< October 25 | October 27 > |
---|
Recommended reading: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp× g 07:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) reply
Keep - but I would say that because I'm the author. I was reading the other AfDs and began to wonder whether I was setting the right standard for notoriety. I was writing about the 6th Earl and wondered whether his wife was notable, and found a whole essay about her as "the fairest" lady of Scotland. I found the story fascinating, but perhaps she isn't notable? - Oh and there weren't many hits on the search engine which appears to be a criteria! -- Mike 11:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, meets some deletion criteria. -- XLR Freak 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per A7. — An gr 15:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
No apparent notability per WP:BIO -- Tim D 15:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by admin Geogre (reason: A7 band). Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 12:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band that fails the WP:MUSIC criteria. No allmusic profile as well as very few relevant Google results, of which none can be considered "reliable and reputable media".-- TBCΦ talk? 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- Core des at 04:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Album (Closing admin: This is a procedural listing; please count me as neutral. Banyan Tree 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Recently founded corporation. (Closing admin: Procedural listing. Count me as neutral.) Banyan Tree 00:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
10-25-2006 -- I completely removed irrelevant "external links". Nezzo 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete sources could have helped but none were produced in 2+ weeks. W.marsh 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
del nonnotable coinage. Original research. No reliable references: blogs, chats and various "phobia lists" that flood internet. `' mikkanarxi 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable sports writer. "May write for the Olympics one day..." Leuko 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:V and as a near word-for-word duplicate (as such, there is nothing to merge). This will be recreated as a redirect to Maryville High School (Missouri). -- Core des at 04:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This just plain isn't notable. It will never grow beyond being a stub. At bare minimum, it should be merged with the Maryville High School article. IrishGuy talk 01:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
An unofficial fan club for Nirvana. The article itself outlines no level of notability. It is simply a website for an unofficial group who like a band. IrishGuy talk 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into agonizer. Krakatoa Katie 05:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, violates Wikipedia policy, in regards to Wikipedia not being a repository for Star Wars cruft. The article is already documented on a Star Wars wiki and is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia hoopydink Conas tá tú? 01:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
delete you said it all. -- User24 01:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Next time, just add {{ db-bio}} to the article.. — Cryptic 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Straightforward non-notablilty.
"Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." (From Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion#Articles.) Robert 01:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merege/redirect. W.marsh 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No recent production news. Article can be recreated if production ever actually gets underway. Film information already merged at Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 01:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dakota 07:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Art gallery. (Closing admin: This is a procedural listing. Please count me as neutral. Banyan Tree 01:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as promotional - CSD G11. Tom Harrison Talk 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be another non-notable student-produced independent film that aired on campus television. Delete due to lack of any WP:RS indicating otherwise. -- Kinu t/ c 02:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Submitted here in lieu of prod deletion. Suspicion of a hoax. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Disputed A7. Claims plenty of notability, sure, but if he really was CEO of three companies, google would be able to find more about him than a couple of lists on Amazon and a handful of forum posts. — Cryptic 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Self-centred rubbish. Emeraude 21:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Short-lived daydream. Very clever. But delete before the idea catches on and becomes a nightmare Emeraude 21:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was flagged as copyvio. Next time, blank the whole article while adding the copyvio tag or add {{ db-g12}} for the most blatant ones. MER-C 09:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is completely confusing and useless. anskas 02:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a notable organization. 22 unique hits, and Wikipedia is first after their own website. Every one of their directors is a redlink, and the entire article text is unsourced. Opabinia regalis 02:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable news producer; a local Emmy award is not sufficient on its own to establish notability. Most Ghits come from this entry. Krakatoa Katie 02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to Southern Methodist University. -- Core des at 04:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Individual student groups and campus publications are not generally notable, and this article is virtually contentless. (Unless you really need to know their publication schedule?) About 200 unique hits, a decent number of which are general college information aggregates. Opabinia regalis 03:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
An obvious POV violation, since how one defines something as "unique" varies differently from person to person. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- TBCΦ talk? 03:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
this is messedrocker
(talk)
21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article concerns a vocal trance artistic group. It was originally speedied by me. The article's creator was very polite and earnest, and has since spent some time expanding and sourcing the article, so that I now feel it deserves an AfD. I am not knowledgeable enough concerning alternative music to evaluate these sources, but do say Weak delete given my doubts. If the article is deleted, would the closing admin please userfy the content back to the creator, so that he might work further.
For the record, the previous nomination of "Elucidate" at AfD has nothing to do with this; it concerned the English word. Xoloz 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If content is needed to be merged let me know. W.marsh 19:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, reason can be found on the talk page of the article. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. MER-C 12:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online student newspaper, prod tag removed by author. Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web). Maxamegalon2000 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 04:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Has released two albums and two EPs, but as his myspace says, they're all self-published on Lulu.com ( [5]). Doesn't show up on Amazon or Discogs, and has no media mentions whatsoever. Just one guy who happens to have released some of his own music, but has no third-party reliable sources to support writing anything about him. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks to me like a self-promotional piece more than an informative article. Even in articles on more widely known bands they do not typically post sizable graphics of all their album covers. I don't know if this violates wikipedia's policy but it seems more like an advert.
Though it does read like an advert and needs some work to meet up to Wikipedia's standards, I believe it should be kept because Wikipedia is not paper. It is important to note that WP:Music is simply a guideline and not policy.
The result was speedy deletion by admin Geogre as it falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. TBCΦ talk? 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article about a probably non-notable group of Internet users. Peter O. ( Talk) 04:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
prod was deleted by User:58.69.79.32. This is a non-notable game show contestant; a losing participant in a reality television show that didn't distinguish herself after the show. -- Mikeblas 04:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
prod was deleted by User:58.69.79.32. This is a non-notable game show contestant; a losing participant in a reality television show that didn't distinguish herself after the show. -- Mikeblas 04:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was boldly merged and redirected as it should have been instead of being nominated. GRBerry 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Although this article no longer reads like a 'how-to guide', it does not warrant its own article. I think the personal statement should simply form a section of the UCAS page. Even after cleaning up the article, the remaining information is very dubious, and not particularly encyclopaedic. — anskas 12:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a random public high school and Wikipedia is not a place of random info. Absolutely non-notable. We can't have articles for every high school in the country, simply unencyclopedic. The Way 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by RobertG. MER-C 11:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This person appears to have appeared in a few movies, but there are no sources. Peter O. ( Talk) 04:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested Prod, and a contested prod based on good reasoning, rather than just the removal of a prod tag by someone unhappy with the issue. Simply put, there is no evidence that Norfolk Island (a non-sovereign dependency of Australia) has a national football team. The best that can be found are links such as this, which list a "Norfolk Island Soccer Association" and then have no results when that link is clicked and this, which seems to assume that a team exists, however it isn't listed in any of the other pages of the site, most importantly here, where one would expect members and non-members to appear. Additionally, having spent a considerable amount of time on the island myself, I'm willing to lay odds that there might be a social/club competition but nothing more than that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
seems to be an german fake for advertising purposes, see [8] (german) and see the faked video [9] -- Seewolf 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
An acquaintance of mine confirms that the advertising company for which they work is responsible for the creation of this fictional character for advertising a product. --Suzan Eraslan 17:03, 16 October 2006
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Autobiographical with problems with verifiability (one cited source was written when the subject was two years old and the other is "some violinist's homepage") and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Originally prodded, but author apparently contested, see talk. Not speedied due to claim of notability. -- Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 16:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
But you have to admit it's funny Zemrae 19:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect is already mentioned at The Triptych, anything further can be merged. W.marsh 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I added the deletion tag because the album is already covered in depth in the original album's article ( The Triptych). Re-released albums traditionally aren't seen as important enough to warrant an article all by itself, and I certainly think that's the case here. Anyone feel differently? Roofi's Publicist 03:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article, only claim to notability seems to be appearing on a game show. On the other hand, there do seem to be other participants in this show with Wikipedia articles. The article is attracting a lot of dubious edits, some of which I have removed. I suggest deletion on grounds of lack of verifiability of most details. gadfium 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Vik Vaz is a guy with a notable game-show presence. He was always riveting to watch in his black shirt and tie. I say, keep him.-- Alanjj 11:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete despite low participation, as the article's an A7 and a borderline G11 speedy candidate. — Cryptic 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Spam for an online business directory - shopping site that fails WP:Corp Nuttah68 17:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
A backstage element of professional wrestling. While it appears to be verifiable, I don't think it is notable. A google search gets 180 hits [14]. This just isn't notable for WP. Tony fanta 18:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Bandcruft. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources, lack of verifiability, and I would say vanity, maybe, but don't want to be nasty. Fails WP:NMG The Crying Orc 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was CSD G12 copyvio - CrazyRussian talk/ email 12:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod, procedural nom. Verifiability is an obvious concern. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 05:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Ekajati ( yakity-yak) 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I feel that there is no way that this article can be maintained in any proper way which is WP:NPOV or WP:V. The subject is a self-styled religious leader who claims to be a perfectly enlightened Buddha. There is no official training which can be sourced anywhere, so his claims of mastering texts cannot be seconded by any other religious authorities. The only sources are the official website of his organisation, which cannot be considered to be at all reliable or neutral (the other source available is simply a reprint of the stated info on his website for a religion report) - the only other info is a pile of attack blogs about his alleged rape of a disciple or other pages by random groups critical of his claims. So the only sources are himself, which could only lead to a hagiography of a religious leader who is already making grandiose claims. This person is very notable, but there is no way that an article could be NPOV, unless it also uses attack blogs. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Seemingly non-notable British BDSM club, article hasn't been really touched in over half a year. Proposed for deletion contested, with the argument:
So what? If compared to SMFR (which was deleted), it is found on Google among the first hits, the external link connected to the club's official site, and the club organises events every month or every two months. Still the article was deleted. The only thing that makes Violate more notable than SMFR is its involvement in Scottish politics. I vote delete. JIP | Talk 16:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't know if that's good enough. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Bandcruft. Not well known, no noteability, possible vanity The Crying Orc 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was regular keep. -- Core des at 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability, currently a spam article.-- Francisx 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as obvious spam for non-notable business, per WP:CSD G11. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete due to lack of any WP:RS indicating notability of this store per WP:CORP; WP:NOT the Yellow Pages; possibly advertising. -- Kinu t/ c 05:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement posing as an article. No evidence given of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE criteria. SubSeven 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately this site has lost a lot of its
Alexa popularity as it has consistently dropped pretty well below average for notability of a website. The page is filled with biases, unverifiable information, and is a relatively frequent target for vandalism. Please let me know your opinions. Thanks,
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
I have been trying to edit out the bias here and there and I'm not so sure I agree with you saying unverifiable, but there is regular vandalism or at least bad editing and I agree that Uber is in decline. I've been a member of Ubersite for a long time and I'd like to see the article remain, but unless someone prooves its notability in some other way I have to agree that based on its alexa ranking it shouldn't be here. Restepc
This site is still pretty well-used, with several thousand users. That so many have come to Wikipeia is part of the proof of its worthiness. If we all take it seriously, this can be a valuable, informative article. D prime 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete due to WP:RS indicating why this mission is any more notable than the scores listed here. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information seems to apply, and the article appears to be vanity for the "people who served" section, based on the edit history. -- Kinu t/ c 05:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Taking the heavy meat weight into account, it's still 2-to-1 in favor of deletion with the 1 side having pretty poor arguments. "A college newspaper has published it a couple times" is pretty weak support for notability and I couldn't verify its truthfulness anyway. If better sources can be found, re-post. — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
The artwork is good, but the comic fails WP:WEB, as far as I can tell. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTE: While it's nice to see Support for Joe here, please limit all votes away from just being a fan. These votes need to give a reason and cite Wikipedia policy as to why the page should me kept or removed. Please do not post personal agendas or opinions. H2P ( Yell at me for what I've done) 17:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Anomo 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete You can technically speedy these, per Wikipedia:Subpages. W.marsh 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like an old fork. Anything that can be merged should be merged, then this can be shown the door. Grutness... wha? 06:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The individual fails WP:BIO. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This comic fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 04:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comic fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Core des at 04:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This web comic fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Not Notable Knowing Is Half The Battle 06:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Per WP:WINAD and prior strong precedent, I have transwikied this article to wikt:Appendix:Slovakian given names, where it is more appropriate. Lists of names are not encyclopedic, but they do belong in Wiktionary, and that's where we have moved them before (e.g., see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of first names). This should now be deleted. Dmcdevit· t 06:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was previously nominated for deletion in September. The result of that discussion was to delete the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abandoned toys). It has since been recreated, but in a different version, so G4 doesn't apply. The article was nominated for speedy deletion by FisherQueen ( talk · contribs), but the tag was removed by Musicologydreamer ( talk · contribs). I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. A ecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 08:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Creating deletion discussion page for Jeff Burlingame because this is a non-notable author whose book is not even released yet. ArrolinStCroix 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This guy is not just an author/journalist, he is also the founder of an international non-profit organization, which the one naysayer above failed to note at all. I checked out that Web site and it’s pretty prominent. A quick google of his name shows maybe a thousand or more sites where he’s mentioned. I’d keep it.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Not verified and has been marked as such since April 11 2006 without a single citation being added. Has been subject to seemingly random additions and removals, no way of knowing what's true. Nonpareility 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
What separates a themed concept album from a well-assembled record by someone with an idiosyncratic range of topical songwriting interest? This page is entirely uncited, mostly uncitable, original research, and vastly fancruft. People want their favorite artists to be intelligent, and so as fans they often slap the now near-meaningless label of "concept album" on a given work so that it seems more Important and Impressive. That is fancruft, and very usually unsupported. Not to mention non-NPOV.
Amber388 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This page should be kept because many people like to research themed concept albums. However I would say it needs some editing and citations.
The result was delete. -- Core des at 04:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Original prod statement (by A Man In Black): "A lump of random things readers noticed in the show, completely unreferenced and speculative" with a prod2 (by myself): "Left over from "merge" but nothing was actually merged (duplicate info that originated on the other article), thus this article's history is not needed." Delete -- Ned Scott 06:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was don't keep this as an article. I've redirected so it's more clear what happened, and any additional information people want to merge, they can go ahead and do (it looks like most has been merged but not all) W.marsh 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant with info on Belfast City Airport page. It is just a copy of the destinations list. WP:NOT? DB ( talk) 23:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete if anyone wants to move this to commons, I can help if you need access to the content. W.marsh 00:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 09:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, but transwiki to Commons first. -- Ezeu 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was transwiki to Commons & delete. -- Ezeu 18:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was transwiki request tag added. W.marsh 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. All of this appears to exist on commons. W.marsh 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Added reference of 'notability' - more to be added soon. User:Niall1798 13:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted per A7. -- Where 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
In accordance to the policy of popularity and wether this article is worthy, this may need to be removed untill further development. Redkane 09:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable video download service. Corporate vanity page. AlistairMcMillan 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Most of the links that show on a google search are actually from press coverage of the company, not as suggested pseduo-advertisements. The significance of MoboVivo as a download service in Canada is that it is the first and currently only such service making a bit of historical claim - perhaps even encyclopedic - in a world of technology culture anyway. As compared to other much bigger services which have entries on Wikipedia (Apple ITunes, Google Video) this service works outside of the US and not just in one country. This in itself is noteworthy - maybe encyclopedic. This page is no more corporate vanity that those sites cited like iTunes and Google Video, I suggest that if MoboVivo could be edited to sound less like an advert and note the significant fact that US only services, however large, should be noted as such - US only and to do so one must mention those companies with broad appeal and relevance beyond the US.
I guess your right about the press coverage -google search results in a lot of non press releases. This was not the case a few months ago - for better or worse. Going through these a bit closer and knowing the industry press outlets here are a few links that show up in a google search that show third party reviews. These are the ones that don't just re-hash a company press release.
http://www.canada.com/topics/finance/story.html?id=97381447-3058-4c99-99ab-459fb2e188e3 http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles07250603.asp http://www.worldscreen.com/archivenews4.php?filename=mobo040606.htm http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=53c7b897-8d33-483a-9c11-767dba2f7ce4&p=2 http://www.c21media.net/news/detail.asp?area=4&article=29888 http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9396/ http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/mobovivo_readies_tv_show_content_for_canadian_ipod_owners/ http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/magazine/20060501/mobovivo.html
Although this article is clearly a work in progress (as is the company, apparently), removing it when the articles posted regarding iTunes and Google Video (among other U.S. "big media" entries) are permitted to subsist smacks of corporate favoritism and being a big bully to a small Canadian company. It looks to me like there are enough mentions in the public press (e.g. canada.com is one of Canada's biggest news sites) to provide some confirmation of the details, so I would let it be and remove it from AfD consideration.
The result was keep. W.marsh 01:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the local paper of a very small town. There is no relevance historically. flipjargendy 15:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Tsuen Wan District. I believe licensing issues prevent transwiki to wikitravel. Yomangani talk 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Bringing to AfD instead of deleting on expired prod. Is it notable? - CrazyRussian talk/ email 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There's nothing to merge. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy. There is now a claim to notability but it is not verified. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable character in a book series. Crufty. Roy Boy 800 20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No verification with reliable sources provided. -- Core des at 05:02, 1 November 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}} . |
This isn't a particularly notable subculture that exists within the gay community. Although the term is loosely attested by a few Google hits (but you'll find far more for G0Y as the first half of a Canadian postal code range in central Quebec), it appears to be a non-notable website trying to build a subculture around a neologism. Fails both WP:NOR and WP:NEO, and skirts the edge of WP:DICDEF, to boot. Was previously AFD'd (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G0y), but this version is at least different enough from the first one to not call it a G4. And as for the couple of claims in the previous AFD that it's common in gay chat forums, it certainly doesn't exist in the ones I frequent, so I'd need to see some actual evidence of that. And even if the evidence can be provided, WP:NEO is pretty clear on the difference between citing examples of a word in use (which isn't good enough for our needs) and citing actual verifiable sources about the word. And as for frot, it's also a silly little neologism for a sex act that the G0y movement didn't even invent, and which already has other names in genuine use anyway. Delete both. Bearcat 08:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Removed Frot. AfD requires one per article. These are seperate topics and will need to be dealt with seperately. Frot has survived AfD once before. Atom 10:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
as well as the previous AfD at this name listed in the nomination. This still isn't well-sourced and should still be deleted. GassyGuy 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete; also an apparently speediable copyvio. -- MCB 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No Newsbank or ScienceDirect links. CV here. The claim that he was the co-founder of the Center for Complex Systems Research might put him over the hump if verified, but he was only an Assistant Professor at the time, so I wonder what his actual role in the founding was. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Shopping centre; no claim to WP:CORP notability. -- Nehwyn 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dakota 07:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Describes a film that is not yet in production. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Appears to be promotional/advertising; article created by the director of the film. This editor has previously tried to use Wikipedia to promote himself - Hussein Tajvidi. Disputed PROD. FreplySpang 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is essentially someone's POV essay that was posted into wikipedia. There doesn't appear to be any salvageable content, so delete. Kchase T 10:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Another ethnic animosities page. Unfortunately there are precedents for such pages that have been kept (and this one has evidently used one of those as a blueprint). But this is particularly weak specimen. It doesn't even attempt to make a case that its subject-matter constitutes a coherent phenomenon and that it has been discussed in such terms in the literature. Its main assertions are entirely unsourced. The largest part of the article is taken up by a discussion not of "Anti-Georgianism", but of "Russification" (in Georgia but mainly elsewhere) - but if the author wants to imply that Russification is ipso facto Anti-Georgianism, that would be an OR argument par excellence. Apart from that, the article features a propaganda poster illustrating Georgian animosity against Russian political interventionism - but that, if anything, reflects Anti-Russian propaganda by Georgians, not Anti-Georgianism by Russians. All in all, just another case of the "Anti-X'ism" article format being misused for OR listings of just any and all grievances ethnicity X may have against its neighbours, and as such almost certainly a POV-fork (though I'm not sure of what). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus. — Wknight94 ( talk) 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds of notability, but doesn't qualify, because the subject passes WP:BIO: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league". I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. A ecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, even discounting new and possible single purpose accounts. -- Core des at 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
big-bust cup pov lists Spey Aqza 11:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Spey Aqza ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTE: This is the second nomination the first can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers Valoem talk 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete even IF (note conditional) the nom was in bad faith, this is a good AfD. The list is entirely subjective (and thus has
neutrality and
original research problems. Also, lists of random physical features is entirely non-notable. --
Jayron32
06:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
" IF the nomination was in bad faith" (note the use of the conditional word IF. It means that we are discussing a possibility, not a certainty. I have no idea of the mindset or intent of the original nominator, NOR DO I CARE) such a defense is still an ad hominem defense; it is a deflection of the actual issue, and a means of avoiding having to enter the actual debate on THIS article. If you belive bad faith to have been exercised here, then go to Requests for Intervention and ask to have the user blocked. It has NO BEARING on the inherant notability of this article. MAKE ARGUEMENTS RELATING TO THE CONTENT OF THIS ARTICLE. I apologize for "shouting", but so far only one person, Charlam, has done so; though it would be nice to see any proof that his assertion is true... Are adult models routinely catagorized in this way and is such catagorization used (note the past tense: not useful, but used in the sense that others have used this information before it appeared on wikipedia) routinely in reliable sources. If anyone could make a credible arguement of the MERITS of this article, and could make some proof as to actual notability, I would change my vote. As yet, we have 1 unverified assertion that I would call a claim of notability. EVERYONE else has avoided discussing the merits of this article by deflecting the debate away from the contents of the article. They make arguements against other lists, or they make arguements against people involved in the debate. Neither kind of arguement brings anything to the discussion. -- Jayron32 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
"Keep" as it is information but the title should be changed.
The result was delete. -- Core des at 05:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The opening paragraph says it all: "Ben Chatham is a fan-created companion character by the poster "Sparacus" on the American Doctor Who fan website forum, Outpost Gallifrey. He is 'portrayed' by Adam Rickitt, an actor who Sparacus greatly desires appear in Doctor Who. Despite the mixture of contempt and apathy from the few fans who know of his existence, Sparacus insists the character is both popular and canonical (mainly for comic affect) and pretends that Big Finish are interested in making adventures for him." WP:NOT applies in so very many ways. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dakota 07:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
NN local restaurant... probably. This article is the sole contribution of its creator, and was marked with {{ db-spam}} by Calton. The article includes claims about Ronald Reagan and Huey Lewis visiting the restaurant -- currently, unsourced claims -- but I thought it was enough of an attempt at explaining notability to go straight to AfD. The article is a little advert-like, but could be salvaged if the restaurant has notability because of these visitors. I say, though, that without seeing a source we should delete. Mango juice talk 12:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable website/event. (aeropagitica) 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Absolutely non-notable per WP:WEB, especially on its own. One ghit, which is WP's article on Smosh: [Check Google hits]. (|-- UlTiMuS 12:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The one legitimate keep vote here suggested that the result in Cheeseweb (begun on the 25 October and closed by me just a moment ago) must logically apply here. I agree, and close this a bit early for consistency. There appears to be no objection to slight mentions in the parent article, but these mentions should be minimal enough such that GFDL merging isn't needed. Xoloz 15:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
A webforum (or more accurately, a gaming clan), for The War of the Ring Online Campaign. No sign it meets WP:WEB or WP:ORG. "In total, there were 3007 registered participants" in The War of the Ring Online Campaign, so far fewer in this group. No gnews hits. No in-article links to third-party sources. This article tops Google results for "The Dark Council", but the top non-WP result refers to a completely different group with this common name darkcouncil.com. Short version: nn gaming clan - delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Co-nominations The Alliance of Light and Campaign of LoTRs, which also lack third-party reporting and do not appear to meet WP:WEB or WP:ORG.
See also the related current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheeseweb; the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Alliance Website closed with speedy deletion ( WP:CSD G11, A7). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense, obvious violation of WP:NOT. NawlinWiki 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable "game". No Ghits (except for a cookery book called "Souffles, Quiches, Mousses and the Random Egg, which is unconnected). Looks a good example of something made up at the breakfast table. Tonywalton | Talk 12:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Flash game that seems like it fails WP:WEB/ WP:RS/ WP:V. Was previous nominated HERE, but the only comments were keeps with comments regarding its number of google hits. Wickethewok 13:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Flash games website that doesn't have any real claims of notability, in terms of WP:WEB at least. Looks like it fails WP:RS/WP:V as well. Delete as such. Wickethewok 13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a1 (no context) and g1 (patent nonsense). NawlinWiki 14:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is patent nonsense. S e rgeantBolt ( t, c) 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Speedy Delete - Just nonsense, does not explain where it is from. Chris Kreider 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. Author requested deletion through creating this afd. Hiding Talk 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not voting As a newcomer to Wikipedia, perhaps one of the few in-words I know is "deletionist". I personally think it is a real word which although possibly mostly found in Wikipedia does deserve an entry on its own.
I tried to find the "suggest an article" link, but its gone (or I couldn't find it).
My reason for suggesting this article is that I came across the term before I really knew anything about Wikipedia. So, unlike many other inventions it does have an external scope to Wikipedia. This is not a frivolous suggestion, I'm being serious that I think it exists as something that is worthy of an entry, and not knowing how else to discuss it I created the article for deletion! -- Mike 13:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 05:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Small forum, not yet notable. Tom Harrison Talk 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable puppet show. Prod tag removed. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 14:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Lack of sources and comparison is inherently original research. Interrobamf 14:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Where can I get this page? It says it's deleted but I want to read it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.130.123 ( talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
So you're telling me that the content is gone? I thought this site was open and I could see all changes. I guess some things just go down the memory hole! THIS IS BULLSHIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.130.123 ( talk) 05:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 05:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced. Style indicates self-promotion. IMDB does not know him, and neither does the Portuguese wikipedia: see pt:Kai Negrao pt:Kai Negrão. Aleph-4 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was originally AfD'ed last year here, resulting in its deletion. This new incarnation is expanded, and has one new somewhat reliable source, so it probably deserves another go through AfD. Nevertheless, I don't think notability is established by the one newspaper mention, so Delete. Xoloz 15:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 02:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
NN - CrazyRussian talk/ email 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article should be deleted beciase it is an unexpandable stub. GAOTU is nothing more than a specialized Masonic (and possibly Calvinist) term for Supreme Being, and it would be better to state the usage there. MSJapan 15:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This is basically a collection of images, which goes against this policy. The author removed the prod and said that s/he meant it to be a convenient place to locate the files. I considered userfying but I did not because of possible copyright issues. ... discospinster talk 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a blatant advertisement. -- Core des at 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) i want to learn how can i ? reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability appears to be at least somewhat suspect, under the "average professor" test, and his involvement in Holocaust denial does not itself give notability, I think. Weak delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
T· C 01:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 06:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I really don't see the point of this needing its own article. One or two sentences of discussion on the theme song can be placed in the main article. There's not enough to talk about to justify a separate article just for this theme song. Cyde Weys 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - this does not prevent it being recreated when reliable information is available. Yomangani talk 13:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested ProD. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Ezeu 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable student-run television station. Tom Harrison Talk 17:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
why has LUST been classed as non-notable but none of these NaSTA Bloomsbury Television CTV (Bath) Demon TV GlamTV Glasgow University Student Television LSUTV Stoic tv Warwick TV Winstanley TV YSTV
I disagree i think its important to have these articles, as many people use wikipedia as there first reference. isn't the point of wikipedia to try collect everything anyone could ever want to know for everyone to access? or is it only for Americans, as i find many american articles unnotable like the fact it seems every secondary school in american has an article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:High_schools_in_Colorado) how are these more notable? (Capt Jack Doicy)
I don't think any of them should be deleted, i'm using them as Precedents particularly to show that if this was page about an american tv station it would not have been nominated for deletion. I apologise for any mistakes i've made in the formatting of this defence, and thank you for the links as it lead me to this, "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." WP:AFDP Student TV and Radio, is based on original content, broadcasts it and has to be licensed to do so. on these grounds LUST and all student TV in the UK fulfills the criteria for notability. unless of course all articles are equal but American one are more equal than others. (Capt Jack Doicy)
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article contains content that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The article on Jack Abramoff is already very long, and contains many, many subpages. Some of this information could be integrated to one of the other articles, but most of it is just indiscriminate information relating to the Abramoff scandal. Each Abramoff list also contains little if any references, which makes me think that it is original research.
Since this is a sensitive political topic, I know some editors will accuse me of nominating this with a political agenda or motivation. In order to dispel this idea, I will point out that while I have also nominated List of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients and List of trips funded by Jack Abramoff (and copied this description to each), I have not nominated Jack Abramoff timeline because I feel that is a better example of the kind of list that belongs on Wikipedia. Ultra-specific, unsourced lists related to already specific scandals and persons and their dealings do not belong on Wikipedia. Renesis ( talk) 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article contains content that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The article on Jack Abramoff is already very long, and contains many, many subpages. Some of this information could be integrated to one of the other articles, but most of it is just indiscriminate information relating to the Abramoff scandal. Each Abramoff list also contains little if any references, which makes me think that it is original research.
Since this is a sensitive political topic, I know some editors will accuse me of nominating this with a political agenda or motivation. In order to dispel this idea, I will point out that while I have also nominated List of trips funded by Jack Abramoff and List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations (and copied this description to each), I have not nominated Jack Abramoff timeline because I feel that is a better example of the kind of list that belongs on Wikipedia. Ultra-specific, unsourced lists related to already specific scandals and persons and their dealings do not belong on Wikipedia. Renesis ( talk) 17:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. -- Ezeu 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. W.marsh 01:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is a stub and is incapable of expansion DrKiernan 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. -- Core des at 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:SPAM. Only external link is commercial site. Only internal link is an incorrect link from liquidation (different type of liquidation). Strong suspicion that the creator of this page also created the recently deleted Salvage Liquidators as they share almost exactly the same modus operandi. Legis 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. There are no sources to verify the claims made in this article. A Google search for the name brings about 180 results (65 "unique"), and none seem to be relevant to the article, or at least the current incarnation of it. It was orginally about a gay-rights activist in Bangalore, and when the prod tag was removed he became a musician. ... discospinster talk 18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable series of books. A search on amazon.com for the author and series produces no results. I also can't find anything on Google about it. GinaDana 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy-deleted as self-admitted neologism. ➥the Epopt 14:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, admitted by the creator at the talk page. Possibly intended as a humorous eponym. Contested prod. Mr Stephen 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Geocities sites are not reliable sources. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising and WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 09:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomangani talk 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as OR. -- Core des at 06:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Maleabroad has a history of creating unreferenced unsourced POV articles full of strange assertions such as Brahmin Influence on Other Religions and Brahmin contribution to Buddhism which have both been previously deleted, and is a POV Fork. Numerous better and well researched articles exist to cover the same material such as History of Hinduism and links therefrom etc. and on Portal:Hinduism.-- Tigeroo 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete by admin Xezbeth as A7 (failure to assert notability).-- Kchase T 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Not appropriate encylopedia content - appears to be an in-joke. Redglasses 19:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to University College London. -- MCB 06:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable student-run television station. Tom Harrison Talk 19:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 22:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Listing of contested PROD. Delete as this seems to fall under the purview of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. For lack of better terms, this is ad nauseum fancruft/websitecruft. If others see this as encyclopedic, then it could/should be pared down significantly and merged (without actual deletion, of course) into the Neopets article. As it stands, however, there are too many short fragments with "see the actual thing"-style external linkage, the tone is hopelessly unencyclopedic, and I fail to see any reliable sources (i.e., not message boards, fansites, etc.) outside of the actual site which indicate why these plots are notable. -- Kinu t/ c 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I think that you should edit out content that doesn't help but should keep the article because of how much importance the plots have to the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstormfanatic ( talk • contribs) — Superstormfanatic ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The page is almost an exact copy of the tribal council section on the Survivor page. The only thing on this new page is the tiebrakers, which used to be on the Survivor page, but was taken out by someone (I guess). However, the tiebreakers are still on the Survivor Trivia page, making this a copy of the Survivor main page and Surivior Trivia. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old Talk Contribs # of Edits 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. -- Core des at 06:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced; appears to be OR. Although impenetrable jargon, it is not patent nonsense and therefore not a speedy deletion candidate. Prod removed. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game, google produces nothing on this, mostly how-to guide. Seraphimblade 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Ezeu 18:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this is a first person shooter - what is required beyond one or two paragraphs synopsis on the main page? and/or elements of this incorporated into descriptions of the missions? Charlesknight 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
What does deleting this article do? It is insightful into the backstory to a very popular video game. Theres tons of other useless shit on wikipedia, delete that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.34.106 ( talk • contribs)
Hello one and all, I'm the original article writer. (Note that as of yet the article isn't finished, as I still have to write up the battles for the African front.) In my defense, I would like to say that the Cold War article was just a fun project by me to see if I could write a serious take on BF2142's storyline. If anyone's noticed, I heavily modeled my article after the WWII article to make it as "authentic" as possible.
Some of you bring up the argument that the information listed within my article is non-factual, that it is fiction, that it is just a "plot summary", so it is unnecessary. Why then are whole separate articles allowed for Warcraft's backstory, and many other fictional plots? Please, if there is some way to salvage my article, then I'll try to do so. As for merging with the actual game article, that is a possibility, but the reason I created a separate article was so that the main article wouldn't be over crowded with information. - Windows2142, posted 6.51 AM GMT 31 October 2006
The result was delete but let me know if anyone needs the content to transwiki it somewhere. W.marsh 22:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a game guide and thus does not comply with WP:NOT. Possibly only of interest to a small population of enthusiastic fans. Combination 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable biography (contested prod). Natalie 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested ProD. NN Neologism. Wikipedia is not: a dictionary, a how-to guide. -- IslaySolomon | talk 21:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
claim to notability is oblique, but can be inferred to be (1) lots of geeks have heard of this, and (2) somebody once got busted for plagiarizing it in a print publication. But it's thin on a google search omitting trivials (144 hits for an excerpt from the text of the list), and the second test seems irrelevant. I've discussed at longer length on the article's Talk page. Uucp 22:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-noteable television show. A Google search for "'Heavy Pork' Kansas" brings up 255 results. The top five are this article and four myspace pages. The remaining articles detail pork barrel spending, agricultural news, and other items that don't involve a television show. It also claims to have won six Billboard Awards and an Emmy. Bzzt. Wrong.a Consequentially 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect. -- nae' blis 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Stub was undeniably POV and one source was a blog, but the other seems to be reputable. Was tagged for speedy deletion by a local, so I have brought it here for a wider audience. See also Deera Square. -- nae' blis 22:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged as unsourced for over a month - as a result one must question if it is completely unsourcable. Notability is also uncertain and probably subject to debate. Asp 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 11:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
NN-company DesertSky85451 23:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Complete neologism. Zero hits in Google. De-prodded, by author, without explanation. The article's original author claims to be the originator of the word and the concept. eaolson 23:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by anon-IP; NN-artist, 572 google hits, no claim of notability delete DesertSky85451 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
< October 25 | October 27 > |
---|
Recommended reading: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp× g 07:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) reply
Keep - but I would say that because I'm the author. I was reading the other AfDs and began to wonder whether I was setting the right standard for notoriety. I was writing about the 6th Earl and wondered whether his wife was notable, and found a whole essay about her as "the fairest" lady of Scotland. I found the story fascinating, but perhaps she isn't notable? - Oh and there weren't many hits on the search engine which appears to be a criteria! -- Mike 11:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, meets some deletion criteria. -- XLR Freak 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per A7. — An gr 15:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
No apparent notability per WP:BIO -- Tim D 15:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by admin Geogre (reason: A7 band). Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 12:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band that fails the WP:MUSIC criteria. No allmusic profile as well as very few relevant Google results, of which none can be considered "reliable and reputable media".-- TBCΦ talk? 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- Core des at 04:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Album (Closing admin: This is a procedural listing; please count me as neutral. Banyan Tree 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Recently founded corporation. (Closing admin: Procedural listing. Count me as neutral.) Banyan Tree 00:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
10-25-2006 -- I completely removed irrelevant "external links". Nezzo 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete sources could have helped but none were produced in 2+ weeks. W.marsh 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
del nonnotable coinage. Original research. No reliable references: blogs, chats and various "phobia lists" that flood internet. `' mikkanarxi 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable sports writer. "May write for the Olympics one day..." Leuko 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:V and as a near word-for-word duplicate (as such, there is nothing to merge). This will be recreated as a redirect to Maryville High School (Missouri). -- Core des at 04:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This just plain isn't notable. It will never grow beyond being a stub. At bare minimum, it should be merged with the Maryville High School article. IrishGuy talk 01:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
An unofficial fan club for Nirvana. The article itself outlines no level of notability. It is simply a website for an unofficial group who like a band. IrishGuy talk 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into agonizer. Krakatoa Katie 05:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research, violates Wikipedia policy, in regards to Wikipedia not being a repository for Star Wars cruft. The article is already documented on a Star Wars wiki and is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia hoopydink Conas tá tú? 01:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
delete you said it all. -- User24 01:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Next time, just add {{ db-bio}} to the article.. — Cryptic 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Straightforward non-notablilty.
"Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." (From Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion#Articles.) Robert 01:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merege/redirect. W.marsh 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No recent production news. Article can be recreated if production ever actually gets underway. Film information already merged at Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 01:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dakota 07:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Art gallery. (Closing admin: This is a procedural listing. Please count me as neutral. Banyan Tree 01:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as promotional - CSD G11. Tom Harrison Talk 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be another non-notable student-produced independent film that aired on campus television. Delete due to lack of any WP:RS indicating otherwise. -- Kinu t/ c 02:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Submitted here in lieu of prod deletion. Suspicion of a hoax. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Disputed A7. Claims plenty of notability, sure, but if he really was CEO of three companies, google would be able to find more about him than a couple of lists on Amazon and a handful of forum posts. — Cryptic 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Self-centred rubbish. Emeraude 21:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Short-lived daydream. Very clever. But delete before the idea catches on and becomes a nightmare Emeraude 21:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was flagged as copyvio. Next time, blank the whole article while adding the copyvio tag or add {{ db-g12}} for the most blatant ones. MER-C 09:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is completely confusing and useless. anskas 02:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a notable organization. 22 unique hits, and Wikipedia is first after their own website. Every one of their directors is a redlink, and the entire article text is unsourced. Opabinia regalis 02:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable news producer; a local Emmy award is not sufficient on its own to establish notability. Most Ghits come from this entry. Krakatoa Katie 02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to Southern Methodist University. -- Core des at 04:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Individual student groups and campus publications are not generally notable, and this article is virtually contentless. (Unless you really need to know their publication schedule?) About 200 unique hits, a decent number of which are general college information aggregates. Opabinia regalis 03:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
An obvious POV violation, since how one defines something as "unique" varies differently from person to person. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- TBCΦ talk? 03:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
this is messedrocker
(talk)
21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article concerns a vocal trance artistic group. It was originally speedied by me. The article's creator was very polite and earnest, and has since spent some time expanding and sourcing the article, so that I now feel it deserves an AfD. I am not knowledgeable enough concerning alternative music to evaluate these sources, but do say Weak delete given my doubts. If the article is deleted, would the closing admin please userfy the content back to the creator, so that he might work further.
For the record, the previous nomination of "Elucidate" at AfD has nothing to do with this; it concerned the English word. Xoloz 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If content is needed to be merged let me know. W.marsh 19:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, reason can be found on the talk page of the article. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. MER-C 12:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online student newspaper, prod tag removed by author. Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web). Maxamegalon2000 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 04:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Has released two albums and two EPs, but as his myspace says, they're all self-published on Lulu.com ( [5]). Doesn't show up on Amazon or Discogs, and has no media mentions whatsoever. Just one guy who happens to have released some of his own music, but has no third-party reliable sources to support writing anything about him. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks to me like a self-promotional piece more than an informative article. Even in articles on more widely known bands they do not typically post sizable graphics of all their album covers. I don't know if this violates wikipedia's policy but it seems more like an advert.
Though it does read like an advert and needs some work to meet up to Wikipedia's standards, I believe it should be kept because Wikipedia is not paper. It is important to note that WP:Music is simply a guideline and not policy.
The result was speedy deletion by admin Geogre as it falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. TBCΦ talk? 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article about a probably non-notable group of Internet users. Peter O. ( Talk) 04:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
prod was deleted by User:58.69.79.32. This is a non-notable game show contestant; a losing participant in a reality television show that didn't distinguish herself after the show. -- Mikeblas 04:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
prod was deleted by User:58.69.79.32. This is a non-notable game show contestant; a losing participant in a reality television show that didn't distinguish herself after the show. -- Mikeblas 04:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was boldly merged and redirected as it should have been instead of being nominated. GRBerry 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Although this article no longer reads like a 'how-to guide', it does not warrant its own article. I think the personal statement should simply form a section of the UCAS page. Even after cleaning up the article, the remaining information is very dubious, and not particularly encyclopaedic. — anskas 12:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a random public high school and Wikipedia is not a place of random info. Absolutely non-notable. We can't have articles for every high school in the country, simply unencyclopedic. The Way 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by RobertG. MER-C 11:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This person appears to have appeared in a few movies, but there are no sources. Peter O. ( Talk) 04:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested Prod, and a contested prod based on good reasoning, rather than just the removal of a prod tag by someone unhappy with the issue. Simply put, there is no evidence that Norfolk Island (a non-sovereign dependency of Australia) has a national football team. The best that can be found are links such as this, which list a "Norfolk Island Soccer Association" and then have no results when that link is clicked and this, which seems to assume that a team exists, however it isn't listed in any of the other pages of the site, most importantly here, where one would expect members and non-members to appear. Additionally, having spent a considerable amount of time on the island myself, I'm willing to lay odds that there might be a social/club competition but nothing more than that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
seems to be an german fake for advertising purposes, see [8] (german) and see the faked video [9] -- Seewolf 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
An acquaintance of mine confirms that the advertising company for which they work is responsible for the creation of this fictional character for advertising a product. --Suzan Eraslan 17:03, 16 October 2006
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Autobiographical with problems with verifiability (one cited source was written when the subject was two years old and the other is "some violinist's homepage") and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Originally prodded, but author apparently contested, see talk. Not speedied due to claim of notability. -- Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 16:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
But you have to admit it's funny Zemrae 19:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect is already mentioned at The Triptych, anything further can be merged. W.marsh 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I added the deletion tag because the album is already covered in depth in the original album's article ( The Triptych). Re-released albums traditionally aren't seen as important enough to warrant an article all by itself, and I certainly think that's the case here. Anyone feel differently? Roofi's Publicist 03:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article, only claim to notability seems to be appearing on a game show. On the other hand, there do seem to be other participants in this show with Wikipedia articles. The article is attracting a lot of dubious edits, some of which I have removed. I suggest deletion on grounds of lack of verifiability of most details. gadfium 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Vik Vaz is a guy with a notable game-show presence. He was always riveting to watch in his black shirt and tie. I say, keep him.-- Alanjj 11:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete despite low participation, as the article's an A7 and a borderline G11 speedy candidate. — Cryptic 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Spam for an online business directory - shopping site that fails WP:Corp Nuttah68 17:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
A backstage element of professional wrestling. While it appears to be verifiable, I don't think it is notable. A google search gets 180 hits [14]. This just isn't notable for WP. Tony fanta 18:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Bandcruft. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources, lack of verifiability, and I would say vanity, maybe, but don't want to be nasty. Fails WP:NMG The Crying Orc 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was CSD G12 copyvio - CrazyRussian talk/ email 12:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod, procedural nom. Verifiability is an obvious concern. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 05:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Ekajati ( yakity-yak) 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I feel that there is no way that this article can be maintained in any proper way which is WP:NPOV or WP:V. The subject is a self-styled religious leader who claims to be a perfectly enlightened Buddha. There is no official training which can be sourced anywhere, so his claims of mastering texts cannot be seconded by any other religious authorities. The only sources are the official website of his organisation, which cannot be considered to be at all reliable or neutral (the other source available is simply a reprint of the stated info on his website for a religion report) - the only other info is a pile of attack blogs about his alleged rape of a disciple or other pages by random groups critical of his claims. So the only sources are himself, which could only lead to a hagiography of a religious leader who is already making grandiose claims. This person is very notable, but there is no way that an article could be NPOV, unless it also uses attack blogs. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Seemingly non-notable British BDSM club, article hasn't been really touched in over half a year. Proposed for deletion contested, with the argument:
So what? If compared to SMFR (which was deleted), it is found on Google among the first hits, the external link connected to the club's official site, and the club organises events every month or every two months. Still the article was deleted. The only thing that makes Violate more notable than SMFR is its involvement in Scottish politics. I vote delete. JIP | Talk 16:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't know if that's good enough. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Bandcruft. Not well known, no noteability, possible vanity The Crying Orc 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was regular keep. -- Core des at 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability, currently a spam article.-- Francisx 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as obvious spam for non-notable business, per WP:CSD G11. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete due to lack of any WP:RS indicating notability of this store per WP:CORP; WP:NOT the Yellow Pages; possibly advertising. -- Kinu t/ c 05:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisement posing as an article. No evidence given of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE criteria. SubSeven 20:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately this site has lost a lot of its
Alexa popularity as it has consistently dropped pretty well below average for notability of a website. The page is filled with biases, unverifiable information, and is a relatively frequent target for vandalism. Please let me know your opinions. Thanks,
JHMM13 (
T |
C)
22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
I have been trying to edit out the bias here and there and I'm not so sure I agree with you saying unverifiable, but there is regular vandalism or at least bad editing and I agree that Uber is in decline. I've been a member of Ubersite for a long time and I'd like to see the article remain, but unless someone prooves its notability in some other way I have to agree that based on its alexa ranking it shouldn't be here. Restepc
This site is still pretty well-used, with several thousand users. That so many have come to Wikipeia is part of the proof of its worthiness. If we all take it seriously, this can be a valuable, informative article. D prime 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete due to WP:RS indicating why this mission is any more notable than the scores listed here. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information seems to apply, and the article appears to be vanity for the "people who served" section, based on the edit history. -- Kinu t/ c 05:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Taking the heavy meat weight into account, it's still 2-to-1 in favor of deletion with the 1 side having pretty poor arguments. "A college newspaper has published it a couple times" is pretty weak support for notability and I couldn't verify its truthfulness anyway. If better sources can be found, re-post. — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
The artwork is good, but the comic fails WP:WEB, as far as I can tell. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTE: While it's nice to see Support for Joe here, please limit all votes away from just being a fan. These votes need to give a reason and cite Wikipedia policy as to why the page should me kept or removed. Please do not post personal agendas or opinions. H2P ( Yell at me for what I've done) 17:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Anomo 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete You can technically speedy these, per Wikipedia:Subpages. W.marsh 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Looks like an old fork. Anything that can be merged should be merged, then this can be shown the door. Grutness... wha? 06:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The individual fails WP:BIO. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This comic fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 04:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comic fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Core des at 04:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This web comic fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Not Notable Knowing Is Half The Battle 06:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Per WP:WINAD and prior strong precedent, I have transwikied this article to wikt:Appendix:Slovakian given names, where it is more appropriate. Lists of names are not encyclopedic, but they do belong in Wiktionary, and that's where we have moved them before (e.g., see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of first names). This should now be deleted. Dmcdevit· t 06:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was previously nominated for deletion in September. The result of that discussion was to delete the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abandoned toys). It has since been recreated, but in a different version, so G4 doesn't apply. The article was nominated for speedy deletion by FisherQueen ( talk · contribs), but the tag was removed by Musicologydreamer ( talk · contribs). I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. A ecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 08:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Creating deletion discussion page for Jeff Burlingame because this is a non-notable author whose book is not even released yet. ArrolinStCroix 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This guy is not just an author/journalist, he is also the founder of an international non-profit organization, which the one naysayer above failed to note at all. I checked out that Web site and it’s pretty prominent. A quick google of his name shows maybe a thousand or more sites where he’s mentioned. I’d keep it.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Not verified and has been marked as such since April 11 2006 without a single citation being added. Has been subject to seemingly random additions and removals, no way of knowing what's true. Nonpareility 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
What separates a themed concept album from a well-assembled record by someone with an idiosyncratic range of topical songwriting interest? This page is entirely uncited, mostly uncitable, original research, and vastly fancruft. People want their favorite artists to be intelligent, and so as fans they often slap the now near-meaningless label of "concept album" on a given work so that it seems more Important and Impressive. That is fancruft, and very usually unsupported. Not to mention non-NPOV.
Amber388 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This page should be kept because many people like to research themed concept albums. However I would say it needs some editing and citations.
The result was delete. -- Core des at 04:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Original prod statement (by A Man In Black): "A lump of random things readers noticed in the show, completely unreferenced and speculative" with a prod2 (by myself): "Left over from "merge" but nothing was actually merged (duplicate info that originated on the other article), thus this article's history is not needed." Delete -- Ned Scott 06:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was don't keep this as an article. I've redirected so it's more clear what happened, and any additional information people want to merge, they can go ahead and do (it looks like most has been merged but not all) W.marsh 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant with info on Belfast City Airport page. It is just a copy of the destinations list. WP:NOT? DB ( talk) 23:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete if anyone wants to move this to commons, I can help if you need access to the content. W.marsh 00:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 09:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, but transwiki to Commons first. -- Ezeu 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was transwiki to Commons & delete. -- Ezeu 18:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was transwiki request tag added. W.marsh 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. All of this appears to exist on commons. W.marsh 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Added reference of 'notability' - more to be added soon. User:Niall1798 13:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted per A7. -- Where 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
In accordance to the policy of popularity and wether this article is worthy, this may need to be removed untill further development. Redkane 09:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable video download service. Corporate vanity page. AlistairMcMillan 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Most of the links that show on a google search are actually from press coverage of the company, not as suggested pseduo-advertisements. The significance of MoboVivo as a download service in Canada is that it is the first and currently only such service making a bit of historical claim - perhaps even encyclopedic - in a world of technology culture anyway. As compared to other much bigger services which have entries on Wikipedia (Apple ITunes, Google Video) this service works outside of the US and not just in one country. This in itself is noteworthy - maybe encyclopedic. This page is no more corporate vanity that those sites cited like iTunes and Google Video, I suggest that if MoboVivo could be edited to sound less like an advert and note the significant fact that US only services, however large, should be noted as such - US only and to do so one must mention those companies with broad appeal and relevance beyond the US.
I guess your right about the press coverage -google search results in a lot of non press releases. This was not the case a few months ago - for better or worse. Going through these a bit closer and knowing the industry press outlets here are a few links that show up in a google search that show third party reviews. These are the ones that don't just re-hash a company press release.
http://www.canada.com/topics/finance/story.html?id=97381447-3058-4c99-99ab-459fb2e188e3 http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles07250603.asp http://www.worldscreen.com/archivenews4.php?filename=mobo040606.htm http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=53c7b897-8d33-483a-9c11-767dba2f7ce4&p=2 http://www.c21media.net/news/detail.asp?area=4&article=29888 http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9396/ http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/mobovivo_readies_tv_show_content_for_canadian_ipod_owners/ http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/magazine/20060501/mobovivo.html
Although this article is clearly a work in progress (as is the company, apparently), removing it when the articles posted regarding iTunes and Google Video (among other U.S. "big media" entries) are permitted to subsist smacks of corporate favoritism and being a big bully to a small Canadian company. It looks to me like there are enough mentions in the public press (e.g. canada.com is one of Canada's biggest news sites) to provide some confirmation of the details, so I would let it be and remove it from AfD consideration.
The result was keep. W.marsh 01:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This is the local paper of a very small town. There is no relevance historically. flipjargendy 15:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Tsuen Wan District. I believe licensing issues prevent transwiki to wikitravel. Yomangani talk 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Bringing to AfD instead of deleting on expired prod. Is it notable? - CrazyRussian talk/ email 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There's nothing to merge. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy. There is now a claim to notability but it is not verified. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable character in a book series. Crufty. Roy Boy 800 20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No verification with reliable sources provided. -- Core des at 05:02, 1 November 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}} . |
This isn't a particularly notable subculture that exists within the gay community. Although the term is loosely attested by a few Google hits (but you'll find far more for G0Y as the first half of a Canadian postal code range in central Quebec), it appears to be a non-notable website trying to build a subculture around a neologism. Fails both WP:NOR and WP:NEO, and skirts the edge of WP:DICDEF, to boot. Was previously AFD'd (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G0y), but this version is at least different enough from the first one to not call it a G4. And as for the couple of claims in the previous AFD that it's common in gay chat forums, it certainly doesn't exist in the ones I frequent, so I'd need to see some actual evidence of that. And even if the evidence can be provided, WP:NEO is pretty clear on the difference between citing examples of a word in use (which isn't good enough for our needs) and citing actual verifiable sources about the word. And as for frot, it's also a silly little neologism for a sex act that the G0y movement didn't even invent, and which already has other names in genuine use anyway. Delete both. Bearcat 08:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Removed Frot. AfD requires one per article. These are seperate topics and will need to be dealt with seperately. Frot has survived AfD once before. Atom 10:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
as well as the previous AfD at this name listed in the nomination. This still isn't well-sourced and should still be deleted. GassyGuy 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete; also an apparently speediable copyvio. -- MCB 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No Newsbank or ScienceDirect links. CV here. The claim that he was the co-founder of the Center for Complex Systems Research might put him over the hump if verified, but he was only an Assistant Professor at the time, so I wonder what his actual role in the founding was. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Shopping centre; no claim to WP:CORP notability. -- Nehwyn 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dakota 07:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Describes a film that is not yet in production. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Appears to be promotional/advertising; article created by the director of the film. This editor has previously tried to use Wikipedia to promote himself - Hussein Tajvidi. Disputed PROD. FreplySpang 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is essentially someone's POV essay that was posted into wikipedia. There doesn't appear to be any salvageable content, so delete. Kchase T 10:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Another ethnic animosities page. Unfortunately there are precedents for such pages that have been kept (and this one has evidently used one of those as a blueprint). But this is particularly weak specimen. It doesn't even attempt to make a case that its subject-matter constitutes a coherent phenomenon and that it has been discussed in such terms in the literature. Its main assertions are entirely unsourced. The largest part of the article is taken up by a discussion not of "Anti-Georgianism", but of "Russification" (in Georgia but mainly elsewhere) - but if the author wants to imply that Russification is ipso facto Anti-Georgianism, that would be an OR argument par excellence. Apart from that, the article features a propaganda poster illustrating Georgian animosity against Russian political interventionism - but that, if anything, reflects Anti-Russian propaganda by Georgians, not Anti-Georgianism by Russians. All in all, just another case of the "Anti-X'ism" article format being misused for OR listings of just any and all grievances ethnicity X may have against its neighbours, and as such almost certainly a POV-fork (though I'm not sure of what). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus. — Wknight94 ( talk) 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds of notability, but doesn't qualify, because the subject passes WP:BIO: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league". I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. A ecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, even discounting new and possible single purpose accounts. -- Core des at 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
big-bust cup pov lists Spey Aqza 11:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Spey Aqza ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTE: This is the second nomination the first can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers Valoem talk 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete even IF (note conditional) the nom was in bad faith, this is a good AfD. The list is entirely subjective (and thus has
neutrality and
original research problems. Also, lists of random physical features is entirely non-notable. --
Jayron32
06:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
" IF the nomination was in bad faith" (note the use of the conditional word IF. It means that we are discussing a possibility, not a certainty. I have no idea of the mindset or intent of the original nominator, NOR DO I CARE) such a defense is still an ad hominem defense; it is a deflection of the actual issue, and a means of avoiding having to enter the actual debate on THIS article. If you belive bad faith to have been exercised here, then go to Requests for Intervention and ask to have the user blocked. It has NO BEARING on the inherant notability of this article. MAKE ARGUEMENTS RELATING TO THE CONTENT OF THIS ARTICLE. I apologize for "shouting", but so far only one person, Charlam, has done so; though it would be nice to see any proof that his assertion is true... Are adult models routinely catagorized in this way and is such catagorization used (note the past tense: not useful, but used in the sense that others have used this information before it appeared on wikipedia) routinely in reliable sources. If anyone could make a credible arguement of the MERITS of this article, and could make some proof as to actual notability, I would change my vote. As yet, we have 1 unverified assertion that I would call a claim of notability. EVERYONE else has avoided discussing the merits of this article by deflecting the debate away from the contents of the article. They make arguements against other lists, or they make arguements against people involved in the debate. Neither kind of arguement brings anything to the discussion. -- Jayron32 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
"Keep" as it is information but the title should be changed.
The result was delete. -- Core des at 05:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The opening paragraph says it all: "Ben Chatham is a fan-created companion character by the poster "Sparacus" on the American Doctor Who fan website forum, Outpost Gallifrey. He is 'portrayed' by Adam Rickitt, an actor who Sparacus greatly desires appear in Doctor Who. Despite the mixture of contempt and apathy from the few fans who know of his existence, Sparacus insists the character is both popular and canonical (mainly for comic affect) and pretends that Big Finish are interested in making adventures for him." WP:NOT applies in so very many ways. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dakota 07:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
NN local restaurant... probably. This article is the sole contribution of its creator, and was marked with {{ db-spam}} by Calton. The article includes claims about Ronald Reagan and Huey Lewis visiting the restaurant -- currently, unsourced claims -- but I thought it was enough of an attempt at explaining notability to go straight to AfD. The article is a little advert-like, but could be salvaged if the restaurant has notability because of these visitors. I say, though, that without seeing a source we should delete. Mango juice talk 12:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable website/event. (aeropagitica) 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Absolutely non-notable per WP:WEB, especially on its own. One ghit, which is WP's article on Smosh: [Check Google hits]. (|-- UlTiMuS 12:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The one legitimate keep vote here suggested that the result in Cheeseweb (begun on the 25 October and closed by me just a moment ago) must logically apply here. I agree, and close this a bit early for consistency. There appears to be no objection to slight mentions in the parent article, but these mentions should be minimal enough such that GFDL merging isn't needed. Xoloz 15:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
A webforum (or more accurately, a gaming clan), for The War of the Ring Online Campaign. No sign it meets WP:WEB or WP:ORG. "In total, there were 3007 registered participants" in The War of the Ring Online Campaign, so far fewer in this group. No gnews hits. No in-article links to third-party sources. This article tops Google results for "The Dark Council", but the top non-WP result refers to a completely different group with this common name darkcouncil.com. Short version: nn gaming clan - delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Co-nominations The Alliance of Light and Campaign of LoTRs, which also lack third-party reporting and do not appear to meet WP:WEB or WP:ORG.
See also the related current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheeseweb; the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Alliance Website closed with speedy deletion ( WP:CSD G11, A7). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense, obvious violation of WP:NOT. NawlinWiki 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable "game". No Ghits (except for a cookery book called "Souffles, Quiches, Mousses and the Random Egg, which is unconnected). Looks a good example of something made up at the breakfast table. Tonywalton | Talk 12:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Flash game that seems like it fails WP:WEB/ WP:RS/ WP:V. Was previous nominated HERE, but the only comments were keeps with comments regarding its number of google hits. Wickethewok 13:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Flash games website that doesn't have any real claims of notability, in terms of WP:WEB at least. Looks like it fails WP:RS/WP:V as well. Delete as such. Wickethewok 13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a1 (no context) and g1 (patent nonsense). NawlinWiki 14:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is patent nonsense. S e rgeantBolt ( t, c) 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Speedy Delete - Just nonsense, does not explain where it is from. Chris Kreider 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. Author requested deletion through creating this afd. Hiding Talk 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not voting As a newcomer to Wikipedia, perhaps one of the few in-words I know is "deletionist". I personally think it is a real word which although possibly mostly found in Wikipedia does deserve an entry on its own.
I tried to find the "suggest an article" link, but its gone (or I couldn't find it).
My reason for suggesting this article is that I came across the term before I really knew anything about Wikipedia. So, unlike many other inventions it does have an external scope to Wikipedia. This is not a frivolous suggestion, I'm being serious that I think it exists as something that is worthy of an entry, and not knowing how else to discuss it I created the article for deletion! -- Mike 13:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 05:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Small forum, not yet notable. Tom Harrison Talk 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable puppet show. Prod tag removed. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 14:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Lack of sources and comparison is inherently original research. Interrobamf 14:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Where can I get this page? It says it's deleted but I want to read it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.130.123 ( talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
So you're telling me that the content is gone? I thought this site was open and I could see all changes. I guess some things just go down the memory hole! THIS IS BULLSHIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.130.123 ( talk) 05:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 05:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced. Style indicates self-promotion. IMDB does not know him, and neither does the Portuguese wikipedia: see pt:Kai Negrao pt:Kai Negrão. Aleph-4 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was originally AfD'ed last year here, resulting in its deletion. This new incarnation is expanded, and has one new somewhat reliable source, so it probably deserves another go through AfD. Nevertheless, I don't think notability is established by the one newspaper mention, so Delete. Xoloz 15:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 02:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
NN - CrazyRussian talk/ email 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article should be deleted beciase it is an unexpandable stub. GAOTU is nothing more than a specialized Masonic (and possibly Calvinist) term for Supreme Being, and it would be better to state the usage there. MSJapan 15:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This is basically a collection of images, which goes against this policy. The author removed the prod and said that s/he meant it to be a convenient place to locate the files. I considered userfying but I did not because of possible copyright issues. ... discospinster talk 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a blatant advertisement. -- Core des at 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) i want to learn how can i ? reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability appears to be at least somewhat suspect, under the "average professor" test, and his involvement in Holocaust denial does not itself give notability, I think. Weak delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
T· C 01:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Core des at 06:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I really don't see the point of this needing its own article. One or two sentences of discussion on the theme song can be placed in the main article. There's not enough to talk about to justify a separate article just for this theme song. Cyde Weys 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - this does not prevent it being recreated when reliable information is available. Yomangani talk 13:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested ProD. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Ezeu 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable student-run television station. Tom Harrison Talk 17:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
why has LUST been classed as non-notable but none of these NaSTA Bloomsbury Television CTV (Bath) Demon TV GlamTV Glasgow University Student Television LSUTV Stoic tv Warwick TV Winstanley TV YSTV
I disagree i think its important to have these articles, as many people use wikipedia as there first reference. isn't the point of wikipedia to try collect everything anyone could ever want to know for everyone to access? or is it only for Americans, as i find many american articles unnotable like the fact it seems every secondary school in american has an article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:High_schools_in_Colorado) how are these more notable? (Capt Jack Doicy)
I don't think any of them should be deleted, i'm using them as Precedents particularly to show that if this was page about an american tv station it would not have been nominated for deletion. I apologise for any mistakes i've made in the formatting of this defence, and thank you for the links as it lead me to this, "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." WP:AFDP Student TV and Radio, is based on original content, broadcasts it and has to be licensed to do so. on these grounds LUST and all student TV in the UK fulfills the criteria for notability. unless of course all articles are equal but American one are more equal than others. (Capt Jack Doicy)
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article contains content that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The article on Jack Abramoff is already very long, and contains many, many subpages. Some of this information could be integrated to one of the other articles, but most of it is just indiscriminate information relating to the Abramoff scandal. Each Abramoff list also contains little if any references, which makes me think that it is original research.
Since this is a sensitive political topic, I know some editors will accuse me of nominating this with a political agenda or motivation. In order to dispel this idea, I will point out that while I have also nominated List of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients and List of trips funded by Jack Abramoff (and copied this description to each), I have not nominated Jack Abramoff timeline because I feel that is a better example of the kind of list that belongs on Wikipedia. Ultra-specific, unsourced lists related to already specific scandals and persons and their dealings do not belong on Wikipedia. Renesis ( talk) 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article contains content that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The article on Jack Abramoff is already very long, and contains many, many subpages. Some of this information could be integrated to one of the other articles, but most of it is just indiscriminate information relating to the Abramoff scandal. Each Abramoff list also contains little if any references, which makes me think that it is original research.
Since this is a sensitive political topic, I know some editors will accuse me of nominating this with a political agenda or motivation. In order to dispel this idea, I will point out that while I have also nominated List of trips funded by Jack Abramoff and List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations (and copied this description to each), I have not nominated Jack Abramoff timeline because I feel that is a better example of the kind of list that belongs on Wikipedia. Ultra-specific, unsourced lists related to already specific scandals and persons and their dealings do not belong on Wikipedia. Renesis ( talk) 17:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. -- Ezeu 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. W.marsh 01:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is a stub and is incapable of expansion DrKiernan 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. -- Core des at 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:SPAM. Only external link is commercial site. Only internal link is an incorrect link from liquidation (different type of liquidation). Strong suspicion that the creator of this page also created the recently deleted Salvage Liquidators as they share almost exactly the same modus operandi. Legis 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. There are no sources to verify the claims made in this article. A Google search for the name brings about 180 results (65 "unique"), and none seem to be relevant to the article, or at least the current incarnation of it. It was orginally about a gay-rights activist in Bangalore, and when the prod tag was removed he became a musician. ... discospinster talk 18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a non-notable series of books. A search on amazon.com for the author and series produces no results. I also can't find anything on Google about it. GinaDana 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy-deleted as self-admitted neologism. ➥the Epopt 14:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, admitted by the creator at the talk page. Possibly intended as a humorous eponym. Contested prod. Mr Stephen 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Geocities sites are not reliable sources. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising and WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 09:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomangani talk 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as OR. -- Core des at 06:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
User:Maleabroad has a history of creating unreferenced unsourced POV articles full of strange assertions such as Brahmin Influence on Other Religions and Brahmin contribution to Buddhism which have both been previously deleted, and is a POV Fork. Numerous better and well researched articles exist to cover the same material such as History of Hinduism and links therefrom etc. and on Portal:Hinduism.-- Tigeroo 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete by admin Xezbeth as A7 (failure to assert notability).-- Kchase T 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Not appropriate encylopedia content - appears to be an in-joke. Redglasses 19:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to University College London. -- MCB 06:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable student-run television station. Tom Harrison Talk 19:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 22:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Listing of contested PROD. Delete as this seems to fall under the purview of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. For lack of better terms, this is ad nauseum fancruft/websitecruft. If others see this as encyclopedic, then it could/should be pared down significantly and merged (without actual deletion, of course) into the Neopets article. As it stands, however, there are too many short fragments with "see the actual thing"-style external linkage, the tone is hopelessly unencyclopedic, and I fail to see any reliable sources (i.e., not message boards, fansites, etc.) outside of the actual site which indicate why these plots are notable. -- Kinu t/ c 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I think that you should edit out content that doesn't help but should keep the article because of how much importance the plots have to the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstormfanatic ( talk • contribs) — Superstormfanatic ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The page is almost an exact copy of the tribal council section on the Survivor page. The only thing on this new page is the tiebrakers, which used to be on the Survivor page, but was taken out by someone (I guess). However, the tiebreakers are still on the Survivor Trivia page, making this a copy of the Survivor main page and Surivior Trivia. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old Talk Contribs # of Edits 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. -- Core des at 06:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced; appears to be OR. Although impenetrable jargon, it is not patent nonsense and therefore not a speedy deletion candidate. Prod removed. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game, google produces nothing on this, mostly how-to guide. Seraphimblade 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Ezeu 18:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this is a first person shooter - what is required beyond one or two paragraphs synopsis on the main page? and/or elements of this incorporated into descriptions of the missions? Charlesknight 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
What does deleting this article do? It is insightful into the backstory to a very popular video game. Theres tons of other useless shit on wikipedia, delete that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.34.106 ( talk • contribs)
Hello one and all, I'm the original article writer. (Note that as of yet the article isn't finished, as I still have to write up the battles for the African front.) In my defense, I would like to say that the Cold War article was just a fun project by me to see if I could write a serious take on BF2142's storyline. If anyone's noticed, I heavily modeled my article after the WWII article to make it as "authentic" as possible.
Some of you bring up the argument that the information listed within my article is non-factual, that it is fiction, that it is just a "plot summary", so it is unnecessary. Why then are whole separate articles allowed for Warcraft's backstory, and many other fictional plots? Please, if there is some way to salvage my article, then I'll try to do so. As for merging with the actual game article, that is a possibility, but the reason I created a separate article was so that the main article wouldn't be over crowded with information. - Windows2142, posted 6.51 AM GMT 31 October 2006
The result was delete but let me know if anyone needs the content to transwiki it somewhere. W.marsh 22:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a game guide and thus does not comply with WP:NOT. Possibly only of interest to a small population of enthusiastic fans. Combination 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable biography (contested prod). Natalie 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested ProD. NN Neologism. Wikipedia is not: a dictionary, a how-to guide. -- IslaySolomon | talk 21:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
claim to notability is oblique, but can be inferred to be (1) lots of geeks have heard of this, and (2) somebody once got busted for plagiarizing it in a print publication. But it's thin on a google search omitting trivials (144 hits for an excerpt from the text of the list), and the second test seems irrelevant. I've discussed at longer length on the article's Talk page. Uucp 22:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-noteable television show. A Google search for "'Heavy Pork' Kansas" brings up 255 results. The top five are this article and four myspace pages. The remaining articles detail pork barrel spending, agricultural news, and other items that don't involve a television show. It also claims to have won six Billboard Awards and an Emmy. Bzzt. Wrong.a Consequentially 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect. -- nae' blis 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Stub was undeniably POV and one source was a blog, but the other seems to be reputable. Was tagged for speedy deletion by a local, so I have brought it here for a wider audience. See also Deera Square. -- nae' blis 22:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged as unsourced for over a month - as a result one must question if it is completely unsourcable. Notability is also uncertain and probably subject to debate. Asp 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! Join Esperanza! 11:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
NN-company DesertSky85451 23:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Complete neologism. Zero hits in Google. De-prodded, by author, without explanation. The article's original author claims to be the originator of the word and the concept. eaolson 23:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by anon-IP; NN-artist, 572 google hits, no claim of notability delete DesertSky85451 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply