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 07:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) reply
Speculation - a pov page. Delete. Green caterpillar 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Gone. - Lucky 6.9 17:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This furry webcomic, seen here (The splash page contains no furry porn) has no external sources. The site has an Alexa rank of around 400,000 and "peter is the wolf" gives 90 unique Google links, none of which are from a professional source (review, commentary etc.) This is not a notable website. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. - Bobet 15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a multiple nomination, in addition to the webcomic in question the following are also nominated:
The current incarnation of the webcomic Aozora, is the Another Blue Sky story arc, and that, along with the other chapters of this furry webcomic can be seen here at 2wconline, which also hosts a few other things. It can't be that popular though, because there's no Alexa rank for the entire site, and the forums have only picked up 50 members since they opened in March. Googling Aozora "Another Blue Sky" brings up 20 unique results, googling an earlier chapter Aozora "Into Imagination" brings up 50 unique links. None of these are from reliable sources, none of the articles contain any either, the only assertion of notability (found in all 3 articles) is that the author has been a guest at some East Coast furry convention. None of these are notable. - Hahnch e n 00:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not an encyclopedia article, and entirely based around a template which is soon to be deleted as a violation of Hasbro and Mattel's copyright on the board design. I'm also bundling in a very similar article, Example Scrabble tournament game. -- Robth Talk 00:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with Survivor Trivia. -- Madchester 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, namely Wikipedia is not a provider of Original research. No secondary (media) sources support the claims and ideas presented in the article. Madchester 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect, no arguments for keeping (it's not a vote). I'm redirecting to Keane discography since it actually mentions this, if someone thinks of a better target, feel free to change it. - Bobet 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This isn't at all notable. "This song was never recorded in a studio but it's well-known by some fans of the band" says it all, really. The Mekon 01:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Mango juice talk 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn wrestling show, not a pay-per-view, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ECW_Born_To_Be_Wired for precedent. Renosecond 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also nn AWA show/programs/events:
(Note: I had recently merged the various SuperClash events into a single article, but only one was a PPV as far as I know, but I will keep them off this debate for the time being.) Renosecond 01:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A high school awards/scholarship program in a county in Maryland that doesn't meet notability criteria for inclusion. There were about six of these types of programs at my high school alone. Google search brings up 19 unique hits with Wikipedia being the second. No news mentions to assert significance or importance. -- Wafulz 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Rockville, MD -- The Superintendent’s Leadership Program has selected 14 participants for the 2006-2007 class from among candidates at Montgomery County high schools. The program is the only humanities oriented honors intern program in the county. The curriculum content and style is comparable to many college courses. Students in this program are selected for demonstrating outstanding leadership, academic excellence, and uncommon maturity within their schools and communities.
Students accepted to the program are assigned to work for 15 hours per week for a full academic year under the guidance of a management executive such as a Director, Vice President, or CEO. They are given the chance to handle projects, individually and as part of a team. Business partners to the Montgomery County Public Schools program include corporate, government and nonprofit organizations. The 2007 class participants represent 12 Montgomery County high schools.
Significant program components also include site visits to meet and talk with industry executives working in a wide range of settings, didactic seminars to discuss current issues in the workplace, extensive research and writing assignments, a group community service project and an international business project that reinforces cross-cultural relations and global citizenship.
Kim Jones, Program Director of the Superintendent’s Leadership Program says, “It is critical that students with this level of maturity, that can clearly articulate their career objectives, be given the opportunity to apprentice in their discipline. This program reveals facets of a chosen industry that would otherwise take years to experience.”
For additional information on the Superintendent’s Leadership Program you may go to the website at www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/superintendent/leadership ---- 68.48.32.65 18:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I've just created and started populating Cat:Multimedia artists when I found this. However, the list is largely empty, not to mention that half of the entries don't even have their own articles, or have been deleted/deleted and protected. The category should render it redundant, unless anyone can think of a way to give it more depth. Unint 01:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. Close as prank nomination. Fan-1967 02:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
DELETE Nonnotable chemical. ShinerDawg 02:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Content already exists in Cher article and should remain there Seinfreak37 02:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It's cut and pasted from the main article and since there haven't been significant edits to it (besides a POV intro), there's nothing to merge. - Bobet 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unless I'm wrong, this should remain in the Cher article, should it not? User is creating multiple Cher-related articles similar to this. Seinfreak37 02:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
If this were the case...then shouldnt most of madonna's pages be brought back to the main article? im only makin space for the main article because if one day it gets bigger ur gonna have to take it off Rsf7589 02:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
just so there is no more problems ive merged it back with the main cher article so this page is no longer necessary Rsf7589 14:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 15:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Another Cher-related article that is a direct copy of info that should remain in existing Cher article Seinfreak37 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Pure unadulterated spam. Prod & Prod2 removed without comment.- IceCreamAntisocial 02:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Virginia United States Senate election, 2006; no merge because as far as I can tell this is a verbatim copy of a section in that article. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant PoV fork from Virginia United States Senate election, 2006 duplicating all content of a subsection without debate or consensus. Namespace is a NN neologism apparently coined for the occasion. Rosicrucian 02:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
*Merge the content back, perhaps delete this as a redirect. This is a neologism and POV fork.--
Cúchullain
t/
c
03:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC) (see below)
reply
The result was merge. It's untenable to include all this in Cher, so I'm merging to Cher discography. Mango juice talk 15:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Should this content not remain in the Cher article? Someone please message me if there is a better way to notify admin of this. Seinfreak37 02:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
y delete it look at it its the same thing madonna has n i even made sure nothing is repeated twice look at every page on tha cher box its all different Rsf7589 02:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nothing has 2 articles of the same subject anymore i made sure of that...just take another look now Rsf7589 02:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
i never said i didnt did i? anyway look i was only tryin categorize cher the way this is Madonna discography take a look at that and its box... i made cher's the same way so if there was something wrong with mine was erased then i guess this one should too, its the exact same thing Rsf7589 03:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
when r u gonna suggest that? Rsf7589 03:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
ok so r u gonna pput a sign sayin that they need to merged or something? Rsf7589 03:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
ok one more thing can i merge every page into the discography or wat put it into the main page? and another ? wats wrong with makin a box like that its not only madonna that has it...ive seen at least more than 20 artist with that Rsf7589 03:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
ok so i merged every article back to the main cher article that u guys wanted me to, but about this one are u gonna keep it or not cuz some of u feel as it should stay Rsf7589 14:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was scrap it. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable UK student magazine. It's distributed at three top schools, but that in itself doesn't confer notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete'. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Graduate of a diploma mill, pastor at a church, teacher at Tyndale Theological Seminary-- which got sued by the state of Texas to stop issuing degrees. Person fails WP:BIO. The amazon.com sales for Progressive Dispensationalism is at 1,014,051, doesn't even crack the top million. Arbusto 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Startup video game company crated in 2005 by the creator of the article. A google search of the company and its one game brings up zero relevant results, which is pretty telling for a video game company. Doesn't meet criteria in WP:CORP and it isn't verifiable. Wafulz 02:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No sources, writing is practically beyond repair, subject may not even be notable in the first place. ~ Lav-chan 02:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Despite low participation, it's clear the hoax issue (the only deletion reason given) has been resolved. Mango juice talk 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, this is an elaborate hoax. Some history: It was tagged speedy, I removed the tag because it wasn't appropriate and I actually thought the tag was added in error (see the history and you might see why). In any case, it had been added intentionally, but hoaxes are not speedy-able, so the same editor prodded it. An anon removed the prod with "not a hoax" as a summary, so we find ourselves here. I have to say, I can find no evidence that this movie is being planned whatsoever. There is no IMDB page, and this search returns essentially no hits. Anything is possible, but it seems extremely unlikely to me that a project being planned with stars of this magnitude would not leave a large Google footprint. Deville ( Talk) 03:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. No evidence of notability or even participation in this sport outside the university campus where it is calimed to have originated, delete-- Peta 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is just a list of music videos, with no claim to importance other than they were in the first hour of programming of a TV channel. Why not the second hour? Or the videos shows on the first weekend? There's no real significance claimed for this list. eaolson 03:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mango juice talk 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Anonymous editor User:72.130.139.71 attempted to nominate this article for deletion, stating on the talk page: "Astrosociology is not a recognized subfield of sociology. There are no publications on astrosociology in any reputable peer-reviewed sociology journal. Activity is confined to a web site and to unregulated/open (non-peer-reviewed) conference sessions." I'm completing this nomination for courtesy, but no vote on my part yet. -- Metropolitan90 04:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Then there are this entry in David Darling's Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, Astronomy, and Spaceflight and this segment on The Space Show with Dr David Livingston (not the NAS one).
Yes, there are people who think that astrosociology is total drek. But in the irony that is encyclopaedism, people writing lengthy treatises explaining why something is rubbish actually provides more material for an encyclopaedia article to be based upon. Uncle G 12:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 15:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webcomic with no reliable sources of information. ~500k Alexa rank. Prod removed by anon with no explanation. No coverage from independent sources and not meeting WP:WEB means Delete. Wickethewok 04:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The article has been given time for expansion/merging, and I have personally notified the DRV nominator of this discussion. The lack of interest in actually doing the expansion, coupled with the complete failure to cite WP:RS in the article and/or assert notability of any kind, allows only one possible result here. Xoloz 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A DRV consensus concluded that this page merited reconsideration, mostly to discuss whether merging it to a target is appropriate, and (if so) to which target. Please consult the DRV. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Bobet 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research and unverified, thus failing both the WP:OR and WP:V criterias. Most of these so-called "cliches" would obviously appear in a video game depending on the game's setting. For example, one cliche is finding toilets in FPS video games involving humans, which is obvious in that there are many humans who use toilets now. Also, some cliches don't apply only to video games, but to all forms of media, including books, films. etc.-- TBC TaLk?!? 04:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy // Pilotguy ( Have your say) 04:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page; only used to promote two students and their non-notable production company website UnderPressure 04:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There are lots of suggestions provided for improving the article by changing its name, merging it, editing it, et cetera, that should not be ignored, but cannot be forced after this discussion. Mango juice talk 18:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like incorrect original research, no citations, not sufficient to merit its own article Holdek (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable internet meme, probably a neologism, which we should avoid. Article prodded three minutes after creation in May, [9] deprodded [10] by article creator with a comment in the talk page. [11] although I find some problems with the reasoning:
Article has no references, quite a lot of speculation. Finally, note that it has recently been linked from Joystiq at http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/15/megaton-the-story-behind-the-meme/ which may bring some disruption. -- ReyBrujo 04:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wrestling e-fed, which has been agreed is not notable and every e-fed nominated has been deleted for this same reason TJ Spyke 05:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable, and copyvio for the first 70% of the article. Claims to hold patents, granted in 1994; but, article states that in 2001, he was 23 years old. Two or more people with the same name; and the ending link to a weblog points to vanity as well Neier 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and create a redirect to Dystheism. - Bobet 16:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism; Google hits are to Wikipedia-related sources or to one blog with few comments; article itself lacks references and does not concern a term used in standard intellectual history ThaddeusFrye 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
"a Richmond, Virginia based web hosting provider ... which has a grand total of under 200 customers" Salad Days 05:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested (kinda) prod. Intended to disparage the police and completely unencyclopedic in nature. I was tempted to speedy it, it seems like it'd fit as an attack page (would it?) -- JS talk 05:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a game guide. This page provides a list of all the units in Age of Empires III and gives information on which units are effective against other units. This makes it a clear violation of WP:NOT. Was successfully prodded at some point but was recreated recently. Indrian 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was userfy to User:Thewanjala, although I'm not really convinced that's very useful considering the author's only edits are to this article. If the author never returns, I'll delete it later if someone reminds me. - Bobet 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I cannot fathom why an encyclopedia would warrant an entry on such an ordinary gentleman. Salad Days 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete the content, make a new redirect to Enlargement. - Bobet 16:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Came across this page while clearing out stubs, seems to me that this page is inherently dicdef and cannot be anything more. What is here now seems to be a unique mix of dicdef and POV pushing Deville ( Talk) 06:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable - only one minor role in not very important program. My prod was deleted without response or improvement -- nkayesmith 07:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 04:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article has been marked WP:V by one editor, prodded by me, fails WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. Business commenced in 2006 cannot be notable. Delete. -- Richhoncho 07:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A completely unsourced and unverifiable article that tries to list families belonging to the Nair caste of Hinduism. There are thousands of such families in Kerala, and hence it is totally un-encyclopedic to have such a listing. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. thund e rboltz (Deepu) 07:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously speedied article that still doesn't seem to assert any other notability than getting #8 in a local music poll. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Just another rumoured name for The Re-Up album of Eminem, but this one is a combination of two rumoured names. An article named "Final Requests" has already been removed. Michaelas10 07:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Alexa rank 45,958. Delete per WP:WEB. Haakon 08:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 19:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The subject of this article does not have enough notability Criptofcorbin 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
From a technical standpoint, this meets Criteria 3 on the Web Content Notability standards. - Toptomcat 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
comment Why are wikipedia users so often hostile to internet culture. A artilce about Internet culture is more likely to be deleted than a less notable article about something else.... Zazaban 22:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply
What did I do wrong?: Obvious I made a mistake. This article has been listed for 9 days now. Everything I have read says it should be decided within 5 days. This is the first time I have ever put an article up for deletion and I tried to follow the step by step process, but it seems to me that I must have made an error somewhere. Could someone who knows more about this help me out and get this discuss back on the admins list of articles up for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criptofcorbin ( talk • contribs) 08:11, September 25, 2006
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Do I have to say anything? The name says it all. Oh, alright. This is complete and utter listcruft, combining two things to form an indiscriminate collection of information. Do we really need a list of causes of death for every group of people? How about Causes of death of Bavarian monarchs or Causes of death of editors of the Economist? Nydas 08:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 18:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Inherently POV article which uses original research to create a list of various unrelated incidents, none of which should be categorised simply as "anti-American" in an encyclopedia. Incidents such as the assassination of Lincoln are linked to the Oklahoma bombing under this title for no discernible reason. Have any of these acts been described simply as "anti-American"? - And how many of these acts have been described as terrorism? We don't know, there are no sources anyway. Zleitzen 08:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. I count 12-6 in favor of Keep, but I didn't close as Keep in spite of the numbers because the argument that the list is and has been shown to be unmaintainable is the strongest argument made in my opinion.
Wikipedia is not a directory; The persons listed here have not "significantly contributed to the list topic" . Their contributions are in other fields and this list merely traces the caste they belong to. It is not known wheteher everyone listed here would like to be listed as members of a particular caste or whether they consider themselves to be members of a particular caste. Clt13 09:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a nonsense article based on casteist bias,and most of these people listed have not made any contribution to socail life
Delete. I am certain none of these people were famous for being Nairs or whatever. Caste identities of people have been banned by law and hence this list should be deleted- Manu
Weak Keep - The concept is sound as per the List of Muslim actors, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, etc. However, it needs serious NPOV'ing, cleaning-up, and verification. Whether these people have denounced their caste origins or not - that is irrelevant. It is simply a list. I am not sure about serving to "further" casteist agendas or whatever. At the very least, it is a list of people. I would have said Keep had the article been better written. --Vivin Paliath (വിവി൯ പാലിയത്)
Strong Keep- the article is very informative. giving informations on any subject under the sun is the increases the relevance and scope of an encyclopedia. Some editing may be needed. then do it. Actually i'm a Christian. But i can tolerate and respect other Castes and creeds.. Add more and more informations in wikipedia. Rosalinta 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment As I mentioned above, it is tough to maintain this article because of the many unimportant and unverified entries and too many drive-by editors (See
Edit history). Can any of the people who voted to save the article volunteer to keep it clean ? I hope the responsibility doesn't end with the vote.
Tintin (
talk)
04:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
Comment This debate would become very constructive, if the participants base the arguments on wikipedia policies. We are not making any value judgments or taking moral stand points. The aim is to discuss whether this list is acceptable as an article in wikipedia, wikipedia policies regarding this and also practical considerations in implementing them. Arguments like "giving informations on any subject under the sun is the increases the relevance and scope of an encyclopedia." are in fact against the policies. See WP:NOT(Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) Clt13 11:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep but rename to "List of Nairs". Bakaman Bakatalk 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep- Most of the persons got enlisted in the list of famous Nairs have incomparable contributions to the social life. Political leader Jaya Jaitly is the nephew of C.Sankaran Nair. (How many of us know that the National level leader and former M.P Jaya Jaitly is a Malayali...?). It was new information to me which I recieved from Nairs List. I have just picked a sample of valuable information. Many freedom Fighters and social reformers are enlisted in the list of famous Nairs. Are they not famous enough...? The next generation will tell that Gandhiji is not famous enough as model John Abraham or Aiswarya Rai. Somebody may ask who is Mannathu Padmanabhan...? I know only Sreesanth and Munaf Patel!
Adv. P. R. Bijuchandran
04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
Comment This is precisely the point. Most of us know Jaya Jaitly (she is notable and so there should be a page on her) but not as a Nair, not as some one born at a particular hour of day, not as some one who keeps a particular pet, not as some one who frequents this particular restaurant, not as some one whose house number starts with *, etc. All such lists are irrelevant. Clt13 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep- This item is much relevant in the present context.Several novel information which are not known to many can be made open for the generation. Parayanali 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted, appears to be little more than an original research essay. Cyde Weys 02:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is confused and has no sources. It aims to discuss the phenomenon of Anti-Europeanism in specific countries. But then confesses that the definition is still up for debate. Having never heard of the context of the term, (anti-European refers to opposition to the EU as far as I know) and am provided with no sources to convince me that it is a term worthy of an encyclopedia, I see no reason for the article. The only example offered after 6 months is Iran - the article states "As in many other religious countries, Anti-Europeanism in Iran raises from the perception that Europe is too liberal." - what? according to whom? Zleitzen 10:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was deleteandmayberedirect. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been here since March 2006, with an additional few deleted entries dating back to 2004. Considering that it has been on Wikipedia for 2 years without being properly referenced by a reliable source, I have an inclination that this word is simply made up, and at best a "neologism" of some sort. Delete HappyCamper 10:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted, appears to be some hoax or otherwise unverifiable activity. Cyde Weys 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The 'verify' tag has now been on the entry for more than a year, and no references have been added. Every one of the references either goes back to the 'Horrible histories' book, or is effectively identical to the account in that book: either they all go back to that book, or some of them come from the same source as that book. If somebody can identify that source, the article may be verifiable; but otherwise I suggest it is unverifiable and should be deleted. ColinFine 11:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
:A new children's history book that tells how Scots used to pull the legs of dead cows was under attack yesterday. Bloody Scotland, by Englishman Terry Deary, says "twisting the cow" was popular at the Invergarry Games in 1820.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Because the case is currently before the court, the family respectfully requested that this case maintain a low profile so that it doesn't go against Kelly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenelo ( talk • contribs)
Note: To prevent the matter of contention from being picked up in forks, I've stubified the article. Here's a link to the version before I stubified it: pre-stubbing Andjam 05:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to meet WP:BIO. MER-C 12:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Here are just 4:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1185807,00.html http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1755739,00.html http://www.offensief.demon.nl/oud/martinpowell.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990406/ai_n14224554 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekmcmillan ( talk • contribs) (This is the creator of the article)
The result was delete. Joelito ( talk) 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod. Autobiography. I think he falls just below our notability threshold. -- RHaworth 12:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 20:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hmmm...biography with no assertion of notability other than that he spoke on the radio once (how many people have done that?). I would like to try to keep this neutral, but perhaps the fact that this person is the "inventor" of a "thought screen helmet" designed to stop "alien mind control" and curtail abductions deserves mention. But at any rate, this fails notability, verifiability, etc., etc., etc. Byrgenwulf 12:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
(resetting indent). I think subject is better than target, and agree that there are some things that would be clearer in the context of the article. I think tongue-in-cheek is the standard phrase over tongue-and-cheek. But these are tiny details. I think that this is quite good now, and all we need is to see if the other editors who have been voting on this are pretty much in agreement, and we can go ahead and do this... Indeed, you could probably add the text you've suggested to tin-foil hat now, and then we can just see if others are in agreement to close the AfD and delete. Perhaps we give it another day, since the AfD has been pretty active? Edhubbard 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply
In favor of merge:
Opposed to merge (keep):
Opposed to merge (delete):
I am assuming, since there haven't been any votes recently, that we can close this AfD, with a final decision of deleting the article. The material that Zagalejo wanted to salvage has been moved into Tin-foil hat, so there's no reason to keep this article. If no one objects in the next 24 hours, I'll close the debate, and we can have this article deleted. Edhubbard 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
POV advertisement for a non-notable amateur video production. ZimZalaBim ( talk) 12:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No real consensus to merge, but that's not a concern of afd anyway. If someone wants to merge, no one stops it (at least based on this afd). - Bobet 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The article makes sweeping POV statements that tend to condemn what Santorum said. The controversy is not any more noteworthy than incidents by, among others, Howard Dean, George Allen, and Joseph Biden, who each have their controversies described in the text of their biographies. A nearly identical summary exists in Santorum's biography, which should be sufficient to discuss the controversy. On account of it being a redunant entry, a biased article, and lacking meaningful support (for instance, the "defense of remarks" section is largely ad hoc), coupled with the fact that it's not any more noteworthy than similarly-situated controversies, it should be deleted. The incident will still remain in the official Rick Santorum page. Zz414 13:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mango juice talk 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable THB 00:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WHAT!?!?--
Drahcir
my talk
19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Single one off usage by Jon Stewart referring to the Christian fundamentalist neoconservative base doesn't need its own article. It's usage in the context was specifically a reference to Senator John McCain's commencement speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University which was seen as a reversal of McCain's policies of not adhering to a single base in violation of his beliefs.
It's a neologism used only once and it hasn't shown any legs, besides that if it does get picked up it's impossible to actually predictnig this was the earliest origin considering the numerous names of the past that have been used in reference to the fundamentalist Christian neoconservatives. –– Lid( Talk) 13:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The article describes yet another suggested system for transcribing Persian into the Latin script. The article is created by the person who has suggested the system (Moslehi). A Google search
[17] doesn't give much about this certain "IPA2" apart from Wikipedia, its mirrors, and its IPA2's homepage.
roozbeh
13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Not much discussion, but the article itself doesn't establish notability, and the nominator obviously tried to find something to add but failed. - Bobet 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Looking on google (and, yes, I know it's not the end all be all of notability) "Tommy Nero" generates 5,240 hits [20]. But a quick look shows some are in Italian (Nero being an Italian surname) and this article is about an American. It also seems to be many pages not about the same guy. So the article says he is a fashion designer. "Tommy Nero" + fashion (a logical search since he is said to be a fashion designer, and hence the reason for his notability) leads to this - 882 hits [21]. I'll let the voters sift thru these links, but you will notice most are blogs and self-generated press releases matching the links on the article (www.pressreleasespider.com, www.365business.info, www.articles-hub.com, ad nauseum), and many of those are actually dead links. The constant thru all of those postings is "fashion fusion" and a place/venue called deja vu. So "Tommy Nero" + fashion, - fusion, -dejavu (if he is a real fashion designer of note, removing 2 keywords should still generate many hits) and you are down to 100 [22] and most of those are just wikimirrors and myspace links. The only "war correspondent" pieces offered up are an interview of an heir of the Benz family upon his graduation from basic training (not exactly in the heat of battle) and then posted on a web site called www.prweb.com and an interview with a captain who was in Iraq, a link that is now dead.-- Nobunaga24 13:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged and Speedied. Contested, so AfD. No vote. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Does not seem to be notable. MER-C 14:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 23:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod (by the author.) Appears to be a neologism. The article is basically a dictionary definition. Quite a few Google hits, but largely because it seems to be a not-uncommon user name. Can't find any reliable sources discussing this word. eaolson 14:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
People do use the phrase "blonky" in conversation. You have to remember that not every one is an old man who sits in front of a computer everyday.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lassal ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 September 2006.
The result was Deleted, Wikipedia does not need a separate article for each little tour of small bands listing each tour stop. Cyde Weys 02:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Fancruft, not at all encyclopedic. The Mekon 15:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to fansub. Mango juice talk 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:OR and WP:NN, google 651hit.-- Rocketds 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 13:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Does anybody other than an ardent Keane fan care about this song? There's nothing particularly useful here, and it's badly written from the start. Fancruft.) The Mekon 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:OR and WP:NN.-- Rocketds 15:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was keep. --- Deville ( Talk) 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:OR, WP:NN and WP:HOAX.-- Rocketds 15:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. *blinks* Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn group.-- Rocketds 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 13:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn Organization-- Sss6e 08:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. --- Deville ( Talk) 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
corporation or organization for which the article fails to assert any notability. What little content there is seems to be borderline promotional or opinion. Nothing has linked to this article since its creation in 2004. Agent 86 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted, powering Wikinfo really doesn't establish sufficient notability. Cyde Weys 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet another bit of wiki software, 134 unique Googles excluding mirrors, seems to be notable solely for violating GPL. Version 1.0 product despite the initial fork being in 2004. No evidence presented of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Guy 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - per David Cannon Unitedroad 11:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirected. MER-C 02:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if this page is notable. So i put it here. All it is is a list of the different letters and numbers on a keyboard. Lorty 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted, CSD G1. --- Deville ( Talk) 17:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Erroneous user page; vandalized Roanoke County, Virginia LightI3ulb 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 15:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was prodded, but had previously been sent to AfD without consensus. If an AfD discussion can't generate consensus, then it hardly seems my place to unilaterally delete it. See the previous discussion for more information. The prod reason given was "This article lacks information, and may not be fit for an encyclopedia, if you cant name who might be the masked men, or when this whole song was created, your only sayin who the song was disin' , and who might have made this song. THIS ARTICLE NEEDS MORE INFO." So, input? Luna Santin 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - complete fancruft, never gonna happen, re-created content, etc. This article has been up multiple times (with different titles, of course), and every time it has either been speedy deleted or deleted, as shown here and here. MikeWazowski 16:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. However, the edit history is helpful if someone wanted to use it, and there's no reason to have the redlinks, so I'm going to redirect this to Storytelling instead of deleting; I hope no one minds. Mango juice talk 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
It is little more than a stubby dictionary definition, and a one entry dab page, the former is not appropriate for wikipedia, and the latter is redundant Guinness 17:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. I added them to the accessory table. Mango juice talk 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable iPod accessory, even if it does come from Apple. Only marginally more notable that iPod socks. I don't believe it, we have a page on iPod socks. AlistairMcMillan 17:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because... seriously... iPod socks??? How would you even begin to justify the notability of socks?
The result was delete. - Bobet 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:WEB or WP:CORP. 100% spam Storkk 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mango juice talk 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep it. Anything is considered a dialect of English if it is different in any way. If you hear a Utahan speak it, you will know what it is. And religious influences do have something to do with language, because vocabulary is a part of language.
Given the new sources, information, etc., I move that the article be removed from candidacy as an article for deletion. Cathryn 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 04:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. There is absolutely no context given in this article. It's some kind of contest, but who's running it and why? [Check Google hits] shows 0 results. Prod tag (added by me) removed by author. ... discospinster talk 18:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) 04:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't see the significance of keeping this article. Triviaa 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. When Mr. Martin achieves the required level of notability, we will be able to find reputable, third-party sources from which to write the new article. Plus WP:LIVING concerns. - Doc 23:44, 17 September 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 article was originally nominated for deletion here. Though because it was affected significantly by sockpuppeting of the article creator ( checkuser), I relisted the nomination. WinHunter ( talk) 12:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
(original nom statement) self-promotional, clearly written by the person himself for vanity purposes. not notable, missing references. claims to have been "special counsel" to PayPal co-founder without citing proper sources. Wikiyoman 01:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This list is poorly maintained, contains misinformation, and doesn’t portray the information that it should. – Zntrip 18:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
notability not established ....no sources Joan-of-arc 18:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Protologism. Zero google hits. I moved it to Wiktionary, under List of protologisms, so it should be deleted from here now. Rawr 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It's a copyvio, and even if permission was given it wouldn't be encyclopedic in it's form so I'll just delete it. If someone wants to write an original article, great. - Bobet 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD tag was placed by User:Archibald99 but not followed up. Abstain on my part, though I would like to point out that while the subject appears to have some notability as a writer-philosopher (see Catalan entry), the text of the article is simply a copy of existing text from another web page. ... discospinster talk 19:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - unencyclopedic, copied from another site. Archibald99 19:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No claims of notability. Alexa rank 79,460. Delete per WP:EL. Haakon 20:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep for the moment. (aeropagitica) 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
My gut feeling is that this band is not yet sufficiently notable, but wanted to AfD it to see what people think. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 20:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) (In light of discussion below, I think a redirect to Matt Walker (drummer) would also be appropriate.) -- Nlu ( talk) 23:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No consensus on merging, but anyone can be bold and do that if they feel like it. - Bobet 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Floyd Abrams appears to be sufficiently notable, but a separate article for his involvement in each (important, for sure) case he argued in? Too much information, and way too much branching. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 20:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion (see List of prominent cases argued by Floyd Abrams for more information -- I am not nominating the list for deletion):
KEEP ALL: I'm the author of the articles. Floyd Abrams is inextricably linked with every notion of the First Amendment that we, as Americans, have. You can't separate his arguments from how Freedom of Speech is interpreted in the United States. I took it upon myself to summarize--there is *no* copyright violation, and I'm a law student, so I know--to be found here. I think this is very important information. The man has argued before the Supreme Court numerous times. His thoughts, observations, and the people he has come into contact with are living history. If you look at the biography I wrote of him (incomplete) you'll have a sense of this. I'm open to figuring out a better way to do this, but basically I am summarizing an historical document that many law students will find fascinating and informative--make Wikipedia more relevant to their lives. And to ours. I review his legal strategy, his observations on the Supreme Court and standing before them, the legal problems he encountered, and how he dealt with them. If not Wikipedia, where else? The way I have set it up seemed like the best way to go about it. It's a long process, longer than I thought. Mainly because I work and have other scholastic endeavors. But I think it would be a real shame to delete these articles without trying to preserve the information. The man is a legend. His word carries weight in many circles. He is the father of Dan Abrams. I think we would hurt the site if we voted to delete this series. Frankly, I think it speaks to what Wikipedia can be--an amazing treasure trove of information. All the wording is my own; I was carefult to rephrase and re-work the text. There is also an entire subset of articles I've created based on these cases. What I plan to do once I am done summarizing/rewording the cases based upon the memoir is research newspaper articles (with my free Lexis account) and other reviews, editorials and newspaper clippings about the cases, to make them more full-bodied and NOT just about Abrams's point of view. But my starting point has been his memoir. Yes, I do revere him--we all should, in my humble opinion--but I also want to make the articles more complete and not so Abrams-centric. That takes time, guys. I'm trying. -- DavidShankBone 03:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep all, I looked over the articles expecting them to be boring but, they are not. These articles are well written and referenced. They have not violeted any of Wikipedias policies which would reguire a vote for deletion. I can't understand a "vote" for deletion on the speculation that they have a copyright violation. I can understand a delete vote if a copyright violation has been proven, but this does not seem to be the case. The writer or originator seems to have spent lots of time in these articles and to delete his well writen work would not only discourage him but, would also discourage other excelent writers from contributing to our Pedia.
Sure he wrote quite a lot of independent articles related to the same lawyer however, it would impractible to lump them all in one article. This is what is considered a "series" (and I have seen other series in Wikipedia). As long as there aren't any copyright violations and the articles are encyclopedic and informative within Wikipedia guidelines, I urge a Keep. Tony the Marine 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep all per Tony the Marine. In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of detailed information that sets Wikipedia apart from any other resource either in print or on the internet. We've all written articles on some pretty ephemeral subjects at one time or another. For instance, I wound up writing a separate article for the technical specs on the Mercedes-Benz 6.9 article I worked on. I've only recently discovered this user's work, mostly because I've been away for so long. He is extremely passionate about his work and I found that out when I deleted a very incomplete work of his in progress. I can appreciate his passion and I strongly feel that deleting a body of work that took hours to complete instead of a few minutes would be a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia and a tremendous blow to the editor who created these. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is not paper. It shouldn't be a random collection of facts, but these works don't fall under that category. - Lucky 6.9 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete allMerge per nominator and Fan-1967. Also, while I don't fully know the policy regarding this, courting votes has always seemed dodgy to me (as is being done in this case). --
MZMcBride
04:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
What's sad about your vote is that I wasn't "courting votes" but asking other editors who I have been in touch with (by the way Lucky 6.9 and I only last night had a major argument where he blocked me), but wanted their opinions. Although I asked for their "help" I didn't coach them on their opinion, but said, "if you think the information is important." So, to vote delete based upon this, in my opinion, is "dodgy." can't you give some more depth to your vote than that? Did you even read the articles (which are incomplete)? Looking forward to a response... -- DavidShankBone 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge—I am familiar with the work of Floyd Abrams and the impact he has had upon the law, but dedicating a separate page to each case he has worked on seems like overkill. If there needs to be a page about his work separate and apart from his biographical page, it should be one article dedicated to his work, titled "Litigation of Floyd Abrams" or something like that. It's just a thought...-- Eastlaw 05:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Eastlaw, I have no problem with a merge. To an extent, I'm working/writing in a vacuum. That's why I said above "I'm open to suggestions about how to do this." I felt this was information that we, Wikipedia, could benefit from contributing to the public sphere. But how to do so, frankly, I had difficulty in figuring out. So, I am open to suggestion. but to just delete seems so gorralia-ish to me. I can change my method, but to just not contribute this information is, in my view, myopic. -- DavidShankBone 05:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC) As a PS: Other accomplished attorneys have asked me to do the same thing for their tomes that I am attempting to do for Floyd Abrams. If you all don't see how that validates ALL of us and our work, then that saddens me. reply
Keep all - In response to Eastlaw above, I think the individual case articles are going to be far too detailed to keep them on a single manageable list. These aren't vanity stubs, they're pretty thoroughly sourced. And just because no other living lawyer has articles on his/her cases set up in a series like this, doesn't mean Abrams can't be the first. I thought WP was in the business of innovating the way we collect and present knowledge. These articles take a unique approach that's worthy of continued experimentation.
Every time someone RfD's an interesting or unique article, usually on an obscure subject, just because it doesn't fit into someone's idea of what is "conventional," I'm sadly reminded of the story of the demolition of the old NY Penn Station... Wl219 05:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
What I suggest is this: rename some of rhe articles, example; "The Landmark Communications case" instead of "Floyd Abrams and the Landmark Communications case" and link them to "Floyd Adams" following the example of the Thurgood Marshall article.
Or: rename the "case" articles as mentioned above and create an info box or template such as was done in the Puerto Rican immigration series, ex: French immigration to Puerto Rico#External links, thereby providing an inter link between the articles.
I believe that a "Keep all" with one of the suggestion maybe a good idea. Tony the Marine 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't mind taking the "Floyd Abrams" out of the article titles - it never sat well with me, anyway. I disagree with Nlu's perspective. The reason I don't think these articles fit with the case articles is because they are more examining the strategy and circumstances surrounding the cases, and the people who worked on them, then the "just the facts" aspect of the main case articles. What I most would prefer is if everyone could hold off on making any judgment about the articles until at least two or three are in final format. Right now, I feel these articles are being prematurely judged, that any decision (whether I agree with it or not) might be the wrong one. Nlu, most of these had "under-construction" tags on them, yet you nominated them for deletion. Don't you find this rash, when you don't even know what they are going to look like in final form? You think you know, but you don't; how could you--I don't even know? I have a free Lexis-Nexis account I plan to use. What happens when I start researching Guido Penosi or Helen Whitney or any of a host of other characters in these plays? I don't know. How many other editors have been in the act of creating an article, without even getting the real meat in there, before another editor deletes? It's highly frustrating. Nlu made a comment about my "bad writing", although my Tompkins Square Park Police Riot article is up for a GA, once I make a few minor adjustments. What is the solution between those who create, and those who want to delete information? -- DavidShankBone 14:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep all Perhaps some of them could be merged or renamed, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here. Garion96 (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree with Garion96, there's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a reference. Which is my point: I want to *improve* its use as a reference. Nlu, you have in the comments above made statements about how much information should be in Wikipedia, and how people should use it. I've said my peace on this subject, and the vote has been to keep. So, I'll continue working on them. --
DavidShankBone
02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I have no real opinion on the notability or other merits (or lack thereof) of this project, although "47 contributors" is not exactly indicative of a high notability. This renomination is motivated by guideline compliance: per WP:WEB, "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of [the notability] criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section". This article neither formulates a claim to notability (valid per WP:WEB or otherwise), nor does it back up any such claim with reliable sources. In fact, it has no non-primary sources of any kind, making it also subject to deletion under WP:OR/ WP:V as applied concurrently with WP:RS.
This situation has not been alleviated since the first AfD discussion in July 2006. The prevailing argument then was something like that: Wikinfo is notable because it is a notable Wikipedia fork. This is unpersuasive, because it involves circular reasoning and has no bearing on the requirements of WP:WEB. It was also argued that WP:WEB doesn't apply because Wikinfo is "notable not as a website, but as an open source project fork of a very notable project". This also fails to persuade, because whatever its content or subject, Wikinfo is still a website and as such subject to WP:WEB.
Those wishing to argue that the article should be kept because Wikinfo is of significance to the Wikipedia project or to (some of) its contributors, please consider: In the light of WP:ASR, this should not be a consideration when assessing the notability of encyclopedic content. If the text is somehow relevant to our project (which it may well be), it should be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace.
Since the first nomination seems to have been initiated by a vandal's sockpuppet, I should probably also mention that I am not she or he, and have not been in any way involved with this article until reading it by chance, today. Sandstein 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was both Lunar hotel and Moon hotel redirected to Colonization of the Moon. (aeropagitica) 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not need a separate article from Colonization of the Moon, and there is insufficient useful information that is currently (or can be added) on the page. Delete (not merge). -- Nlu ( talk) 20:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
149 unique Googles [28], two "sources" turn out to be a videocast by the CEO and a review (i.e. not "multiple non-trivial reports" per WP:SOFTWARE). Monograph of single purpose account Khigs ( talk · contribs). Guy 21:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Amateur club, according to WP:CORP, clubs below level 10 in England are generally not notable, and this is no exception. – Elisson • Talk 21:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unaccredited university of no provable significance, contains special pleading, work of a single purpose account. I'm tempted to simply nuke it but there might be some merit in it, especially if we can find cited sources for controversy or allegations of being a degree m ill (which it probably is). On the other hand, we may well be better off without it. Guy 21:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Message from Dr Philip Li, UCLA philip@uclalumni.net
Please note my posting in discussions board, indeed this non traditional University offers programs and have an international network schools with all their names and phone on, most of them are medium to big government schools.
My experience with their partner University in China (UCLA is working with South China Technology University on their master program) shows that they have very strict requirement in choosing partners and St Clements have postgraduate lanaguage programs with them too. The program is more then 1 year and is certainly not a diploma mill.
If anyone is interested I can ask their professors to talk a bit on that in Wikipedia. It is sad that I heard that they cannot access wikipedia.org and I have to redirect this discussions to them.
We have to be fair to global learning institutions and not only conclude from one angle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip.UCLA ( talk • contribs) 05:02, 17 September 2006 UTC.
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a game guide. Possible CSD G3. Note that the user in question has a history of doing things like this.-- Stratadrake 21:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:LIST and WP:LC, Merge to King Arthur, GFDL violation.-- Gaaa 22:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism (per User:Mackensen). -- Omicronpersei8 ( talk) 22:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
NOT, LC, LIST. Trivia information is not encyclopedias. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keane trivia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cher trivia.-- Gaaa 22:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Herostratus 17:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article apparently largely the work of the webmaster, according to exchan ges at the admins' noticeboard, Alexa rank is just short of the million mark. Some minor notoriety, but no real evidence of significance or widespread currency. Guy 22:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Effectively a Merge, since most of this material was already in the Cher article, and that that wasn't I merged in. Herostratus 17:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not tv show guide books-- VVVAAAA 22:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trampoline Wrestling Cordless Larry 22:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, musician w/no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 23:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is related to the declined articles Patrick "Muttons" Riordan and Baby Lettuce and Tomato. Those articles, like this one, violate WP:NOT an advertising service, and do not meet WP criteria for notability. For example, the only relevant hit for this Conor Mackey on Google is this article. MSJapan 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
del vanity. A creator of a nonnotable nonfunctioning website, which is under deletion as well. `' mikka (t) 05:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment keep (not trying to vote twice, even if i was its a bit obvious anyways)
The result was DELETE. Herostratus 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Sub-stub with no possibility for expansion, as there is no verifiable information about the subject available. Notability doubtful. Target of frequent anonymous edit warring ( [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]) regarding Acquisition's GPL compliance; the claim of illegal actions has not been established and may be considered libel. Occasionally edited by an anonymous editor whom I believe may be the subject, who has removed information from the article and related ones ( [43] [44]. — Miles ←☎ 22:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was if someone writes a real article, probably keep it. But since it's a copyvio, it doesn't belong here anymore. - Bobet 13:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom, nominator failed to complete afd process. NawlinWiki 23:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No article just an address entry - Nv8200p talk 23:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) - Nv8200p reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Very few google hits outside of butyoudontlooksick.com, not published in any scholarly journals or articles that I can find. Khatru2 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as the prod which stated "Appears to not-notability vanity made up game. Only google hit is to this article." Khatru2 02:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable website that launched less than a month ago. Blatant advertising, but the CSD was challenged. Harr o 5 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
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 07:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) reply
Speculation - a pov page. Delete. Green caterpillar 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Gone. - Lucky 6.9 17:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This furry webcomic, seen here (The splash page contains no furry porn) has no external sources. The site has an Alexa rank of around 400,000 and "peter is the wolf" gives 90 unique Google links, none of which are from a professional source (review, commentary etc.) This is not a notable website. - Hahnch e n 00:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. - Bobet 15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a multiple nomination, in addition to the webcomic in question the following are also nominated:
The current incarnation of the webcomic Aozora, is the Another Blue Sky story arc, and that, along with the other chapters of this furry webcomic can be seen here at 2wconline, which also hosts a few other things. It can't be that popular though, because there's no Alexa rank for the entire site, and the forums have only picked up 50 members since they opened in March. Googling Aozora "Another Blue Sky" brings up 20 unique results, googling an earlier chapter Aozora "Into Imagination" brings up 50 unique links. None of these are from reliable sources, none of the articles contain any either, the only assertion of notability (found in all 3 articles) is that the author has been a guest at some East Coast furry convention. None of these are notable. - Hahnch e n 00:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not an encyclopedia article, and entirely based around a template which is soon to be deleted as a violation of Hasbro and Mattel's copyright on the board design. I'm also bundling in a very similar article, Example Scrabble tournament game. -- Robth Talk 00:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with Survivor Trivia. -- Madchester 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought, namely Wikipedia is not a provider of Original research. No secondary (media) sources support the claims and ideas presented in the article. Madchester 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect, no arguments for keeping (it's not a vote). I'm redirecting to Keane discography since it actually mentions this, if someone thinks of a better target, feel free to change it. - Bobet 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This isn't at all notable. "This song was never recorded in a studio but it's well-known by some fans of the band" says it all, really. The Mekon 01:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Mango juice talk 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn wrestling show, not a pay-per-view, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ECW_Born_To_Be_Wired for precedent. Renosecond 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also nn AWA show/programs/events:
(Note: I had recently merged the various SuperClash events into a single article, but only one was a PPV as far as I know, but I will keep them off this debate for the time being.) Renosecond 01:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A high school awards/scholarship program in a county in Maryland that doesn't meet notability criteria for inclusion. There were about six of these types of programs at my high school alone. Google search brings up 19 unique hits with Wikipedia being the second. No news mentions to assert significance or importance. -- Wafulz 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Rockville, MD -- The Superintendent’s Leadership Program has selected 14 participants for the 2006-2007 class from among candidates at Montgomery County high schools. The program is the only humanities oriented honors intern program in the county. The curriculum content and style is comparable to many college courses. Students in this program are selected for demonstrating outstanding leadership, academic excellence, and uncommon maturity within their schools and communities.
Students accepted to the program are assigned to work for 15 hours per week for a full academic year under the guidance of a management executive such as a Director, Vice President, or CEO. They are given the chance to handle projects, individually and as part of a team. Business partners to the Montgomery County Public Schools program include corporate, government and nonprofit organizations. The 2007 class participants represent 12 Montgomery County high schools.
Significant program components also include site visits to meet and talk with industry executives working in a wide range of settings, didactic seminars to discuss current issues in the workplace, extensive research and writing assignments, a group community service project and an international business project that reinforces cross-cultural relations and global citizenship.
Kim Jones, Program Director of the Superintendent’s Leadership Program says, “It is critical that students with this level of maturity, that can clearly articulate their career objectives, be given the opportunity to apprentice in their discipline. This program reveals facets of a chosen industry that would otherwise take years to experience.”
For additional information on the Superintendent’s Leadership Program you may go to the website at www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/superintendent/leadership ---- 68.48.32.65 18:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I've just created and started populating Cat:Multimedia artists when I found this. However, the list is largely empty, not to mention that half of the entries don't even have their own articles, or have been deleted/deleted and protected. The category should render it redundant, unless anyone can think of a way to give it more depth. Unint 01:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. Close as prank nomination. Fan-1967 02:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
DELETE Nonnotable chemical. ShinerDawg 02:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Content already exists in Cher article and should remain there Seinfreak37 02:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It's cut and pasted from the main article and since there haven't been significant edits to it (besides a POV intro), there's nothing to merge. - Bobet 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unless I'm wrong, this should remain in the Cher article, should it not? User is creating multiple Cher-related articles similar to this. Seinfreak37 02:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
If this were the case...then shouldnt most of madonna's pages be brought back to the main article? im only makin space for the main article because if one day it gets bigger ur gonna have to take it off Rsf7589 02:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
just so there is no more problems ive merged it back with the main cher article so this page is no longer necessary Rsf7589 14:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 15:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Another Cher-related article that is a direct copy of info that should remain in existing Cher article Seinfreak37 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Pure unadulterated spam. Prod & Prod2 removed without comment.- IceCreamAntisocial 02:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Virginia United States Senate election, 2006; no merge because as far as I can tell this is a verbatim copy of a section in that article. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant PoV fork from Virginia United States Senate election, 2006 duplicating all content of a subsection without debate or consensus. Namespace is a NN neologism apparently coined for the occasion. Rosicrucian 02:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
*Merge the content back, perhaps delete this as a redirect. This is a neologism and POV fork.--
Cúchullain
t/
c
03:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC) (see below)
reply
The result was merge. It's untenable to include all this in Cher, so I'm merging to Cher discography. Mango juice talk 15:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Should this content not remain in the Cher article? Someone please message me if there is a better way to notify admin of this. Seinfreak37 02:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
y delete it look at it its the same thing madonna has n i even made sure nothing is repeated twice look at every page on tha cher box its all different Rsf7589 02:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nothing has 2 articles of the same subject anymore i made sure of that...just take another look now Rsf7589 02:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
i never said i didnt did i? anyway look i was only tryin categorize cher the way this is Madonna discography take a look at that and its box... i made cher's the same way so if there was something wrong with mine was erased then i guess this one should too, its the exact same thing Rsf7589 03:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
when r u gonna suggest that? Rsf7589 03:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
ok so r u gonna pput a sign sayin that they need to merged or something? Rsf7589 03:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
ok one more thing can i merge every page into the discography or wat put it into the main page? and another ? wats wrong with makin a box like that its not only madonna that has it...ive seen at least more than 20 artist with that Rsf7589 03:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
ok so i merged every article back to the main cher article that u guys wanted me to, but about this one are u gonna keep it or not cuz some of u feel as it should stay Rsf7589 14:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was scrap it. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable UK student magazine. It's distributed at three top schools, but that in itself doesn't confer notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete'. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Graduate of a diploma mill, pastor at a church, teacher at Tyndale Theological Seminary-- which got sued by the state of Texas to stop issuing degrees. Person fails WP:BIO. The amazon.com sales for Progressive Dispensationalism is at 1,014,051, doesn't even crack the top million. Arbusto 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Startup video game company crated in 2005 by the creator of the article. A google search of the company and its one game brings up zero relevant results, which is pretty telling for a video game company. Doesn't meet criteria in WP:CORP and it isn't verifiable. Wafulz 02:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No sources, writing is practically beyond repair, subject may not even be notable in the first place. ~ Lav-chan 02:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Despite low participation, it's clear the hoax issue (the only deletion reason given) has been resolved. Mango juice talk 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, this is an elaborate hoax. Some history: It was tagged speedy, I removed the tag because it wasn't appropriate and I actually thought the tag was added in error (see the history and you might see why). In any case, it had been added intentionally, but hoaxes are not speedy-able, so the same editor prodded it. An anon removed the prod with "not a hoax" as a summary, so we find ourselves here. I have to say, I can find no evidence that this movie is being planned whatsoever. There is no IMDB page, and this search returns essentially no hits. Anything is possible, but it seems extremely unlikely to me that a project being planned with stars of this magnitude would not leave a large Google footprint. Deville ( Talk) 03:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. No evidence of notability or even participation in this sport outside the university campus where it is calimed to have originated, delete-- Peta 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is just a list of music videos, with no claim to importance other than they were in the first hour of programming of a TV channel. Why not the second hour? Or the videos shows on the first weekend? There's no real significance claimed for this list. eaolson 03:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mango juice talk 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Anonymous editor User:72.130.139.71 attempted to nominate this article for deletion, stating on the talk page: "Astrosociology is not a recognized subfield of sociology. There are no publications on astrosociology in any reputable peer-reviewed sociology journal. Activity is confined to a web site and to unregulated/open (non-peer-reviewed) conference sessions." I'm completing this nomination for courtesy, but no vote on my part yet. -- Metropolitan90 04:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Then there are this entry in David Darling's Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, Astronomy, and Spaceflight and this segment on The Space Show with Dr David Livingston (not the NAS one).
Yes, there are people who think that astrosociology is total drek. But in the irony that is encyclopaedism, people writing lengthy treatises explaining why something is rubbish actually provides more material for an encyclopaedia article to be based upon. Uncle G 12:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 15:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webcomic with no reliable sources of information. ~500k Alexa rank. Prod removed by anon with no explanation. No coverage from independent sources and not meeting WP:WEB means Delete. Wickethewok 04:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The article has been given time for expansion/merging, and I have personally notified the DRV nominator of this discussion. The lack of interest in actually doing the expansion, coupled with the complete failure to cite WP:RS in the article and/or assert notability of any kind, allows only one possible result here. Xoloz 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A DRV consensus concluded that this page merited reconsideration, mostly to discuss whether merging it to a target is appropriate, and (if so) to which target. Please consult the DRV. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Bobet 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research and unverified, thus failing both the WP:OR and WP:V criterias. Most of these so-called "cliches" would obviously appear in a video game depending on the game's setting. For example, one cliche is finding toilets in FPS video games involving humans, which is obvious in that there are many humans who use toilets now. Also, some cliches don't apply only to video games, but to all forms of media, including books, films. etc.-- TBC TaLk?!? 04:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy // Pilotguy ( Have your say) 04:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity page; only used to promote two students and their non-notable production company website UnderPressure 04:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There are lots of suggestions provided for improving the article by changing its name, merging it, editing it, et cetera, that should not be ignored, but cannot be forced after this discussion. Mango juice talk 18:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like incorrect original research, no citations, not sufficient to merit its own article Holdek (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable internet meme, probably a neologism, which we should avoid. Article prodded three minutes after creation in May, [9] deprodded [10] by article creator with a comment in the talk page. [11] although I find some problems with the reasoning:
Article has no references, quite a lot of speculation. Finally, note that it has recently been linked from Joystiq at http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/15/megaton-the-story-behind-the-meme/ which may bring some disruption. -- ReyBrujo 04:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wrestling e-fed, which has been agreed is not notable and every e-fed nominated has been deleted for this same reason TJ Spyke 05:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable, and copyvio for the first 70% of the article. Claims to hold patents, granted in 1994; but, article states that in 2001, he was 23 years old. Two or more people with the same name; and the ending link to a weblog points to vanity as well Neier 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and create a redirect to Dystheism. - Bobet 16:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism; Google hits are to Wikipedia-related sources or to one blog with few comments; article itself lacks references and does not concern a term used in standard intellectual history ThaddeusFrye 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
"a Richmond, Virginia based web hosting provider ... which has a grand total of under 200 customers" Salad Days 05:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested (kinda) prod. Intended to disparage the police and completely unencyclopedic in nature. I was tempted to speedy it, it seems like it'd fit as an attack page (would it?) -- JS talk 05:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a game guide. This page provides a list of all the units in Age of Empires III and gives information on which units are effective against other units. This makes it a clear violation of WP:NOT. Was successfully prodded at some point but was recreated recently. Indrian 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was userfy to User:Thewanjala, although I'm not really convinced that's very useful considering the author's only edits are to this article. If the author never returns, I'll delete it later if someone reminds me. - Bobet 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I cannot fathom why an encyclopedia would warrant an entry on such an ordinary gentleman. Salad Days 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete the content, make a new redirect to Enlargement. - Bobet 16:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Came across this page while clearing out stubs, seems to me that this page is inherently dicdef and cannot be anything more. What is here now seems to be a unique mix of dicdef and POV pushing Deville ( Talk) 06:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable - only one minor role in not very important program. My prod was deleted without response or improvement -- nkayesmith 07:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 04:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article has been marked WP:V by one editor, prodded by me, fails WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. Business commenced in 2006 cannot be notable. Delete. -- Richhoncho 07:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A completely unsourced and unverifiable article that tries to list families belonging to the Nair caste of Hinduism. There are thousands of such families in Kerala, and hence it is totally un-encyclopedic to have such a listing. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. thund e rboltz (Deepu) 07:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously speedied article that still doesn't seem to assert any other notability than getting #8 in a local music poll. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Just another rumoured name for The Re-Up album of Eminem, but this one is a combination of two rumoured names. An article named "Final Requests" has already been removed. Michaelas10 07:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. Alexa rank 45,958. Delete per WP:WEB. Haakon 08:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 19:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The subject of this article does not have enough notability Criptofcorbin 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
From a technical standpoint, this meets Criteria 3 on the Web Content Notability standards. - Toptomcat 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
comment Why are wikipedia users so often hostile to internet culture. A artilce about Internet culture is more likely to be deleted than a less notable article about something else.... Zazaban 22:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply
What did I do wrong?: Obvious I made a mistake. This article has been listed for 9 days now. Everything I have read says it should be decided within 5 days. This is the first time I have ever put an article up for deletion and I tried to follow the step by step process, but it seems to me that I must have made an error somewhere. Could someone who knows more about this help me out and get this discuss back on the admins list of articles up for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criptofcorbin ( talk • contribs) 08:11, September 25, 2006
The result was delete. - Bobet 16:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Do I have to say anything? The name says it all. Oh, alright. This is complete and utter listcruft, combining two things to form an indiscriminate collection of information. Do we really need a list of causes of death for every group of people? How about Causes of death of Bavarian monarchs or Causes of death of editors of the Economist? Nydas 08:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 18:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Inherently POV article which uses original research to create a list of various unrelated incidents, none of which should be categorised simply as "anti-American" in an encyclopedia. Incidents such as the assassination of Lincoln are linked to the Oklahoma bombing under this title for no discernible reason. Have any of these acts been described simply as "anti-American"? - And how many of these acts have been described as terrorism? We don't know, there are no sources anyway. Zleitzen 08:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. I count 12-6 in favor of Keep, but I didn't close as Keep in spite of the numbers because the argument that the list is and has been shown to be unmaintainable is the strongest argument made in my opinion.
Wikipedia is not a directory; The persons listed here have not "significantly contributed to the list topic" . Their contributions are in other fields and this list merely traces the caste they belong to. It is not known wheteher everyone listed here would like to be listed as members of a particular caste or whether they consider themselves to be members of a particular caste. Clt13 09:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a nonsense article based on casteist bias,and most of these people listed have not made any contribution to socail life
Delete. I am certain none of these people were famous for being Nairs or whatever. Caste identities of people have been banned by law and hence this list should be deleted- Manu
Weak Keep - The concept is sound as per the List of Muslim actors, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, etc. However, it needs serious NPOV'ing, cleaning-up, and verification. Whether these people have denounced their caste origins or not - that is irrelevant. It is simply a list. I am not sure about serving to "further" casteist agendas or whatever. At the very least, it is a list of people. I would have said Keep had the article been better written. --Vivin Paliath (വിവി൯ പാലിയത്)
Strong Keep- the article is very informative. giving informations on any subject under the sun is the increases the relevance and scope of an encyclopedia. Some editing may be needed. then do it. Actually i'm a Christian. But i can tolerate and respect other Castes and creeds.. Add more and more informations in wikipedia. Rosalinta 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment As I mentioned above, it is tough to maintain this article because of the many unimportant and unverified entries and too many drive-by editors (See
Edit history). Can any of the people who voted to save the article volunteer to keep it clean ? I hope the responsibility doesn't end with the vote.
Tintin (
talk)
04:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
Comment This debate would become very constructive, if the participants base the arguments on wikipedia policies. We are not making any value judgments or taking moral stand points. The aim is to discuss whether this list is acceptable as an article in wikipedia, wikipedia policies regarding this and also practical considerations in implementing them. Arguments like "giving informations on any subject under the sun is the increases the relevance and scope of an encyclopedia." are in fact against the policies. See WP:NOT(Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) Clt13 11:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep but rename to "List of Nairs". Bakaman Bakatalk 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep- Most of the persons got enlisted in the list of famous Nairs have incomparable contributions to the social life. Political leader Jaya Jaitly is the nephew of C.Sankaran Nair. (How many of us know that the National level leader and former M.P Jaya Jaitly is a Malayali...?). It was new information to me which I recieved from Nairs List. I have just picked a sample of valuable information. Many freedom Fighters and social reformers are enlisted in the list of famous Nairs. Are they not famous enough...? The next generation will tell that Gandhiji is not famous enough as model John Abraham or Aiswarya Rai. Somebody may ask who is Mannathu Padmanabhan...? I know only Sreesanth and Munaf Patel!
Adv. P. R. Bijuchandran
04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
Comment This is precisely the point. Most of us know Jaya Jaitly (she is notable and so there should be a page on her) but not as a Nair, not as some one born at a particular hour of day, not as some one who keeps a particular pet, not as some one who frequents this particular restaurant, not as some one whose house number starts with *, etc. All such lists are irrelevant. Clt13 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep- This item is much relevant in the present context.Several novel information which are not known to many can be made open for the generation. Parayanali 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted, appears to be little more than an original research essay. Cyde Weys 02:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is confused and has no sources. It aims to discuss the phenomenon of Anti-Europeanism in specific countries. But then confesses that the definition is still up for debate. Having never heard of the context of the term, (anti-European refers to opposition to the EU as far as I know) and am provided with no sources to convince me that it is a term worthy of an encyclopedia, I see no reason for the article. The only example offered after 6 months is Iran - the article states "As in many other religious countries, Anti-Europeanism in Iran raises from the perception that Europe is too liberal." - what? according to whom? Zleitzen 10:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was deleteandmayberedirect. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been here since March 2006, with an additional few deleted entries dating back to 2004. Considering that it has been on Wikipedia for 2 years without being properly referenced by a reliable source, I have an inclination that this word is simply made up, and at best a "neologism" of some sort. Delete HappyCamper 10:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted, appears to be some hoax or otherwise unverifiable activity. Cyde Weys 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The 'verify' tag has now been on the entry for more than a year, and no references have been added. Every one of the references either goes back to the 'Horrible histories' book, or is effectively identical to the account in that book: either they all go back to that book, or some of them come from the same source as that book. If somebody can identify that source, the article may be verifiable; but otherwise I suggest it is unverifiable and should be deleted. ColinFine 11:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
:A new children's history book that tells how Scots used to pull the legs of dead cows was under attack yesterday. Bloody Scotland, by Englishman Terry Deary, says "twisting the cow" was popular at the Invergarry Games in 1820.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Because the case is currently before the court, the family respectfully requested that this case maintain a low profile so that it doesn't go against Kelly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenelo ( talk • contribs)
Note: To prevent the matter of contention from being picked up in forks, I've stubified the article. Here's a link to the version before I stubified it: pre-stubbing Andjam 05:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to meet WP:BIO. MER-C 12:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Here are just 4:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1185807,00.html http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1755739,00.html http://www.offensief.demon.nl/oud/martinpowell.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990406/ai_n14224554 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekmcmillan ( talk • contribs) (This is the creator of the article)
The result was delete. Joelito ( talk) 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod. Autobiography. I think he falls just below our notability threshold. -- RHaworth 12:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 20:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hmmm...biography with no assertion of notability other than that he spoke on the radio once (how many people have done that?). I would like to try to keep this neutral, but perhaps the fact that this person is the "inventor" of a "thought screen helmet" designed to stop "alien mind control" and curtail abductions deserves mention. But at any rate, this fails notability, verifiability, etc., etc., etc. Byrgenwulf 12:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
(resetting indent). I think subject is better than target, and agree that there are some things that would be clearer in the context of the article. I think tongue-in-cheek is the standard phrase over tongue-and-cheek. But these are tiny details. I think that this is quite good now, and all we need is to see if the other editors who have been voting on this are pretty much in agreement, and we can go ahead and do this... Indeed, you could probably add the text you've suggested to tin-foil hat now, and then we can just see if others are in agreement to close the AfD and delete. Perhaps we give it another day, since the AfD has been pretty active? Edhubbard 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply
In favor of merge:
Opposed to merge (keep):
Opposed to merge (delete):
I am assuming, since there haven't been any votes recently, that we can close this AfD, with a final decision of deleting the article. The material that Zagalejo wanted to salvage has been moved into Tin-foil hat, so there's no reason to keep this article. If no one objects in the next 24 hours, I'll close the debate, and we can have this article deleted. Edhubbard 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
POV advertisement for a non-notable amateur video production. ZimZalaBim ( talk) 12:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No real consensus to merge, but that's not a concern of afd anyway. If someone wants to merge, no one stops it (at least based on this afd). - Bobet 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The article makes sweeping POV statements that tend to condemn what Santorum said. The controversy is not any more noteworthy than incidents by, among others, Howard Dean, George Allen, and Joseph Biden, who each have their controversies described in the text of their biographies. A nearly identical summary exists in Santorum's biography, which should be sufficient to discuss the controversy. On account of it being a redunant entry, a biased article, and lacking meaningful support (for instance, the "defense of remarks" section is largely ad hoc), coupled with the fact that it's not any more noteworthy than similarly-situated controversies, it should be deleted. The incident will still remain in the official Rick Santorum page. Zz414 13:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mango juice talk 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable THB 00:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WHAT!?!?--
Drahcir
my talk
19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Single one off usage by Jon Stewart referring to the Christian fundamentalist neoconservative base doesn't need its own article. It's usage in the context was specifically a reference to Senator John McCain's commencement speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University which was seen as a reversal of McCain's policies of not adhering to a single base in violation of his beliefs.
It's a neologism used only once and it hasn't shown any legs, besides that if it does get picked up it's impossible to actually predictnig this was the earliest origin considering the numerous names of the past that have been used in reference to the fundamentalist Christian neoconservatives. –– Lid( Talk) 13:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The article describes yet another suggested system for transcribing Persian into the Latin script. The article is created by the person who has suggested the system (Moslehi). A Google search
[17] doesn't give much about this certain "IPA2" apart from Wikipedia, its mirrors, and its IPA2's homepage.
roozbeh
13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Not much discussion, but the article itself doesn't establish notability, and the nominator obviously tried to find something to add but failed. - Bobet 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Looking on google (and, yes, I know it's not the end all be all of notability) "Tommy Nero" generates 5,240 hits [20]. But a quick look shows some are in Italian (Nero being an Italian surname) and this article is about an American. It also seems to be many pages not about the same guy. So the article says he is a fashion designer. "Tommy Nero" + fashion (a logical search since he is said to be a fashion designer, and hence the reason for his notability) leads to this - 882 hits [21]. I'll let the voters sift thru these links, but you will notice most are blogs and self-generated press releases matching the links on the article (www.pressreleasespider.com, www.365business.info, www.articles-hub.com, ad nauseum), and many of those are actually dead links. The constant thru all of those postings is "fashion fusion" and a place/venue called deja vu. So "Tommy Nero" + fashion, - fusion, -dejavu (if he is a real fashion designer of note, removing 2 keywords should still generate many hits) and you are down to 100 [22] and most of those are just wikimirrors and myspace links. The only "war correspondent" pieces offered up are an interview of an heir of the Benz family upon his graduation from basic training (not exactly in the heat of battle) and then posted on a web site called www.prweb.com and an interview with a captain who was in Iraq, a link that is now dead.-- Nobunaga24 13:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged and Speedied. Contested, so AfD. No vote. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 23:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Does not seem to be notable. MER-C 14:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 23:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod (by the author.) Appears to be a neologism. The article is basically a dictionary definition. Quite a few Google hits, but largely because it seems to be a not-uncommon user name. Can't find any reliable sources discussing this word. eaolson 14:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
People do use the phrase "blonky" in conversation. You have to remember that not every one is an old man who sits in front of a computer everyday.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lassal ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 September 2006.
The result was Deleted, Wikipedia does not need a separate article for each little tour of small bands listing each tour stop. Cyde Weys 02:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Fancruft, not at all encyclopedic. The Mekon 15:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to fansub. Mango juice talk 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:OR and WP:NN, google 651hit.-- Rocketds 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 13:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Does anybody other than an ardent Keane fan care about this song? There's nothing particularly useful here, and it's badly written from the start. Fancruft.) The Mekon 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:OR and WP:NN.-- Rocketds 15:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was keep. --- Deville ( Talk) 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:OR, WP:NN and WP:HOAX.-- Rocketds 15:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. *blinks* Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn group.-- Rocketds 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)— Rocketds ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 13:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn Organization-- Sss6e 08:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. --- Deville ( Talk) 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
corporation or organization for which the article fails to assert any notability. What little content there is seems to be borderline promotional or opinion. Nothing has linked to this article since its creation in 2004. Agent 86 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted, powering Wikinfo really doesn't establish sufficient notability. Cyde Weys 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet another bit of wiki software, 134 unique Googles excluding mirrors, seems to be notable solely for violating GPL. Version 1.0 product despite the initial fork being in 2004. No evidence presented of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Guy 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - per David Cannon Unitedroad 11:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirected. MER-C 02:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if this page is notable. So i put it here. All it is is a list of the different letters and numbers on a keyboard. Lorty 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted, CSD G1. --- Deville ( Talk) 17:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Erroneous user page; vandalized Roanoke County, Virginia LightI3ulb 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 15:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was prodded, but had previously been sent to AfD without consensus. If an AfD discussion can't generate consensus, then it hardly seems my place to unilaterally delete it. See the previous discussion for more information. The prod reason given was "This article lacks information, and may not be fit for an encyclopedia, if you cant name who might be the masked men, or when this whole song was created, your only sayin who the song was disin' , and who might have made this song. THIS ARTICLE NEEDS MORE INFO." So, input? Luna Santin 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - complete fancruft, never gonna happen, re-created content, etc. This article has been up multiple times (with different titles, of course), and every time it has either been speedy deleted or deleted, as shown here and here. MikeWazowski 16:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. However, the edit history is helpful if someone wanted to use it, and there's no reason to have the redlinks, so I'm going to redirect this to Storytelling instead of deleting; I hope no one minds. Mango juice talk 15:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
It is little more than a stubby dictionary definition, and a one entry dab page, the former is not appropriate for wikipedia, and the latter is redundant Guinness 17:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. I added them to the accessory table. Mango juice talk 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable iPod accessory, even if it does come from Apple. Only marginally more notable that iPod socks. I don't believe it, we have a page on iPod socks. AlistairMcMillan 17:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because... seriously... iPod socks??? How would you even begin to justify the notability of socks?
The result was delete. - Bobet 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:WEB or WP:CORP. 100% spam Storkk 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mango juice talk 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep it. Anything is considered a dialect of English if it is different in any way. If you hear a Utahan speak it, you will know what it is. And religious influences do have something to do with language, because vocabulary is a part of language.
Given the new sources, information, etc., I move that the article be removed from candidacy as an article for deletion. Cathryn 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 04:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. There is absolutely no context given in this article. It's some kind of contest, but who's running it and why? [Check Google hits] shows 0 results. Prod tag (added by me) removed by author. ... discospinster talk 18:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) 04:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't see the significance of keeping this article. Triviaa 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. When Mr. Martin achieves the required level of notability, we will be able to find reputable, third-party sources from which to write the new article. Plus WP:LIVING concerns. - Doc 23:44, 17 September 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 article was originally nominated for deletion here. Though because it was affected significantly by sockpuppeting of the article creator ( checkuser), I relisted the nomination. WinHunter ( talk) 12:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
(original nom statement) self-promotional, clearly written by the person himself for vanity purposes. not notable, missing references. claims to have been "special counsel" to PayPal co-founder without citing proper sources. Wikiyoman 01:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This list is poorly maintained, contains misinformation, and doesn’t portray the information that it should. – Zntrip 18:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
notability not established ....no sources Joan-of-arc 18:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Protologism. Zero google hits. I moved it to Wiktionary, under List of protologisms, so it should be deleted from here now. Rawr 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It's a copyvio, and even if permission was given it wouldn't be encyclopedic in it's form so I'll just delete it. If someone wants to write an original article, great. - Bobet 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD tag was placed by User:Archibald99 but not followed up. Abstain on my part, though I would like to point out that while the subject appears to have some notability as a writer-philosopher (see Catalan entry), the text of the article is simply a copy of existing text from another web page. ... discospinster talk 19:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - unencyclopedic, copied from another site. Archibald99 19:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No claims of notability. Alexa rank 79,460. Delete per WP:EL. Haakon 20:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep for the moment. (aeropagitica) 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
My gut feeling is that this band is not yet sufficiently notable, but wanted to AfD it to see what people think. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 20:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) (In light of discussion below, I think a redirect to Matt Walker (drummer) would also be appropriate.) -- Nlu ( talk) 23:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No consensus on merging, but anyone can be bold and do that if they feel like it. - Bobet 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Floyd Abrams appears to be sufficiently notable, but a separate article for his involvement in each (important, for sure) case he argued in? Too much information, and way too much branching. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 20:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion (see List of prominent cases argued by Floyd Abrams for more information -- I am not nominating the list for deletion):
KEEP ALL: I'm the author of the articles. Floyd Abrams is inextricably linked with every notion of the First Amendment that we, as Americans, have. You can't separate his arguments from how Freedom of Speech is interpreted in the United States. I took it upon myself to summarize--there is *no* copyright violation, and I'm a law student, so I know--to be found here. I think this is very important information. The man has argued before the Supreme Court numerous times. His thoughts, observations, and the people he has come into contact with are living history. If you look at the biography I wrote of him (incomplete) you'll have a sense of this. I'm open to figuring out a better way to do this, but basically I am summarizing an historical document that many law students will find fascinating and informative--make Wikipedia more relevant to their lives. And to ours. I review his legal strategy, his observations on the Supreme Court and standing before them, the legal problems he encountered, and how he dealt with them. If not Wikipedia, where else? The way I have set it up seemed like the best way to go about it. It's a long process, longer than I thought. Mainly because I work and have other scholastic endeavors. But I think it would be a real shame to delete these articles without trying to preserve the information. The man is a legend. His word carries weight in many circles. He is the father of Dan Abrams. I think we would hurt the site if we voted to delete this series. Frankly, I think it speaks to what Wikipedia can be--an amazing treasure trove of information. All the wording is my own; I was carefult to rephrase and re-work the text. There is also an entire subset of articles I've created based on these cases. What I plan to do once I am done summarizing/rewording the cases based upon the memoir is research newspaper articles (with my free Lexis account) and other reviews, editorials and newspaper clippings about the cases, to make them more full-bodied and NOT just about Abrams's point of view. But my starting point has been his memoir. Yes, I do revere him--we all should, in my humble opinion--but I also want to make the articles more complete and not so Abrams-centric. That takes time, guys. I'm trying. -- DavidShankBone 03:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep all, I looked over the articles expecting them to be boring but, they are not. These articles are well written and referenced. They have not violeted any of Wikipedias policies which would reguire a vote for deletion. I can't understand a "vote" for deletion on the speculation that they have a copyright violation. I can understand a delete vote if a copyright violation has been proven, but this does not seem to be the case. The writer or originator seems to have spent lots of time in these articles and to delete his well writen work would not only discourage him but, would also discourage other excelent writers from contributing to our Pedia.
Sure he wrote quite a lot of independent articles related to the same lawyer however, it would impractible to lump them all in one article. This is what is considered a "series" (and I have seen other series in Wikipedia). As long as there aren't any copyright violations and the articles are encyclopedic and informative within Wikipedia guidelines, I urge a Keep. Tony the Marine 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep all per Tony the Marine. In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of detailed information that sets Wikipedia apart from any other resource either in print or on the internet. We've all written articles on some pretty ephemeral subjects at one time or another. For instance, I wound up writing a separate article for the technical specs on the Mercedes-Benz 6.9 article I worked on. I've only recently discovered this user's work, mostly because I've been away for so long. He is extremely passionate about his work and I found that out when I deleted a very incomplete work of his in progress. I can appreciate his passion and I strongly feel that deleting a body of work that took hours to complete instead of a few minutes would be a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia and a tremendous blow to the editor who created these. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is not paper. It shouldn't be a random collection of facts, but these works don't fall under that category. - Lucky 6.9 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete allMerge per nominator and Fan-1967. Also, while I don't fully know the policy regarding this, courting votes has always seemed dodgy to me (as is being done in this case). --
MZMcBride
04:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
What's sad about your vote is that I wasn't "courting votes" but asking other editors who I have been in touch with (by the way Lucky 6.9 and I only last night had a major argument where he blocked me), but wanted their opinions. Although I asked for their "help" I didn't coach them on their opinion, but said, "if you think the information is important." So, to vote delete based upon this, in my opinion, is "dodgy." can't you give some more depth to your vote than that? Did you even read the articles (which are incomplete)? Looking forward to a response... -- DavidShankBone 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge—I am familiar with the work of Floyd Abrams and the impact he has had upon the law, but dedicating a separate page to each case he has worked on seems like overkill. If there needs to be a page about his work separate and apart from his biographical page, it should be one article dedicated to his work, titled "Litigation of Floyd Abrams" or something like that. It's just a thought...-- Eastlaw 05:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Eastlaw, I have no problem with a merge. To an extent, I'm working/writing in a vacuum. That's why I said above "I'm open to suggestions about how to do this." I felt this was information that we, Wikipedia, could benefit from contributing to the public sphere. But how to do so, frankly, I had difficulty in figuring out. So, I am open to suggestion. but to just delete seems so gorralia-ish to me. I can change my method, but to just not contribute this information is, in my view, myopic. -- DavidShankBone 05:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC) As a PS: Other accomplished attorneys have asked me to do the same thing for their tomes that I am attempting to do for Floyd Abrams. If you all don't see how that validates ALL of us and our work, then that saddens me. reply
Keep all - In response to Eastlaw above, I think the individual case articles are going to be far too detailed to keep them on a single manageable list. These aren't vanity stubs, they're pretty thoroughly sourced. And just because no other living lawyer has articles on his/her cases set up in a series like this, doesn't mean Abrams can't be the first. I thought WP was in the business of innovating the way we collect and present knowledge. These articles take a unique approach that's worthy of continued experimentation.
Every time someone RfD's an interesting or unique article, usually on an obscure subject, just because it doesn't fit into someone's idea of what is "conventional," I'm sadly reminded of the story of the demolition of the old NY Penn Station... Wl219 05:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
What I suggest is this: rename some of rhe articles, example; "The Landmark Communications case" instead of "Floyd Abrams and the Landmark Communications case" and link them to "Floyd Adams" following the example of the Thurgood Marshall article.
Or: rename the "case" articles as mentioned above and create an info box or template such as was done in the Puerto Rican immigration series, ex: French immigration to Puerto Rico#External links, thereby providing an inter link between the articles.
I believe that a "Keep all" with one of the suggestion maybe a good idea. Tony the Marine 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't mind taking the "Floyd Abrams" out of the article titles - it never sat well with me, anyway. I disagree with Nlu's perspective. The reason I don't think these articles fit with the case articles is because they are more examining the strategy and circumstances surrounding the cases, and the people who worked on them, then the "just the facts" aspect of the main case articles. What I most would prefer is if everyone could hold off on making any judgment about the articles until at least two or three are in final format. Right now, I feel these articles are being prematurely judged, that any decision (whether I agree with it or not) might be the wrong one. Nlu, most of these had "under-construction" tags on them, yet you nominated them for deletion. Don't you find this rash, when you don't even know what they are going to look like in final form? You think you know, but you don't; how could you--I don't even know? I have a free Lexis-Nexis account I plan to use. What happens when I start researching Guido Penosi or Helen Whitney or any of a host of other characters in these plays? I don't know. How many other editors have been in the act of creating an article, without even getting the real meat in there, before another editor deletes? It's highly frustrating. Nlu made a comment about my "bad writing", although my Tompkins Square Park Police Riot article is up for a GA, once I make a few minor adjustments. What is the solution between those who create, and those who want to delete information? -- DavidShankBone 14:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep all Perhaps some of them could be merged or renamed, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here. Garion96 (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree with Garion96, there's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a reference. Which is my point: I want to *improve* its use as a reference. Nlu, you have in the comments above made statements about how much information should be in Wikipedia, and how people should use it. I've said my peace on this subject, and the vote has been to keep. So, I'll continue working on them. --
DavidShankBone
02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I have no real opinion on the notability or other merits (or lack thereof) of this project, although "47 contributors" is not exactly indicative of a high notability. This renomination is motivated by guideline compliance: per WP:WEB, "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of [the notability] criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section". This article neither formulates a claim to notability (valid per WP:WEB or otherwise), nor does it back up any such claim with reliable sources. In fact, it has no non-primary sources of any kind, making it also subject to deletion under WP:OR/ WP:V as applied concurrently with WP:RS.
This situation has not been alleviated since the first AfD discussion in July 2006. The prevailing argument then was something like that: Wikinfo is notable because it is a notable Wikipedia fork. This is unpersuasive, because it involves circular reasoning and has no bearing on the requirements of WP:WEB. It was also argued that WP:WEB doesn't apply because Wikinfo is "notable not as a website, but as an open source project fork of a very notable project". This also fails to persuade, because whatever its content or subject, Wikinfo is still a website and as such subject to WP:WEB.
Those wishing to argue that the article should be kept because Wikinfo is of significance to the Wikipedia project or to (some of) its contributors, please consider: In the light of WP:ASR, this should not be a consideration when assessing the notability of encyclopedic content. If the text is somehow relevant to our project (which it may well be), it should be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace.
Since the first nomination seems to have been initiated by a vandal's sockpuppet, I should probably also mention that I am not she or he, and have not been in any way involved with this article until reading it by chance, today. Sandstein 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was both Lunar hotel and Moon hotel redirected to Colonization of the Moon. (aeropagitica) 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not need a separate article from Colonization of the Moon, and there is insufficient useful information that is currently (or can be added) on the page. Delete (not merge). -- Nlu ( talk) 20:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
149 unique Googles [28], two "sources" turn out to be a videocast by the CEO and a review (i.e. not "multiple non-trivial reports" per WP:SOFTWARE). Monograph of single purpose account Khigs ( talk · contribs). Guy 21:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Amateur club, according to WP:CORP, clubs below level 10 in England are generally not notable, and this is no exception. – Elisson • Talk 21:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unaccredited university of no provable significance, contains special pleading, work of a single purpose account. I'm tempted to simply nuke it but there might be some merit in it, especially if we can find cited sources for controversy or allegations of being a degree m ill (which it probably is). On the other hand, we may well be better off without it. Guy 21:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Message from Dr Philip Li, UCLA philip@uclalumni.net
Please note my posting in discussions board, indeed this non traditional University offers programs and have an international network schools with all their names and phone on, most of them are medium to big government schools.
My experience with their partner University in China (UCLA is working with South China Technology University on their master program) shows that they have very strict requirement in choosing partners and St Clements have postgraduate lanaguage programs with them too. The program is more then 1 year and is certainly not a diploma mill.
If anyone is interested I can ask their professors to talk a bit on that in Wikipedia. It is sad that I heard that they cannot access wikipedia.org and I have to redirect this discussions to them.
We have to be fair to global learning institutions and not only conclude from one angle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip.UCLA ( talk • contribs) 05:02, 17 September 2006 UTC.
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a game guide. Possible CSD G3. Note that the user in question has a history of doing things like this.-- Stratadrake 21:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:LIST and WP:LC, Merge to King Arthur, GFDL violation.-- Gaaa 22:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism (per User:Mackensen). -- Omicronpersei8 ( talk) 22:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
NOT, LC, LIST. Trivia information is not encyclopedias. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keane trivia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cher trivia.-- Gaaa 22:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Herostratus 17:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article apparently largely the work of the webmaster, according to exchan ges at the admins' noticeboard, Alexa rank is just short of the million mark. Some minor notoriety, but no real evidence of significance or widespread currency. Guy 22:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Effectively a Merge, since most of this material was already in the Cher article, and that that wasn't I merged in. Herostratus 17:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not tv show guide books-- VVVAAAA 22:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trampoline Wrestling Cordless Larry 22:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, musician w/no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 23:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is related to the declined articles Patrick "Muttons" Riordan and Baby Lettuce and Tomato. Those articles, like this one, violate WP:NOT an advertising service, and do not meet WP criteria for notability. For example, the only relevant hit for this Conor Mackey on Google is this article. MSJapan 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
del vanity. A creator of a nonnotable nonfunctioning website, which is under deletion as well. `' mikka (t) 05:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment keep (not trying to vote twice, even if i was its a bit obvious anyways)
The result was DELETE. Herostratus 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Sub-stub with no possibility for expansion, as there is no verifiable information about the subject available. Notability doubtful. Target of frequent anonymous edit warring ( [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]) regarding Acquisition's GPL compliance; the claim of illegal actions has not been established and may be considered libel. Occasionally edited by an anonymous editor whom I believe may be the subject, who has removed information from the article and related ones ( [43] [44]. — Miles ←☎ 22:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was if someone writes a real article, probably keep it. But since it's a copyvio, it doesn't belong here anymore. - Bobet 13:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom, nominator failed to complete afd process. NawlinWiki 23:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No article just an address entry - Nv8200p talk 23:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) - Nv8200p reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Very few google hits outside of butyoudontlooksick.com, not published in any scholarly journals or articles that I can find. Khatru2 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as the prod which stated "Appears to not-notability vanity made up game. Only google hit is to this article." Khatru2 02:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable website that launched less than a month ago. Blatant advertising, but the CSD was challenged. Harr o 5 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply