regard to how to format the Pine Barrens page. MLA 12:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This person is not noteworthy. He is a member of the RPG Maker community, but even in this very small world, he is not really of great significance, even though he made some well-received games. I don't think any author of games from this community should have an article on Wikipedia because the only people who care or could have benefit from it are the fans of that person's games or the person himself. Michiel Sikma 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This person created a few RPG Maker games which some people have played. This is not an official game designer, merely a person who used a game program to make some games. In that way, it falls in the same category as fanfiction writers. Delete. Deckiller 12:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Currently a list of links to HOWTOs. Is there a way to make this into an article? Don't know myself so no vote. Weregerbil 13:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 05:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is looking more and more like an ad, and is being consistently vandalised, filled with more and more untruths about the site and its owner and administration - DELETE BigDan 13:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately it has come to my attention that members are using this Free Encylopedia to advertise Media Spy but to also use it as an outlet for their disapproval of certain aspects of our site. I believe this isn't what Wikipedia was designed for as this page has little to no information contained in it. Most information is wrong and if not, members are changing the info so that is wrong, so I'd like to see this page deleted! DELETE Lepatron 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Various people are making it sound like an ad/being vandalised. Kennethjwebb 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Modify. The thing looks legit, and only a bit promotional.
Delete I'd like to keep most of the content. The 'Criticisms' section is awfully harsh, too, and I had to correct a mistake there (reflex action). The thing is that the vandals are really spoiling it. Such a pity. Cyvros/Marlett 22:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
appears NN. been prodded before. notability asserted via the Anna Nicole Show, but if that is it, does not belong on WP. Abstain Delete.
the.crazy.russian
vent here
13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was renominated; for some reason, this nomination was considered closed as "no consensus", while in fact it was never closed. The article was later renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vercetti's Comrades 2 and deleted. I am closing this one because it is shown up as unclosed by a script of mine ( Liberatore, 2006). 13:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Fail to see the noatability. Dlohcierekim 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. - Splash talk 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps the articles could be cleaned up into a simple list, with the quotes and information placed in the articles about the individual people involved, but as it stands, this needs deletion.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they're the same thing:
-- Fuzzie ( talk) 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Comments on some of the comments so far:
Instead of moaning: you could help rephrase what you perceive to be POV and what you perceive to be emotive wording. After all, 108 MEP signed one declaration hence the wording to show it is incomplete -how else do you say it? If someone else can phrase it better then let them help.
The list is also need to counter the comments by some, that there is little support for improvements to the existing laws -which itself is POV. Or do you want to have it both ways?
Also, it is hardly (or wont be) 'indiscriminate'... And Look at all the articles listing just 'highways', etc. Why don't you put them up for deletion? Just go to list of lists and look though a few lists of things.
=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/List_of
As for it being untidy -it is. I am far from happy with it. There is still information to go on and if you look at the creation date it has only just been created . Some of you might have time to sit at the computer all day but some of us have other things to do. Much of this info is being collected be people who have to pick up the pieces (e.g., social workers, probation workers, lecturers in crime prevention etc) after things go wrong from laws that badly need improving. I expect few of you ( by the way you write) have got any crack houses near you, nor have witnessed at first hand the horror of it all, or your mind might be making connections to the wider picture, about what this list represents. Have you had people drop to the floor and turn blue, would you know how to handle it? Do you know were I and all these other people views are coming from?
As for the comment about any body on the lists changing their mind, it can be updated LIKE ANY OTHER ARTICLE that apt to change.
These articles seem to have been picked up by people who have not thought about it, nor realised that will links in with other stuff - do they reasonably expect that whole thing to be set up at once?
Finally: If you look on the first talk page of the first article created it says:
These lists may not make sense to some people who are out of the loop until some of the other templates go on to explain the background and place the lists in context. This maybe finished by the end of the month. But because of what promises to be its eventual size and geographical and political range, the words, phrasing, syntax etc. need to be got right first. --Aspro 10:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) So some of you haven't even bothered to read it properly.--
Aspro
16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was 'Delete — xaosflux Talk 04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
346 Googles for a netlabel does not argue notability. The only external source is the website. Almost all the links are red, and probably best if they stayed that way. Just zis Guy you know? 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I think this might be a hoax. Hpuppet 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable gamecruft vanity, etc. I reckon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TT Players gives authority to speedy these but I will take a second opinion. -- RHaworth 15:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Well is there another way to include this information with our wikipedia entry without going back to external links? What about using stubs? Paisano® 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete vanity press publications, not for sale on Amazon. Deprodded without reason-- Porturology 15:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Based on what I find, this band doesn't satisfy WP:NMG [24] & [25]. PJM 15:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Although a notable figure seems to have been involved in Machine Gun Kelly, this seems a non-notable event. To quote from the original version of the article: "...few people know much about it, if anything at all. And Willmar doesn’t celebrate the event or even talk about it." Obviously it needs a massive clean up but I think there's nothing worth saving. It seems that it was copied straight from a local-interest type book by one Terry Shaw who is also apparently the user who created this page. Spondoolicks 15:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete — xaosflux Talk 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable fan group of Star Trek. Note the similar AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderlands rpg MLA 16:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 21:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems to be self-published local-interest book. Article was created by the book's author. See talk page for more details. Spondoolicks 16:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like another vanity entry. No IMDB entry (despite the link), Google picks up almost nothing when cross-searching her with the movies she has supposedly appeared in...
The result of the debate was Delete — xaosflux Talk 04:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested {{ prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 06:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as nn band. Article was originally {{ prod}}'d, but tag was removed due to claims that the band met WP:MUSIC. While it appears to be true that the band has gone on a tour, and that they have produced two albums...they do not appear to meet WP:MUSIC because touring in and around San Fransisco (with a couple of shows in Seattle and Portland) can hardly be considered a national concert tour, and without a more clear definition of what "one of the more important indie labels" means, the two albums were not released by "one of the more important indie labels". Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete - author request - military secret that leaked out - actually he said more commercial than military. -- RHaworth 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This document defines the requirements for the … test set that will replace. No original research, WP is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia is not a free host (see talk page) all apply. Joe Lombardi - I have just this moment been thanked for pointing someone else towards Wikicities where you can create your own wiki. I think you should go there too. -- RHaworth 17:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Please delete the article at your earliest possible convenience! -- Joe Lombardi 21:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy userfy. - Liberatore( T) 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an autobiography/résumé, made and edited almost solely by its subject. In fact, the vast majority of edits from User:Timo Kouwenhoven have been on this article.
The result of the debate was Keep — xaosflux Talk 04:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
THis person is not notable. Delete article -- Light current 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Prodded as protologism, based on coinage of one a single researcher. Prod tag removed so bringing it here.
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Pathetic article. Bewibes 15:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to List of video game consoles. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was There is already a similair article here: List of video game consoles. It has much more information and consoles on it. [29]. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 17:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Apparent vanity page, notariaty cannot be independently verified. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 17:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio - SCEhard T 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a Vanity Page Steve 17:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 19:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Initially listed under prod, the tag was removed and then replaced within 24 hours. I've brought it here for a proper evaluation, since the rules of prod specify that the tag cannot be replaced when removed by another user. I'm leaving messages on the users talk pages as well. BTW, I'm neutral on the question. JGF Wilks 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Jerry Jones 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - This article has remained unsourced for a long time. It is one sentence about a novel based on some historical events - I don't think it should be retained in present form. Rama's Arrow 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
User Nri06 added linkspam to "sprachcaffe.com" on six language articles and then created this article. It's an advertisment. Imroy 18:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
University of Illinois is notable. The IT department probably isn't. The helpdesk of the IT department for certain sure is not. WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 18:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
"forthcoming", "will be", "no confirmed members" - you can see where this is leading can't you? WP:NOT a crystal ball. Just zis Guy you know? 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - I consider this non-notable, and it has remained unsourced and unedited for 2 months. Rama's Arrow 18:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
States he is notable, famous even, but the claim is unverifiable - our survey says four unique hits for "Nigel Kimber" guitar. Some sly digs, I suspect complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete NN duo signed on an unproven label. There was a finding of an assertion of notability by Stifle, who removed db-band. the.crazy.russian vent here 18:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable group. Just zis Guy you know? 22:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. The title can be changed at will. I do observe though, that whilst I assume good faith, no evidence has been presented that this does, in fact, exist. - Splash talk 19:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
As the original PRODder noted, there are no Google hits for "The Schoeners saturday night live". Delete as probable hoax. Sandstein 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Cyde Weys 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Slowmover 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - a non-notable subject; stub has remained one-line for a long while. Seems more like a promo for CMSI. Rama's Arrow 19:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as nomination withdrawn & no delete votes. Renamed to Mass Transit incident (ECW) per recommendation. -- JLaTondre 23:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced confusing nonsense, probable hoax or prank. Apparently copied from the description text of a Youtube video, as found
here, that has since been removed "due to terms of use violation" .
Sandstein 19:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Nomination retracted per Aplomado.
Sandstein
19:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - this article has remained a stub and unsourced for over a year. The subject is only semi-notable. Rama's Arrow 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable neologism Hpuppet - «Talk» 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
(UTC)
The result of the debate was DELETE, although I observe some claimed references at the end. The editor who examined at least one of them found it to be wholly lacking, however. - Splash talk 19:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-styled "philosophy discussion group/academic alliance/secret-society". 200 google hits, and that includes hits for a band of the same name; I can't tell if they're related, but if they're not, they're both even less notable. This page appears to have some of their wicked-deep writings; see also the correspondence course ad at [49]. Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. bikeable (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Copied from the Talk page to this AfD:
Unfortunately, some of your patrols seem to be ignorant college students with little knowledge of the subjects they are policing, thus making this entire "wikiproject" absurd by design. Though I find all of this amusing, I have no desire to engage in a long discussion as to the merits of my entry, I merely posted it on a whim after finding its entry strangely absent from your database. I am a university professor and not only am I aware of the club, I attended the hypermodern lecture series with the esteemed Mr. Baudrillard himself at my institution. The presence of the club has been written up in several books, the authenticity of which I do not doubt, and if that is insufficient I will leave the "google-ing" to you.
I wish wikipedia the best into the future and by all means do what you wish with my entry.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulambery01 ( talk • contribs) bikeable (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Paulambery01 18:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery reply
Paulambery01 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery reply
As a Brooklynite, I am amused to find wikipedia entrys for “Rubulad,” a debaucherous party that occurs every few months on the Northside, and the entry for “East Williamsburg Industrial Park,” which is where I live, described condescendingly in its sophomoric entry, and to LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin resolution which could be assailed by number of history professors. Being an academic myself, I am curious to understand why references to both Jean Baudrillard and Martin Heidegger cannot philosophically legitimize an “entry” into your ghoulish dream of information consolidation. Also, I would like to know how many moderators and even "philosophical grad students" are not only versed in Attic and Homeric Greek, but are intimate with those earliest of thinkers, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Thales, Parmenides, Anaximenes, that forcefully mark the inception of "Western thinking."
You allow entire entries which are devoted to “reptoid conspiracies,” which allege that the ruling global elite are actually shape-shifting reptilian creatures who sprung from an ancient genetic experiment, perpetrated by a dim race of ET visitors. The entry for this is quite exhaustive, preposterous, and downright insulting to those of us who do, in fact, descend from the reptoid bloodline, and do not have some insidious dream to enslave humanity through domestic internment camps, internet regulation, and RFID bio-metric ID cards. Please, show some discretion, and permit these people who, like bees flung from their hive, and deep into the mists of fragrant gardens, seek only to pollinate and prolong their sweet, succulent existence.
Most respectfully yours,
Professor J.P.W. Cragglestocker
While I believe it is irrelevant to dicker over the fine points of this entry. I cannot help but remark when the pot calls the kettle black. Just the other day, I was reading how political yes-men had been consistently ammending and omitting submited data for Wikipedia entries on various politicians. What we have here is a fine object lesson in information theory. Wikipedia itself represents the hypermodern attitude toward information - vis a vis the flux, eternal expansion and user generation that categorize the internet as a whole. If the mavens of Wikipedia believe themselves to be one iota holier than the myspace whores, with regard to self-promotion by users, they have a tragic lack of self-insight. The roots of the Wiki project and the internet itself are in a mistrust of absolute truth, cancerous generation and alternative history, which come together like Voltron to form the god Narrative. If ya don't know your roots, then you got no culture. And I'll shed no tears when big Fox Murdoch separates your wheat from its chaff.
sincerely, L. O'Hara
Comment. My sympathies to the Admin who closes this one out. Slowmover 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. I have just confirmed gone out of my way to verify that Davidson and Northwestern, as I stated in the initial entry, have *confirmed* chapters for the Hypermodernity Club. Please call them yourselves if you must verify this even further. Moreover, a colleague of mine, the head of philosophy at Tulane university, served as US chapter President for 2004, thus confirming that the group is "notable". As far as anyone with any sort of intellectual acumen is concerned, Now the burden of proof as to the club's worthiness for inclusion into the Wikipedia database falls on the above moderators (students) who so rashly dismissed it.
Edit: Paulambery01 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Ambery reply
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/french/maison/events/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulambery01 ( talk • contribs)
Baudrillard, Jean. Le complot de l'art suivi de Entrevues à propos du complot de l'art. Sens & Tonka. Paris, 1999, pgs. 45, 62, Paperback
Baudrillard, Jean. The End of the Millennium or the Countdown. Theory, Culture & Society. February 1998, pp. 1-9
Finally, I echo ZornArmand's educated understanding of what is at play here.
Paulambery01 19:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Appears to be a non-notable vanity entry, promoting Endless Online. Zelphar 20:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
"RPG server", so notable that it gets 1 new member a day. I wish I could say this article, complete with leet-speak and disparaging comments is a joke one, but I don't think it is. Strong Delete. Hynca-Hooley 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable software, possible advert RJFJR 20:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Flower party■ 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
"Noise and conceptual art troupe". Hard to tell if the WP:MUSIC criteria are even applicable, never mind passed by this article. Abstain as nom. Hynca-Hooley 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, without prejudice to the creation at any time of a neutral article about the company. I appreciate that whatever decision I reached this would likely end up on DRV, so I will explain my findings and how I reached this decision. First of all, I excluded alleged sockpuppets and weighted down one opinion for the reasons stated. I then checked the contribs of names I didn't recognise (which revealed no new cause for concern). I then looked at the numbers; deletion is the favoured outcome numerically but not by a landslide. Finally, I used my discretion in evaluating the arguments and who made them. AFD regulars favour deletion, whereas Australian contributors have argued that this is a reasonably notable company. My decision ultimately is that both sides have a case; the article shouldn't be allowed to stand as a POV fork, but that the company in question is not undeserving of an article. My summation of the debate is, therefore, that the article is not acceptable as it stands but an article on this company could be acceptable; the result of the debate is therefore delete without prejudice to a clean start. WP:NOT a soapbox is most relevant here. kingboyk 10:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. Jinian 22:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet another article by User:Torshaw - this time it's about his brother. If he's world famous as the article claims then there must be something wrong with this Google search. Delete Spondoolicks 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to American School in London, somewhat surprisingly given the course of things. I do wonder if those suggesting a merge are short of due diligence in determining whether this actually has any merit. Nevertheless, I'll simply apply the redirect. - Splash talk 19:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information. |
Delete-Non notable middle school paper PlasmaDragon
Delete- I go to the school right now, and the paper is not notable. Please notice that our school IP address is the one that has made all of these edits related to the school newspaper. Its probably some kid from the school paper self advertising. It's fine enough just to keep the content we have in American School in London and forget about The Scroll.-- Urthogie 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I disagree; the Scroll is a notable middle school newspaper, as it wins awards and the editing staff are generally invited to a journalistic conference because of their hard work. Saying that someone on the paper is self advertising is absurd: it is a free newspaper given out to all ASL middle schoolers. I don't know what kind of personal vendetta you have against the scroll, but there is no need for you to do this. The Scroll wikipedia entry is not violating any wiki or school rules, and therefore your arguments are not valid. (Nakan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.37.20 ( talk • contribs)
"KEEP IT" What on earth do you have against the scroll!?! The Scroll is a notable paper and scored first class in a recent rating. it also won best of show for middle school newspapers during an NSPA confrence. I agree with the above when it says that " Saying that someone on the paper is self advertising is absurd: it is a free newspaper given out to all ASL middle schoolers." He has a perfect point; why on earth would a FREE newspaper that contains NO advertisments and sole purpose is to inform the population of the american school about goings on, want to advertise. The Scroll is a fabulous example of students trying (and succeding) to be heard in their community. scroll editors spend at least 2 hours a week working on the paper plus many of their weekends trying to put out the best paper they can. if you think that the paper is "bad" then take it up with the editors, but keep this page open to all that want to read about it. When you say "some kid" you are talking about 14 students selected out of 400 to represent their fellow students and voice issue concerning them. Please, at least treat the editors with some respect. (David)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.46.9 ( talk • contribs)
P.S. What is the NSPA? I couldn't find an article for it here. If the organization that gave the prize isn't notable enough for one, the paper who uses that prize as its sole reason for notability is not either.- PlasmaDragon 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
just a wuick thing about the NSPA, it is the sumber one Student newspaper prize giving organization in the world. when you apply for the New York Times (possibly the best paper on the planet) you are asked as one of the questions, weither or not you have ever recived 'any awards such as ones from the NSPA.'
We cannot; one of you have already deleted all mention of the Scroll on the American School in London page. There are other Middle School newspapers on this website; maybe you should target them instead of us. Or perhaps, you should just grow up and stop acting like an eight year old. (Nakan).
Mr. Ben, may i say one thing. this is not a vanity page. this page was not created with the purpose to promore ourselfs. we simply wanted people to know more about our paper. if you have an issue with, dare i say it, making information public and availible, i suggest you stop waundering around wiki.
Excuse me, dear sir, but direct me to the place where it says my name in glorious letters on the Scroll wikipedia page? This is about the Scroll itself. A concious decision was made when the page was made; we didn't use any names because we thought than we might avoid the accusation that you are making right now. This is not an attempt to make us feel better, but to inform other people from other schools about the Scroll. Wikipedia is supposed to be the ultimate encyclopedia, where every term can be defined. The Scroll is just as worthy to hold a single page of explanation as any other newspaper. There are some pages on Wikipedia which take up a lot more room and serve a lot less purpose than this one. Perhaps you should dedicate your noble efforts to those sites more worthy of your exaulted attention. (Nakan)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.24.83 ( talk • contribs)
I was not aware I could say something perfeclty. Look, if this is some sort of vendetta against all middle school and high school newspapers, then I could accept it. But its not; for some reason you have singled out your own middle school newspaper for abuse. Why don't you go after the Trojan Times? They are a middle school newspaper. They have virtually the same layout as us. Go and flag them for deletion, just let us have our few kilobytes of space.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.37.20 ( talk • contribs)
As i said before, the awards it wins are not minor ("and has won a minor award," ) they are the best that is avaible for any student newpaper. "Beyond the few people that already know about your paper, nobody cares about it. Sorry. It's a bit harsh, but it's a bit true. " Mr ben it would seem that you think that your veiws represtent the rest of the world. Sir, they do not. it seems to me like you think that you are the ultimate wiki man and you alone have to power to say what is right and what is wrong, what people should read, what people should not. sounds a tad bit like Hitler to me.
Well, good sir plasmadragon (nice name, by the way, extraordinarily manly), you have outdone yourself once again. In suggesting that this is the first middle school paper that you "chanced" upon, also serves to suggest that you did not attempt to merely look through wiki's search engine. The first item that you find when searching "middle school newspaper" is "the trojan times," which is nearly identical to the page that the Scroll has set up. Why don't you go and flag their site for deletion, and dash their humble dreams upon the rocks? You claim that the Scroll is a "average middle school newspaper," which has won "a minor award." Well, that really depends on your definition of minor. My definition of minor is something that is not important; perhaps something that no-one notices. Well, it would be difficult for someone not to notice the Scroll if it was announced in front of 60,000 people who all heard about it win this "minor" award (an award you obviously know nothing about, and you merely assume that it a minor one). You are correct in claiming that what you wrote is a "bit true," but incorrect in claiming that no-one cares. Four hundred people, plus 200 faculty members all care. The award board who gave us our "minor" award cares. The dozens of schools we have sent the Scroll to all care. No sir, you are not picking an argument with the Scroll, but rather with all middle school newspapers; you are suggesting that even a newspaper that wins one of the most prestigious awards available to it is still worthless, minor, and not even deserving of a wikipedia entry, is suggesting that no middle school newspapers amount to anything. You see, sir, all middle school newspapers have the same limits; they do not really reach a large audience past their schools, none of them are particularly famous or unusual, and as you say, they have no worth. Indeed, while I might have a problem with Wikipedia itself, than you, dear sir, have a problem with all middle school newspapers, not just this one. And if that is a battle you are willing to take, than good luck to you, sir. (Nakan)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.37.20 ( talk • contribs)
But this does not end at the merger. There was a mention of the Scroll on the American School in London page, but it was deleted, by one of the posters above. The Scroll received the award in front of 60,000 people, all of whom were invited for their contribution to the school newspaper community. And your little division problem hardly strikes fear into my heart; seeing as only a billion or so have internet acess, your division problem works against you; the most any internet site can garner is 1/6 of the world population. You claim that the award that the Scroll wins (most every year), is "not the pulitzer." Well, of course it isn't. The Scroll cannot win a pulitzer, because that prize is not available to them. However, the Scroll can compete against schools from other continents in an attempt to win the prize that you are slamming. You obviously have not done very much research on the very thing that you say does not matter. And saying that no-one cares is incorrect; apparently you care quite a lot, otherwise maybe you wouldn't continue in this persecution of your own school newspaper. You might be claiming that the Scroll, and other pages like it are wasting space on the Wiki server; perhaps you don't realize that this page that you have created takes up at least double the space that our small, supposedly insignifigant page takes up. At the beginning of this argument, you claimed that you "chanced upon" this page. I find this highly unlikely; we put this page up nary a week ago, and you flagged it for deletion less than two days afterwords. Someone told you about this page, and you took as an oppurtunity to continue your personal vendetta against the Scroll. The Scroll is as notable as a Middle School newspaper can be, and maybe you should just accept that and stop whining about Middle School newspapers. Just allow the few of MS newspapers that are trying to expand into the internet to do so, instead of hindering them at every step. (Nakan)
Peace, -- Urthogie 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Urthogie, do not try and make out as if the removal of the text from the American School in London page was an error; you were the one who deleted it. And why do you have any doubts about what my name is? You could look me up in the directories right now, if you so desired (assuming you go to my school, which I think is very possible, Mr. Greenberg). I think that my arguements above speak for themselves, and if you have any desire to dislodge them you must give proof that the Scroll is non-notable. As I said above, the Scroll is as notable as it could possibly be; it cannot go beyond where it currently is. Just let us be, for the love of God; this is your school as well, have a little spirit. (Nakan)
After you're done reading these, you'll see that the wiki-world is not a place for self promotion. In fact, its discouraged that people write about things they're involved in, or about themselves-- creates bias. -- Urthogie 20:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
We are NOT self promoting; we are merely presenting information. There is no benefit that we can gain by self promoting, no amount of money, or cars, or even women. You make the same point again and again; please, spare me your stupidity.
Who is David Max? (Nakan)
Plasmadragon, you merely prove that you cannot let this go by checking this page every few hours, and posting everytime I respond. I will repeat my point: the Scroll is a notable MS paper. It has every right to be here. You are not part of this "conspiracy," but urthogie is. He went on to the ASL page and took out all references to the scroll. And you have not adressed how you found this page; surely it was not by an honest search?
Who do you think the person who proposed this page for deletion was? This is not a conspiracy, and stop calling it one. the fact remains that someone (and according to the history of the page, Urthogie) deleted all references to the Scroll on the ASL wiki page. Please, just let this one go! What personal motivation do you have for keeping this fight going? The newspaper is notable. The newspaper deserves a wiki page as much as any other. And repeatedly claiming that the newspaper is non-notable and has won a minor award (an award it wins most every year), will not win you any respect. Just let this one go; prove yourself the bigger man and walk away. And Urthogie, if you do not go to this school you do not know if the Scroll is notable or not; you have never seen an issue.
Urthogie, did you not claim at the beginning of this argument that you go to the school right now? So wouldn;t it be easy for you to delete the Scroll information? You can say that you are done with this, but you are not. This is not an argument about me or my aggressive posting habits, but about the Scroll. And merely claiming again and again that the Scroll is not notable (when in fact it certainly is, as proved above) does not automatically make you the victor. (Nakan)
Oh no, woe is me! I'm not the wikipedia policy. Oh no! If I were you, I'd refuse to talk to me, because I have commited a most heinous crime! Go on, walk away, with your tail between your legs, refuse to speak to me. I am not considering you in good faith, because to date you have not given a plausible why the Scroll should be deleted. The Scroll has won many major awards and has achieved the highest possible acclaim that a MS newspaper can achieve. If you really think that it is not worth a few kilobytes of wiki's server, than you are a cold, black hearted man. Walking away does make you a bigger man, but you have not finished the argument; you have not rebuffed any of my points. (Nakan)
Then there is the claim that the Scroll was awarded best in show. That is not true. It was given third place best in show for junior high papers. [53] So, as we can see, the scroll has won one minor award (if the NSPA rankings are so important, why does the NSPA barely acknowledge their existance?), and almost won one other minor award (I doubt that the junior high papers were the highlight of the evening). Anyway, even if it had achieved the highest possible praise that could be given to a junior high paper, it would still not be notable. There are some things that, due to their limited geographical relevance, are simply not notable enough for wikipedia. For example, if I put together the best possible computer, overclocked it with liquid nitrogen, and got the highest 3D Mark score in the world, would my computer deserve an article on wikipedia? No, because it would still just be my computer that only I, my friends, my family, and possibly my neighbors would care about. It would do pretty much anything any other mid- to high-end computer purchased in the last year or two could do, except at a few more frames per second. The Scroll is the same way. It has nothing that any other middle school paper wouldn't also have (photos, editorials), and it isn't even the best. There is nothing notable about it. Who, outside of your school, do you think would see this wiki page and say "Wow! A first class middle school paper! With photos!"?
Maybe if your paper won 10 "All-American" rankings and was inducted into the Hall of Fame, as described on the NSPA webpage, it would be notable. Or maybe if there was some sort of landmark 1st Amendment court case involving your paper, it would be notable. But until then, it is not. And we cannot give you a few kilobytes. If we gave a few kilobytes to every middle school paper that won a minor award, then, as I touched upon earlier, there would be an overwhelming glut of articles on papers that few would care about, and wikipedia would be seen as only a massive jungle of vanity pages, from which the rare flowers of good articles on notable topics would be all but impossible to locate and extract.
In conclusion: the Scroll is not nearly as notable as its staff would have you believe, there is nothing about it that makes it sufficiently notable, and this article should therefore be deleted. -- PlasmaDragon 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
I am sorry. I do not know when I made a big mistake and made this personal, but reading back over this argument, I realize that I have looked like an idiot. I have been attacking the personal lives of people I don't even know, and making claims that are not grounded in fact. While I still disagree about the notability of the Scroll, I am not going to argue any more. My above arguments have ruined my credibilty, and I simply did not acknowledge the links that you sent me. You have tried to make this more a true argument, but everytime you did I attempted to call you out on personal details that I do not know for certain. My arguments have reflected poorly upon the whole Scroll staff, and I am truly sorry. I realize now that the Scroll wikipedia entry has no chance of surviving; perhaps if I had argued better, with your level of research, then it would have been different, but as it stands now, the Scroll wiki entry has no hope. I am throwing in the towel, and I can only hope that this final apology will return some dignity in the eyes of my peers and fellow wikipedia users.
I am truly sorry, (Nakan)
The result of the debate was USERFY. JIP | Talk 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
A college student with a piecemeal claim to notability. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. Grandmasterka 21:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MOVE to Wikipedia namespace. The article is in the wrong namespace but otherwise I don't see much problems with it. JIP | Talk 06:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-referential in the article namespace, irrelevant given WP:YFA and others Batmanand | Talk 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable professor. Article was nominated for deletion previously (see here), but the debate was largely about academics in general, and was moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics and no consensus was reached. Nicholas Hopper is a promising young crypto researcher, and an assistant prof (not tenured) at UMN, and has about 10 technical papers of varying quality; the best has about 50 citations, which makes it a good paper, but not an especially important one. Not much more could be added to this article, apart from a CV-style list of papers. As nominator, I abstain; I'm relisting this because it didn't get consensus (or quality discussion) last time. Mangojuice 21:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD G1/A7 Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 00:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Unless anyone can prove otherwise, I think this is made up. IronGiant 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination WP:POINT. Ezeu 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Anti-notable. This AFD is being placed because the NYT is anti-notable, namely, that anyone mentioned in its pages, despite its preeminence, popularity, and market penetration, is instantly cast into non-notability. The precedent for this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review#John Bambenek where the subject was deleted because he was in the New York Times on the front page and that made him non-notable. It is time that the NYT come off the pages of wikipedia like the blackhole of notability it is. -- Alpha269 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Flower party■ 05:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable athlete, and it's also a repost. Prod was removed. dcandeto 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod contested. It's a website. NickelShoe 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. (aeropagitica) 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a real person, or just very non-notable-- 152.163.100.13 22:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy, but contested. Geogre's Law failure, no real evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 23:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic. The article makes it sound as though all of Kaufman is buzzing, but neither the county website nor the city paper mentions this at all. Joyous | Talk 23:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Score is 5 deletes, 3 keeps. Martial Law 05:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC) :) reply
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Article on a band whihc may or may not have been locally notable, little if any evidence of that notability survives. Content is not formally a copyvio as it was posted by the original author, self-publicist User:Torshaw. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable user of a game maker; see WP:BIO and the other two RPG Maker designer nomintaions. Deckiller 23:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Lack of notability in relevant communities. Ashwinr 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. Jinian 22:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This was speedily deleted as "discussion of a term coined on a blog. No claim to notability", an action that WP:DRV overturned and sent here for consideration. - Splash talk 23:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. The best argument presented about this being notable is coverage in a local newspaper, and the argument that this is a fairly weak claim to notability seems has been made by Rossami. I am not altogether convinced by the "Digimon-comparison" argument either since Digimon is a series, while this is presently a one-time event. With a greater than two-thirds majority for deletion, I am calling this a delete decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This was previously deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llamacon, but WP:DRV overturned this for a mixture of concerns over lack of involvement. See here. - Splash talk 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete — xaosflux Talk 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi - this is promo article. Rama's Arrow 23:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Flower party■ 05:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedied, undeleted by WP:DRV, on a request that indicated merging, but at least two people wanted it listed here, so here it is. - Splash talk 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete — xaosflux Talk 04:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as hoax or fan fiction. I am also including Pwogwopa in this listing, as it was created at the same time and claims to be part of this sector. Note that both Google and Wookieepedia searches turned up no results for either. BryanG 23:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE based on the opinions of those few who voted here who were established Wikipedians. I'm closing this early because it has turned into a cesspool. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:36, 18 March 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}} . |
In contradiction with the above notice: Voting - Wikipedia uses a one person, one vote principle for all votes and similar discussions from the following page - WP:SOCK
Delete unverifiable vanity religion. This "new faith" gets 0 google hits outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. [57] Postdlf 00:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This should not be deleted...if you need to verify the existence of the religion, get in contact with the british government at directgov.helpdesk@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk -- and since when did google become the standard of verification? Dig a little harder, the religion has a small internet following, and attempts have been made to register it with the government.—This unsigned comment is by Innatheism ( talk • contribs) .
No, that was media hype. The government didn't register jedi as a religion, and they repeatedly said they would not before the census went out. It was a rumour that started in Australia, a completely different country. Don't throw around faulty anecdotes as evidence
On top of this, I chose to start the wikipedia entry BECAUSE I could find so little about it on the internet. If this doesn't fit with your policy, I apologise, but I was under the impression that seeing as how I'm not in any way affiliated with the religion, and therefore not publicising, say, a business or venture of my own, this would be ok.
I'm merely trying to inform the world of a viewset that does not exist anywhere else. I actually gained information about the religion myself through a leaflet that came through my front door. Usually I discard religious material, being a strong atheist, but this caught my eye (due to the use of the word atheist in the title).
I wouldn't say it converted me, but I couldn't fit anything about it on the net, so decided to put a small stub here, allowing others the opportunity to expand on it. Does that run contrary to your policy of freely sharing information?
If you wait a while (it's 1:35 in the morning in England, I need to go to sleep for now), I can scan in the leaflet I was given -- would that provide verification that this is genuine? —This unsigned comment is by 88.109.78.41 ( talk • contribs) .
So basically, you're telling me that even though you COULD very easily phone the government, who would verify the existence of this religion for you, you won't, because it hasn't yet recieved any notable media coverage or google hits? I appreciate that it may not be your place to check the validity that extensively, but then why are you bothering at all? If it's not immediately at your fingertips, you're not interested? I'm placing it at your fingertips. You could verify it with one email -- to a Mr Stephen Wilkins, I've already given you the email address.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.184.204 ( talk • contribs)
On top of all this, has no one noticed that Innatheism has been on the list of newly founded religions in wikipedia since the summer? I noticed it a while back, and have been waiting for someone to write an article explaining to me exactly what it is ToMySurprise_81 13:37, 16 March 2006
Also, I'd point out that the pages of every user who has suggested the deletion of this article are a bigger waste of wikipedia's time and virtual space - they are all vanity pages, and get 0 google hits outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors ToMySurprise_81 13:41, 16 March 2006
Note to Fan-1967 - I was under the impression that I had to validify that the religion existed. According to the leaflet I was handed out, (which I've offered to scan in and post here, I did not contact the government myself and have no personal connection to this church), the church contacted the government last year. Presumably you agree with me that something must exist in order to contact the government. The fact that they hold no register is neither here nor there, I'm working on the assumption that their correspondance will have been recorded. Or at least remembered.
I only wrote this article, as I have already stated, because I received the leaflet and could find no great information on it on the net. I did find this - [ [58]] - which I think you'll agree is quite uninformative. Searching in Wikipedia, results came up with several pages - one of which was a list of religions. Since there was no page on it, I typed up the article we're currently discussing from information in the pamphlet (which I'm still happy to provide for you).
As I've REPEATEDLY said, I have no personal connection to this religion. I'm an atheist. I merely found information on it, and tried to put it on the internet when I found there was no information here already (though the religion WAS already mentioned on wikipedia).
Personally, I think the attitude of wikipedians is ridiculous. I can provide you with a copy of hard media which represents this church, which was delivered through my door. But you won't accept it because google doesn't turn anything up? Two of your policies contradict each other - you'll take information that has a media representation, but only if that representation is already in digital media. The real world exists just as much as the internet does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.27.34 ( talk • contribs)
This is a blatent lie. According to wikipedia's page on notability - "Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied...There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Alexa and Google tests (note: many editors do not consider those tests to be objective or reliable)...The person who authored the article clearly believes that the topic is notable enough to be included..."Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance)...The problem with writing "Delete, non-notable" is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but that it is a quick phrase that does not tell another person why the article is non-notable." -- The fact that you don't consider this to be of note (or, more probably, disagree with the belief system it outlines), according to wikipedia guidelines, is neither here nor there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.37.190 ( talk • contribs)
I also find this whole debate highly hypocritical, since on this page - [ [59]] - you list Wikipedeism as a religion. Misinformation or vanity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellmonkey42 ( talk • contribs)
As already discussed, it is NOT wikipedia's policy to delete articles based on notability. It states this on the notability page itself, and I have quoted it above. To keep parroting "non notable, non notable, non notable" like a broken record is pedantic and irrelevent. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Several users have now described encounters with Innatheists in the real world (myself included), and I can only presume these users are from different places. I, myself, encountered the people handing out leaflets in Milton Keynes, and a user above has encountered them in London. Printed media can also be provided - maybe not information published in a newspaper or a magazine, but that would only prove that the religion was attracting the attention of the media at large - and that's not the question being debated. Nor is it necessary - by wikipedia's policies, peer review or publishment is only necessary for academic claims. I quote: For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. - and even then, this is only a preference, not a necessity.
I hate to repeat myself, but to requote: "Notability is not needed as long as the verifiability rules are strictly applied...The person who authored the article clearly believes that the topic is notable enough to be included..."Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one If you're going to object to this article, could you at least do it on grounds based in wikipedia's policies, rather than the fact that you personally think it's not worthy of comment?
In Summary: There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, in the rules for submitting articles that means this particular one should be deleted.
1 - It's been commented that it's not notable - that's your opinion, and not grounds for deletion, by wikipedia's rules.
2 - It's been said that this is unverified - at this moment in time, maybe so, but only because I'm unsure what verification you require. The wikipedia page on verification demands only a fulfillment of the burden of evidence -- the media which contained this information can be provided, which would make wikipedia a secondary source, fulfilling this.
3 - There MAY be grounds for deletion, on a case of dubious reliability. However, according to the verification page, if a source is dubious it should simply be quoted. I can do more than that, I can scan in and upload the document itself.
4 - as for the ignorant question made above: Can we have something more than "some guy gave me a leaflet"? - no, you don't need any more than that. Again, I quote from the verification page -- Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them.
Having just following the link (thanks DM) and found out what you mean by "sockpuppet" -- check the IP addresses. How could I make a comment, log off to change IP's, make another comment in another name, log back on WITH THE SAME IP ADDRESS and make more comments? I couldn't. You're accusing me of something that's impossible. Though I'll ignore this insult, as it says on the sockpuppet page - things will only get uglier.