The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. By an astonishing coincidence, User:DirectBuy's only contribs are to this article. A more flagrant case of WP:SPAM would be hard to find. VoiceOfReason 22:50, 22 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
What the heck? I got sent an email that my page on the word Fwenty was a test page. I assure you it is not, and I can name over 100 people that know about the word and would approve its use. If I need a petition of some sort, then I'll do it. Otherwise, I don't see what is so wrong with it.
The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like someone's attempt to get their own work published on Wikipedia, like if WP was a hosting service. Scobell302 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No sources per WP:RS, fails Google test. The choreographer may be notable but I doubt this dance style is. Doesn't seem to be documented well enough, at least. Crystallina 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
spammy, alexa rating of 375,090, limited scope, nn Giant onehead 00:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 06:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn website, spam, alexa rating of 465,299 Giant onehead 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like an advertisement, seems to fail WP:WEB Khatru2 00:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn/local site, spammy, alexa rating of 1,379,309, not useful here Giant onehead 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn internet radio station, alexa rating a dismal 2,700,827 Giant onehead 00:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn message board, alexa rating of 2,706,463 Giant onehead 01:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn website, made-up claims and spammy, the alexa rating is a pitiful 4,769,238, I almost want to speedy it Giant onehead 01:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
violates WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, and WP:SPAM, article was created by webmaster of site (see user name), alexa rating of 1,345,723 Giant onehead 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn website, fails WP:WEB, alexa of 2,631,652 Giant onehead 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn web radio show, alexa 4,180,466 Giant onehead 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
website based on local scene of a mexican city, no alexa rating, nn, violates WP:WEB] Giant onehead 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, borderline speedy candidate. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Google search shows no results for this person with either spelling of her name. This article is probably just somebody's joke played on a friend. Nunquam Dormio 16:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Article was created by user with history of (re)creating delete-able articles. Since there seems to be a massive concensus on this, I will apply WP:SNOW and speedily close this as a delete. - Mgm| (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The article looks horrid, but even if it didn't, there's simply no way this can pass WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was deleted via WP:PROD in July and recreated today. Subject is still a non-notable website, per the article's own admission (still in beta). Delete for lack of notability and measured importance per the WP:WEB criteria. — C.Fred ( talk) 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, see final comment. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
From WP:CRUFT: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative. Please find more objective way to describe any reason you may have for deletion. - Mgm| (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Very nebulous concept in Transformers fiction. This very, very minor aspect doesn't deserve an article. Interrobamf 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Despite the final comment on this AfD, this really appears to be original research, and consensus here is as such. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be original research, 10 unique Google hits. Accurizer 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
It may be that there was little to go on, except for Zizzi's paper itself, but I did read that more than once and have compared with other formulations of LQG. The reasoning seems sound, especially if the reader has also read her "Minimal Model" paper. Zizzi's work was cited in an article in November 2004 Scientific American entitled Black Hole computers by Seth Lloyd and Jack Ng. The Emergent Consciousness paper was published in the journal of NeuroQuantology in 2003, and supports the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model of consciousness. The Big Wow article was written to fill a blank space, as the link in the Orch-OR entry had remained red for too long, and this author is familiar with Zizzi's work. I am trying to be as objective as possible, but the only other reviewer to the author's knowledge is Joy, in her Telic Thoughts blog, which can be accessed at
http://telicthoughts.com/?p=473
(
JonathanD
03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC))
reply
Note: Black Hole Computers was the Cover Article of the November '04 Scientific American, so the authors of that publication must consider this work important! ( JonathanD 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)) reply
Delete I actually like LQG; it's a bit of a maverick theory (which is part of what I like about it), but it is respectable. There is a difference, though, between "maverick" and "fringe". Zizzi's work is interesting, but I do not believe that it is a correct or even particularly rigorous interpretation of LQG: it's ad hoc and seems to set out to prove something by assuming aspects of it to be true to start with (which is not a reason to delete the article: I could be wrong, after all). The arXiv paper linked to in the article also doesn't talk about consciousness at all...it offers us a "minimal model of quantum gravity": using quantum computers and black hole entropy to address issues of the Immirzi parameter in LQG. On the other hand, this paper does talk about Penrose Orch-OR stuff (and barely touches on LQG except for spin network blab, which could come from anywhere), but it is bollocks, as far as I am concerned. It is based on a most tenuous analogy (which is not strictly formal), and the argument is unconvincing. But again, that isn't a reason to delete the article: it just needs a lot of help to come straight, because the article is only barely talking about what the papers are saying. And this is help I am not sure is merited, because...
This theory is not sufficiently notable at the moment, and nor is this particular research program yet developed and prominent enough, to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia: it seems to largely be limited to Zizzi. Citebase mentions 10 cites of the LQG paper, 4 of which are papers with Zizzi as author [2], and 6 cites of the consciousness paper, with 3 of those by Zizzi [3]. NeuroQuantology publishes more bunk than reasonable content. Articles on subjects like this shouldn't be listed under their "colloquial names", either. Scientific American is also a popular science publication, and qualified to judge neither the accuracy nor the importance of developments in quantum gravity/cosmology and so forth: we are already having a huge problem with New Scientist "legitimising" dodgy articles on Wikipedia (see this thread).
Why not just do an article on Penrose's stuff, if that's what the original idea was? Byrgenwulf 13:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Uncertain I believe Byrgenwulf's assessment of the ad-hoc nature of Zizzi's line of reasoning is a legitimate claim. It is somewhat tenuous, if taken as a proof of validity, but if the paper is viewed as attempting to show the feasibility of the universe having the capacity for reaching the computational threshold for conscousness, during the inflationary period, it does this fairly well. I do agree that the "Emergent Consciousness.." (Big Wow) paper is not a particularly satisfying formulation of LQG, but it does highlight some interesting possiblities about how consciousness might first arise, and her later "Minimal Model" paper does the LQG thing more justice. It's possible the focus on this topic should center on Penrose's work, as this subject does evolve from his "The Emperor's New Mind" book, which I particularly enjoyed. I jumped in with something, when I noticed a RED link on the Orch-OR page for this topic.
For the record, I believe a complete unifying theory will reveal 'Stringy' aspects to reality, and a real value to the LQG approach. It may well be that Noncommutative Geometry may leapfrog both, in addition to being a part of the underpinnings for both String Theory and LQG. I don't claim to have those answers yet, but I know the various contenders well enough. No unique Calabi-Yau space has been found, and a hundred thousand answers that work (from M-theory) is no answer at all, or no usable one. I do acknowledge that Strings are still considered a 'safer' bet and are considerabley more mainstream than LQG, at this point. Insofar as Zizzi's paper draws several of its conclusions from work of Whitehead and Chalmers that is not widely regarded as factual, I feel it could suffer deletion, for being tenuous.
If the test is whether this idea has captured the popular imagination, and is a jumping off point for more legitimate work on the possible quantum origins of consciousness, it may pass that test. This is not to say that the quantum mechanical nature of consciousness has been proven, but it has not been disproved either, at least not in a satisfying way. In this regard; Zizzi's paper may be a significant landmark for consciousness researchers. JonathanD 04:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Let it be known that I did a more thorough search for papers inspired by the Big Wow theory concepts using a web seach for Paola Zizzi and paring down to references that pertain to the line of reasoning explored by that paper, and I found a lot more material than I expected, and quite a few more citatons of this work. And the term 'Big Wow' seems to have been a catalyst, as well. Perhaps there is no other single term which sums up this concept so aptly, just as the 'Big Bang' did. Perhaps that was not the most apt despcription either, but the name stuck. I shall include a few more references and citations, if I have time later today. If I am not compelled to recuse myself, I vote to keep this article, or modify it for possible inclusion under a different name. JonathanD 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Is it because Paola is not having a nice zizi like yours that your are practicing mental masturbation on her ideas? I vote to keep this article, or modify it for possible inclusion under a different name. Hervey from Canada — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.130.64.248 (
talk •
contribs)
Please Keep - Important Citation Discovered! Jonathan back again, respectfully requesting that this work's impact be re-assessed. I was about ready to throw in the towl on this item myself, but have discovered a bunch of additional citations and derivative work. Note that her work was cited in
Gregory Chaitin's
Alan Turing Lecture last year in Sweden, entitled "Epistemology as Information Theory: From Leibniz to Ω". She was listed among the 'real physicists' who are working seriously on researching the view that the universe is made of information. Ergo; I would state that it's becoming more clear that the Big Wow is indeed a seminal landmark, and clearly does not fall in the category of NN, as Wikians like to put it. I'll try to weed out the lower quality external links, once I get time. Again; please reconsider the question of this article's relevance as someone of Chaitin's caliber would not cite her work in this way, if that work was not significant. Perhaps changing the title to Big Wow hypothesis would be more accurate.
JonathanD
00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn radio show Giant onehead 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, insufficient arguments to keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
A band that doesn't meet criteria set out in WP:MUSIC, regarding at least two albums on a major record label or a notable indie record, and no national tours- the closest thing was playing a San Antonio show on the Warped Tour. No reliable third party sources for verification either. Also, there is a redirect from Prevail within. Wafulz 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn localized music blog, fails WP:WEB, alexa rating of 1,976,724 Giant onehead 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn website, fails WP:WEB, alexa rating of 644,265 Giant onehead 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn music site, gets a few dozen unique google hits, fails WP:WEB Giant onehead 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 08:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
See User:Vilerage/Iamas for the backstory on this article. There are at least three different separate organizations called IAMAS. Previous edits by User:Iamascorp have falsely claimed a connection between a non-notable country music manager based out of a PO Box in North Carolina and this "IAMAS Corporation", a non-notable "academy of arts and sciences". Neither organization passes WP:CORP nor a Google test: most hits are for IAMAS (International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences). wikipediatrix 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I know the first nomination reached a no conensus, but this is cruft at it's absolute worst. It's a page about a message board to a site that only has an alexa rating of 212,784. The site it is hosted on is barely notable, if at all, so why would a forum be? Giant onehead 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This organization is nn. The available reliable information on this topic indicates that only 22 lodges of this type exist in North America, which is easily less than one-tenth the number of Masonic lodges in any given state in the US or province in Canada. Only three exist in Australia. The relevant RS hits on Google are a paper on the concept, a list on a webpage, and this article. Therefore it is not yet at the point of being notable, and the article is serving as an advertising vehicle to increase visibility rather than being due to already established notability. MSJapan 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website per WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd do a long discussion on this, but really I don't need to. Instead, here's their website: [5] That's about all the Google they get. The North Shore Outlook is a small community newspaper (I live in Vancouver and haven't heard of it before now, which gives an indication of its coverage). EP coming soon. Fails WP:MUSIC. They removed a CSD tag, twice, so I'm doing the long way. Delete, probably speedy. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not-quite-neoligism which falls short of actually being a 'term' and is actually more of a phrase with a self evident meaning. Artw 04:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Combination neologism (with few gHits) and essay article. Artw 04:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
NN Neologism. Artw 04:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Sillier joke version of 2.0 Meme Artw 04:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Marked as A7 speedy, but the claim that they have been lauded as one of the 13 best unsigned bands negates that. Brought here for a wider audience, without opinion myself (I'm crap with new bands). -- nae' blis 04:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a collection of mathematical proofs (per WP:MSM). The theorem is true for any prime number (not just 3) and represents a very "simple" fact that is already covered by the cyclic group page. grubber 05:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website with absolutely no signs of satisfying WP:WEB. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Arguments for keeping this article are insufficient given the weight of the deletion arguments. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is nothing but an advertisement for a website, created by the person/group that maintains the size. Violation of Wikipedia policy. Additionally, the site's notability is very minor; alexa rating is 803,669. Dr. Cash 05:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
"Oppose Deletion." Of course, I'm just the editor of Orato, but I'm not sure I understand the logic. When I do a search for "obscure rock bands", I get a list of 1146. While I'm all for maintaining the entries on all 1146 of 'em, why delete a reference to one of the world's first meaningful citizen journalism sites, with more than 1600 registered correspondents and more than 10,000 visitors in August? I would be more than willing to clean up the article to eliminate marginal passages. Paul Sullivan.
The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently copyright violation ( [6]), and in any case I am not sure that he's notable enough. Delete as written. -- Nlu ( talk) 06:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I see no copyright violation and wonder what is gained by deleting the Hogan articles from wikipedia. Hogan´s writings offer a unique perspective from an intellectual who also has extensively experiencesd life and culture in Latin America. All of us will be diminished if the choice is made to delete.
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Hogan_%28poet%29" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfxhogan ( talk • contribs) 17:54, September 25, 2006
No copyright violation. This material is in the public domain. Also, Hogan's books (with the exception of Mexican Mornings) were all published buy university presses and small presses, not vanity presses. He's as notable as Jimmy Santyiago Baca and has won most of the same literary prizes including the NEA. In addition, his credit as historian appears on the Berenger movie and his book is a best seller in Mexico. Do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfxhogan ( talk • contribs)
Seems like the copyright notice on the author's page is to protect the images. The other information, date and place of birth, books published, etc. is clearly in the public domain: birth records, books in print, Directory of American Poets, etc. I am not the author but it seems to me that this entry should stay whether it was submitted by him or his wife or daughter, or just some fan. He is a well-recognized writer and certainly appears as author of many books on amazon.com, has several articles in monthly review, alterinfos, and seems to be pretty famous in Latin America.,etc. We wouldn't turn down a page on Clinton just because Chelsea submited it. 200.52.124.151 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Melissa When I google Michael Hogan+Mexico I find about a hundred entries mostly referring to the author's articles on Latin Amnerica, his books on history and poetry. Fairly notable in Latin America, I would say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.116.194.50 ( talk • contribs) I feel a little responsible for this thread. In my work as a professor at the University of Guadalajara I was browsing through Wikipedia to see how discriminating my students might be in their online research (on various subjects), when I came upon the site listing all the "Michael Hogans". Noting that the "American poet" was listed but there was no biographical info, which seemed both a necessary and an easy blank to fill in, and being short on time but wanting the info to be as accurate as possible, I simply emailed the poet himself and suggested he provide the data -- never imagining that questions would arise as to his "importance". I think the copyright issue has been thoroughly addressed, so will just briefly concentrate on why an entry on this writer is of value. I and my colleagues, in the U.S., Mexico and other countries, have all had students of various ages who very much wanted to research both the work and life of Michael Hogan, poet (and historian, essayist...) He has been a working, regularly-published writer since the 1970's (the majority of his publications by respected U.S. presses, and the few seeming "self-publications" having been sponsored by well-known Latin American educational institutions -- choices of presses having been made in response to requests by educators on both sides of the border, and in other countries, for more immediately-available texts.) He has worked with many other poets who are inarguably part of any "canon" of poetry in English (Baca, Bukowski, Ginsberg, Piercy, Stafford, etc. etc.) and is well-known as a valiant and gifted director of successful programs aimed toward both advanced and under-served communities of writing students. He also maintains strong links with other writers and scholars throughout the U.S. and Mexico, in Ireland, Italy and Germany, etc. -- another reason that his presence on the "world-wide" web makes particular sense. And, if breadth of readership were a criterion, the fact that his work currently appears in important English literature anthologies (by the most established U.S./international publishers) and thus reaches hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students, would be motive enough to have his background data available to them. If actual authorship of this wikipedia entry is of concern, there are various of Hogan's colleagues throughout the world who'd compose another version -- as I noted at the beginning, my concern was for accuracy in the entry, and that has been achieved. Lmayo 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Prof. L. Mayo, Univ. de Guadalajara User's third edit. Note also that the article says he is married to a "textile artist and historian Lucinda Mayo". reply
KEEP: See among others: History Net http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=32002876521003 and MexConnect at http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/acogan/acbkmexmornings.html Also, Paris Review poetry http://www.theparisreview.com/viewissue.php/prmllD/72 and American Book Review http://www.litline.org/ABR/Issues/volume13/133.html and listing in Poets and Writers at http://www.pw.org 148.244.181.86 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Melissa reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn bio, webmaster of low-traffic website and violates WP:VAIN as said subject created article. Google search is hard to determine, because most entries are for a defunct auto company Giant onehead 06:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 06:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
listcruft Giant onehead 06:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page because it is of similar vain to the previous list:
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement. For some reason it has no link to the website being described; for that matter it cites no sources at all. The only incoming links are from the talk-page for the sole author (who also just happens to run the site) and from Gaming convention (to which it was recently added by the same editor). Phil | Talk 06:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi
> This article reads like an advertisement.
My apologies if it reads like an advertisement. Consupport is a free service, like google is a free service. In fact I have used the google entry to try and make the consupport article fit in. If you have any suggestions that would make it look less like an advertisement, I would appreciate them.
> For some reason it has no link to the website being described
There is a link. It's the first link under General Information. It's after "You can look at Consupport on ..."
However as you didn't spot it, and you do consider it important enough to comment on, I have also added a link to the official homepage, in a section called External Links, using the same method as in the Google entry.
> The only incoming links are from the talk-page for the sole author (who also just > happens to run the site) and from Gaming convention (to which it was recently added > by the same editor).
There was a message a few days ago which said there were not enough links to the page. Originally I wanted the page to settle in before I added lots of links to it, but following your message I went round and added in links in the most appropriate places.
I will look round for more links to add.
The problem is that many of the conventions that consupport supports do not themselves have wikipedia entries. I could add these conventions as well if you think it's worthwhile.
As I say, it's a service like Google. And I have tried to model the entry on google. Google has a section on "Products and Services" - would it be better if I changed the titles to also use "Products and Services?"
All suggestions and comments on improving the entry are appreciated.
All comments and suggestions are welcome.
Ratty. 20:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi
Thanks for the suggestion.
I've figured out how to do references and put a couple in (including one to the web site itself, like google does). The problem is that there is very little written about the subject, which is why everything had to be developed from scratch. There should be a lot more information, but many commercial companies keep the information confidential to avoid competitors.
As I find more references, I'll add them
Ratty. 20:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi
Added a couple more references. If anyone knows of any other references where we can refer people to, please either post here, or feel free to edit the page.
Ratty. 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is about a comic. Other than that and the names of the characters, it offers little else. Google is understandably not helpful, and my prod was removed by an anonymous user. My vote is Delete, at least until the author offers some context. Danny Lilithborne 06:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Catchpole 21:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy but notability is asserted, so brining here. Article itself is pretty poor but the subject may be worth saving. Guy 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This page more or less copies the content from a copyrighted Web site; see http://www.lotusland.org/gardens/cycad.htm and the sidebar on the left. The subject itself isn't a bad idea for an article, but the garden by the name "lotusland" does not appear to be notable. The term itself goes back to the "Odyssey". modify 07:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Just another run-of-the-mill MMORPG. I doubt it's noteworthy, but the CSD A7 it was tagged with certainly doesn't apply. Procedural nomination; Abstain. - Mgm| (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Inherently a game guide, providing little meaningful material but that which appears to have been copied directly from the manual and various websites. Does not assert the notability or importance of this specific map, and cannot be expanded beyond its current (uninformative) style unless the map becomes significant in some real way. Prod removed by Anon. Daveydw ee b ( chat/ patch) 08:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The Enlightenment has not been without its critics, from Joseph de Maistre onwards, so a section on criticisms would not go amiss in Age of Enlightenment. This article, however, is an essay (and WP:SOAP applies to those), probably original research (in which case WP:NOR applies), and does not cite any sources beyond those for the indiscriminate rummelcruft list of deaths. Philosophical criticisms of enlightenment ideas are already mentioned where appropriate (PoMo etc). Was previously deleted by WP:PROD on unknown grounds. In my view it would be appropriate to delete it again (and allow the AFD to run so that future incarnations can be speedied under WP:CSD G4). Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Conditional Delete I could believe that this might be sourceable to some political philosopher but until it is, it looks too much like OR. I'm going to put an "unsourced" tag on it and, if it doesn't get sourced by the time this AFD debate is over, then it should be deleted. -- Richard 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dakota 05:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A decidedly non-notable video which generates ninety unique ghits. Usual blogesque plugs, YouTube and GVideo links, but nothing to suggest anything has been written about this that would meet WP:V. Undoubtedly fails WP:WEB, but it's the lack of reporting that really proves this is NN. Was prod'd, prod removed by author. Given the lack of evidence for notability, I think delete is the Right Thing to do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable local church youth club. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but subsequent improvements made it assert notability and I think any prod tag would be removed. Anyway, it's just of local interest. Graham 87 09:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's no source for this, and hardly any information present! Was created a month ago, and still has these major problems. Prod was removed without comment.} JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to Pop Idol. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The subject is not notable. An also-ran in Pop Idol, who has not had significant achievements since pop idol. Ohconfucius 09:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, with blessings from the original author. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The station was never built. The analog permit was canceled and the DTV permit dismissed on July 3, 2002. The station's callsign was deleted per CDBS. Propose to delete the article as Not Notable. dhett 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Since the station's licenses and construction permits were cancelled, i support the deletion, even a speedy deletion if that may help. The sources i had (though legitimate, reliable, and very detailed), were incorrect. (FCC.gov, w9wi.com, and so on) Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 01:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Whispering( talk/ c) 18:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Withdraw Nomination Delete as neologism and/or dicdef. According to the prior AfD at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheeple which was closed "No Consensus" there was already a wiktionary entry. This is
here. Since
WP:NOT a dictionary this article, which also does not cite its sources, is both inappropriate and, co of the Wiktionary entry, redundant. It adds no value to wikipedia.
Fiddle Faddle
10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Unanimous agreement. There is no apparent need for further discussion. Uncle G 10:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Also ran in Pop Idol 2, Eurovision qualifying round, and is enjoying success as an entertainer at Pontins' holiday camps ;-) Delete as not notable per
WP:BIO
Ohconfucius
10:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Seemingly inconsequential journalist. Not sure about popularity or notability. Seems as though this article should be deleted WP:BIO Drak 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Wiki. No reliable secondary sources providing information on the subject. Looks like borderline vanity/advertising. Delete as per WP:WEB, WP:RS. Wickethewok 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Australian Idol. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Child actress in 2 season run before, also-ran in Australian Idol, and no significant achievements since. Delete Merge to Australian Idol per
WP:BIO
Ohconfucius
10:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. It could not have been said any clearerer. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedaic, utterly biased. Possibly non-notable. Should be either expanded rapidly to be an article worth keeping, or deleted for recreation later when the subject becomes notable and/or more details are available about the person Firi e n § 10:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Australian Idol. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The subject was unknown before Australian Idol2, enjoyed her 5 minutes of fame in the show, was placed 8th, and is notable only for having been canned by Australia's Channel 10 for "un-presenterlike behaviour". Delete per
WP:BIO
Ohconfucius
10:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 06:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No real notability here: seems to fail WP:BIO. Journalist for a minor local paper; she did get some award - some obscure thing, not Pulitzer prize stuff - but Wikipedia's guidelines state that multiple awards are necessary: most people in the world have probably received some sort of minor award in their life. The fact that the photo in the article is a "self-portrait" of the subject, and the general tone of the article, seem to indicate that there is a possible vanity angle here as well. Wikipedia isn't MySpace. Byrgenwulf 11:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to A380. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary article. Doesn't even deal with the topic it is named for. We don't have articles on airports that serve the 747 or other aircraft. Just because the A380 is a large aircraft doesn't mean it needs that special attention, just a runway long enough. Ben W Bell talk 11:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
May i remind all of you that the A380 is a very important and interesting topic for many Wiki viewers! after all i know many pilots and aviators who are very interested in the A380 and also are members or viewers of this site. If you dont like this article then add to it or just dont look at it!
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 12:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem notable, nothing on Google, which is usually a reliable indicator of the significance and popularity of hip-hop bands. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep due to bad faith nom, WP:SNOW, and an AfD determining keep mere days ago. . - PT ( s-s-s-s) 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete:This article has no bearing on information that would be found in an encyclopedia of any kind. This information is more likely to be found in a tabloid type newspaper.-- MechCommander 08:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
insignificant Doc aberdeen 14:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 06:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable event, not televised or put on pay per view, and the article is extremely poorly written to boot. Tromboneguy0186 11:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, non-notable house show. Had a prod but it was removed by an anon. --> So sayeth M e t h n o r Sayeth back| Other sayethings
The result was speedily deleted under CSD A1 by NawlinWiki. MER-C 12:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
per request of owner of corporation Johnmorrow 16:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirected. MER-C 12:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
the information in this article has been merged into World Scout Jamboree. Horus Kol 09:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a notable player only in the youth team but you can add him when he is part of the first team at Middlesbrough F.C. but not yet.
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 15:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
possibly Non-notable. Can anyone prove otherwise? Nekohakase 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I am withdrawing this AfD. Based on suggestions from those commenting below, I agree that forks are required. Please see Talk:Colonialism#Splitting_this_article_up_-_five_.22eras.22_not_two for an alternative suggestion. Comments welcome. Gsd2000 18:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary fork from Colonialism, that simply duplicates its content under a heading that is an arbitrary and subjective slicing of historical time, that noone will ever directly search for, unlike say the The Scramble for Africa, which is a recognised term in English. Same goes for The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century). There is no reason why the content cannot remain in Colonialism with links to concrete topics with uncontentious titles that people would actually search for, such as the British Empire or British Raj. Just to reiterate: this article is simply duplicated text from Colonialism - deleting it would not constitute loss of information from Wikipedia. Gsd2000 12:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I am withdrawing this AfD. Based on suggestions from those commenting below, I agree that forks are required. Please see Talk:Colonialism#Splitting_this_article_up_-_five_.22eras.22_not_two for an alternative suggestion. Comments welcome. Gsd2000 18:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary fork from Colonialism, that simply duplicates its content under a heading that is an arbitrary and subjective slicing of historical time, that noone will ever directly search for, unlike say the Age of Discovery, which is a recognised term in English. Same goes for The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century). There is no reason why the content cannot remain in Colonialism with links to concrete topics with uncontentious titles that people would actually search for, such as the Spanish Empire or Hernan Cortes. Just to reiterate: this article is simply duplicated text from Colonialism - deleting it would not constitute loss of information from Wikipedia. Gsd2000 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an advert, created by the subject. It has already been prodded twice, and had the templat removed by the subject twice Chris 12:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced, largely unverifiable, often implausible, [8] shows 60-odd unique hits from under half a million, which is very low for a supposedly popular blogging system. Guy 13:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
With that logic you may as well delete the entry for MySpace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.226.16 ( talk • contribs) Exactly, delete this one and delete the MySpace entry at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.174.155 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod removed by anon. Looks like a thinly disguised ad for www.netellerbonuses.com, created by Netellerbonuses ( talk · contribs) and even if the linkspam is removed I don't see a worthwhile article here. Title strikes me as a Neologism. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 13:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This and The Great Story are up for deletion as non-notable pseudoscientific mystical flapdoodle, and possible original research, since no really reliable sources are cited. The Great Story article mentions lots of notable thinkers, but doesn't cite any of their work, because these people didn't write about "the Great Story". They wrote about other teleological philosophies, but these often have their own articles. "Ecozoic" is not a recognised geological era, nor a term in evolutionary biology or any indeed any established field other than "Great Story Studies". Byrgenwulf 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. A university student-produced TV show that ran for six episodes one time. Not on IMDB, while "The Hot Plate"+sitcom" does not give us anything relevant within the 45 Google results. ... discospinster talk 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Whispering( talk/ c) 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This really is simply a page of opinions, totally POV its completely made up of commentary and accusations about korea. basically its what someone thinks
Frogsprog
13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a film yet to be released, by an unknown production company (the only Google result for the company's name is this article), and involving non-notable people. The only source for the film is its official website, which contains no content other than a placeholder page and a link to this article. That fact, and the fact that the article's primary author Bgashler1 ( talk · contribs) may well be "director/producer/writer" Brad Gashler, leads me to suspect that the article was created as an advertisement for the film. The only Google result for the film's title is this article; others are misspellings of "from this movie".
In summary, an unknown film by non-notable people, possibly created for vanity/advertisement purposes. Delete. -- bainer ( talk) 13:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online radio station, does not meet WP:WEB Wildthing61476 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged CSD as a "hoax", but that is not a valid criterin for speedy. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax, however, so I'm bringing it here. Deville ( Talk) 14:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, with no prejudice against Huon's test version at User:Huon/Test being used instead, at the proper name of Battle of Salyersville. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no sources for this battle. "Battle of Salyersville" produces 2 Ghits, both of which seem to refer to an event in 1862, not 1863. The service history of the 14th Kentucky infantry shows only a Union defeat a few days earlier. The National Park Service's list of battles also does not contain this one. Even the Magoffin County Historical Society's website does not mention it. Considering the massive casualties claimed (almost 200 dead, which would probably translate to more than a thousand total casualties), this total lack of evidence is highly unlikely. Delete as probable hoax. Huon 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
[keep]] maby less casualties happend and the year might be off i was just going by my grand fathers old storys that his grandpa told him about my great great great grand pa who was actually in the battle of salyersville dont delete the deaths could easily have been exagerated over the years and i guesed at the month. so keep it and change it some im actually frome magoffin and i know they were a battle of salyersville but soldiers storys are often exagerated it was suposed to have happend before the battle of puncheon creek like a few hours before it but it did happen just change the date and year.]] [us men from back here aint bad for lying i promise me and many people belive the event happend its part of local folklore of the area.] [my pa also told me that they were a unioun recruting station at one end of salyersville and a confederate station at the other]
[what does per nom mean] if any one wants to know more about the battle like men that were in it just type who were there and ill tell you. one man that was in it my ancestor i talked about was william jenkins a private in the 3rd ky mtd rifles csa he went home after his unit was dissolved later in the war.] other relatives i have that were in it was my 5thgreat uncles stephen and martin howard. and my 4th uncle who was unioun that disserted there william howard.]
[keep] you should not delete it just because its not in the national archives the archives only contian important strategic battles not minnor battles such as this one . [if it is deleted put it in a diffirent category such as legonds of the civil war or little known battles. [if you guys would agree we could have a reenactment at the site to prove wether a battle could have been fought there but wee have to have the 14thkyregiment and other reenactment units to do this and we could put it on television.old men dont always tell the truth to little kids ..go to user page samuel purtee for more information.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuel purtee ( talk • contribs) 16:53, September 23, 2006 (UTC) [[final solution about the topic]frome sam purtee i recently asked the owner of the magoffin county historical society he sead the battle was a small skirmish with about 80 men involved. so change it keep it and end the discussion any ways half mountian is only 3 miles south of salyersville the events i sead took place exactly like i sead just at a smaller scale. the battle of puncheon creek is what we call the action at half mountian it was after the skirmish in salyersville and in reality there was only like 10 people killed in salyersville during the battle and only about 8 unioun men died . im fixing it with acuracy after this stuff has been typed. lets put an end to this argument i admit i was wrong very wrong about the casualties. but around here we like a good story.. i am a member of licking stations sons of confederate veterans im good in geneology and history.frome samuel purtee Samuel purtee 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC) [have any of you ever been to this area prestonsburg is only 20 miles frome salyersville. and history references cant always be belived a lot is left out. [samuel purtees last sentence] well think about it this way i wont agree to delete my history how would you agree to delete yours if you must then delete this article and make one about the battle of half mountian.frome samuel purtee i quit arguing with you city slikers. and i apologise for trying to expose some little unkown history about my home town. reply
from [sam purtee] i agree with you huon lets use your draft for the article but if we change the name lets call it the battle of ivy point hill Samuel purtee 22:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)samuel purtee reply
The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Small company from Ireland, only founded in 2004, doesn't seem to meet any of the guidelines in WP:CORP. Google results (excluding this article and the official website) are limited to local council records, local business directories and so forth (along with false positivies for people using "stone warehouse" otherwise than as a proper noun). -- bainer ( talk) 14:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject appears to have not independent notability outside of the unaccredited school he leads, 309 ghits of which 118 unique. Guy 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)\ reply
The result was speedy keep because article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Horus Kol ( talk · contribs) merged content with this edit, amongst others. Therefore the GFDL requires that the edit history of this article be retained. Please read Wikipedia:Merge for the correct procedure to follow when merging articles. Uncle G 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The content of this article is now part of World Scout Jamboree Horus Kol 14:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is redundant as mostly all of the information is already on Sonic's page, and no other Super form has an article to itself. The comic information can go in Sonic's articles for the respective canons. Grandmastergalvatron 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
From "What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia entries are not: Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." Mmoneypenny 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism that nets 323 google hits, many about unrelated things. Talk page has some claims that Wired has used this, but I doubt this word has seen too much wider use. wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 15:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Dubious validity, and non-notable. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory, and this guy is notable, if at all, only for who his descendants might be. But even that is unclear; the article cites a single reference which doesn't mention this individual, and the content of the article itself seems dubious. How did the "son of a poor man" become an Army general? In which Army? In the 18th century British army, you didn't become a general unless you were from a noble family or similarly privileged background. And the article admits that any relationship to the George Bush family is purely speculative. Russ Blau (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn notable band, no ghits for this band but title exists for a band by this name over 20 yrs ago which did not and does contain the members this band list in the article or image, vanity or hoax, creater removed speedy tag and prod without comment Shella * 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non descript housing estate Pally01 16:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
School not notable ENeville 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
1. The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself.
2. The school has been or was in existence for over 50 years, due to the great likelihood of—but greater difficulty of uncovering—non-trivial historical coverage of that school.
3. The school participates in the highest grade of the state, province or regional competitions in at least three extracurricular activities. These can include, for example, sports teams, band competitions, cheerleading competitions, engineering contests, and so forth. In addition, the school has won at least two regional championships or one national championship in any of these activities.
4. The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools.
5. Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff.
6. The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC).
7. The school building or campus has notable architectural features that set it apart from others.
AmitDeshwar 08:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC) — AmitDeshwar ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non descript housing estate Pally01 16:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is a direct contradiction of WP:AVTRIV. I've merged the trivia in the main SG-1 article and thrown some none notable bits out. The article now has no purpose The Filmaker 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. AfD is not a vote, and GassyGuy makes a very powerful argument. -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable music label ENeville 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. While the last three keep !votes certainly have more weight than the first four deletes, the last comment also makes a valid point. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable. Nekohakase 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable school Pally01 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
See how easy this is? One addresses the source material that is available for the school at hand. No "stuck record" arguments, assertions of flawed blanket criteria, or subjective judgements of what one personally considers to be notable, are required. Uncle G 08:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is what a "telephone book" entry would look like, for comparison. Uncle G 10:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant one-line page. That person and his notability is already listed on Seattle Baroque. Is Seattle Baroque even notable? Nekohakase 16:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable. Nekohakase 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
a non-notable minor character, in the show for less than 2 months. Fails WP:FICTION character is already listed at List of Emmerdale characters ENeville 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer D iablo 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable school Pally01 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
Roberts Primary School
Coseley High School
The result was Keep. Whether this article is kept or merged is a debate that can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The only useful info in the article is a duplication of that presented in a much nicer way already at Chanyu ENeville 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Mike 7. MER-C 06:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO - Nv8200p talk 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 19:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Nominated by anon. Completing nom with no vote. Fan-1967 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Fan-1967 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, possible advertising/spam Tim1988 talk 17:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a specialist auction (and classified ad) website, was deleted after Prod and restored on request. I added the single source I could find that could be considered about the site (it covers LabX and two others). Two more articles are press releases, plus a passing mention (all from Newsbank). The cited Keskinocak and Tayur article is a passing mention and not about LabX, so WP:WEB and WP:CORP don't seem to be met. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - Added story from Wired Magazine (author is a senior scientist in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington). Also added reference to a recently released paperback book by Greg Holden being sold on Amazon. So perhaps this helps meet
WP:WEB and
WP:CORP.
Kenpiech
15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep. Catchpole 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article has only one sentence saying that this is a drink. No references, description or anything saying why this is notable. Dugwiki 17:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
completely unnotable information- even if the Board of European Students of Technology is notable, surely this complete list of all its committee members is completely superfluous. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Robotforaday 17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Coney Island. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article on a non-notable light aircraft crash, these sorts of things happen everyday (unfortunately). See the following prior AFDs on similar subjects: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Indiana Plane Crash (2nd nomination). Nilfanion ( talk) 18:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep- Nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete. -- Aaron 21:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article on a non-notable light aircraft crash, these sorts of things happen everyday (unfortunately). The only claim to notability here is that the plane was owned by
Hendrick Motorsports however no notable person was on the aircraft.
WP:NOT a memorial. See the following prior AFDs on similar subjects:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Indiana Plane Crash (2nd nomination). The Long Island crash is very similar.
Nilfanion (
talk) 18:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Speedy Keep, withdrawing deletion req. At the
time the article made no assertion as to the notability of its victims; and as I had not heard of it. The article still needs work, but that is what cleanup templates are for.--
Nilfanion (
talk)
20:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination for deletion Encyclopedically non-notable student internet classifieds startup launched in 2005. Fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP, WP:SPAM. There are a couple of press articles on the website - one a press release from Oxford University press office (this is not an independent or reliable source, given that the startup is supported by the Oxford University Entrepreneurs Society) and the other a trival puff piece in the Times Online (the Oxbridge Old Boy Network in action - hurray. Or okay, someone on the team had some success with media relations). Its currently miscategorized, I think, as an online auction site (its just classified ads as far as I can see) - in any case, the claim that its the first online marketplace for students is highly dubious. I was happily buying and selling academic books and other student items on my university's for-sale usenet newsgroup back in the 1990s, as many other people were (I could take a gander at other universities' newsgroup classifieds too). Best of luck to the team, but currently this website's no Facebook.com by a long chalk (Launched 1 and half years ago, and has only supported 1,467 transactions or about 3 a day; Alexa ranking of ~662,634 for the .com domain or ~4,310,107 for the co.uk domain)) Bwithh 18:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as hoax. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable obscure occultist. I suspect it is a hoax, which would be interesting, as it has been around since 2002. Leibniz 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep as no consensus (3 keep, 3 delete; excluding my own vote. Some reasoning for both sides) The JPS talk to me 21:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not an article. It's not even clear, what's the intended topic is. -- Pjacobi 19:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was flagged as copyvio. MER-C 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
It is a page that blatantly is self-advertising and looks like it was copied and pasted from the companies website. KaoB e ar (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced speculation. The only concrete fact here is that Carey has been writing songs for the album; she's made no mention of the title, or with whom she's going to collaborate, or anything else the article is claiming. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 20:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I tried to find sources supporting the claims made in this article but I couldn't find a single one, so I'm almost certain they are complete fabrications. Besides, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Pure advertisement, doesn't meet requirements for a page. The article in question has been here since June so I'm not sure whether the general decision so far is keep or go, so I'm bringing it up for discussion. Sivius T- C 20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. - Doc 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is an attempt to mock a junior tennis player named Shaun Bussert. The vast majority of the information in the article is made up, and the information on his "principles" are obviously an attempt to make fun of his tennis playing ability. This article should be deleted as it serves no informational purpose and only serves to satirize somebody. Hindudot1788 20:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a pornographic films actress; no assertion of meeting either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
She's a well-known porn industry figure, with dozens of videos to her credit, hundreds of magazine appearances and thousands of webpages referencing her (110,000 pages referencing the term "traci topps" in Google).
The result was Keep. Whether this article is kept, merged, or redirected is a debate that can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Is being a finalist on one reality show ( America's Got Talent) enough for an article? I don't think so, but listing here for further comment. NawlinWiki 21:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, two things to say:
- I was wrong. This article meets WP:BAND; see ninth bullet point, "Has won or placed in a major music competition". The definition of "major music competition" is open to debate, but it's certainly plausible that America's Got Talent (a show with which I am unfamiliar) qualifies. Accordingly I withdraw my vote to delete and vote to keep.
- If this article didn't meet WP:BAND, I still hold that it would be a candidate for speedy deletion. The fact is that CSD A7 is a joke. I've lost count of how many newly-created articles I've seen that say something like, " Joseph Q. Wikinewbie is the GREATAST PERSON EVAR!!!!1!!", and every single one of them has been speedily deleted under A7. Why? Surely the GREATAST PERSON EVAR is notable, so the article definitely asserts the notability of the subject. But the admins (wisely, IMHO) ignore the rules and speedily delete the articles anyway. The CSD process needs reform.
Sorry for getting on a soapbox, but that's what WP:IAR is all about.
VoiceOfReason 06:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable to WP:BIO standards Islamic equivalent of a Christian pastor. Outside by comfort zone, so I got the opinion of two editors I respected (with knowledge about Islam) and they both suggested the article be AFD nominated to see if anyone can find evidence that he is worth keeping an article on. [22] [23] GRBerry 21:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article is part of a tranche of articles on ordnary housing estates none of which have any notablity at all, though are doubtless loved by their residents. It fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Estates like this are ten a penny in the UK. The article is unreferenced and is not linked to. It also links nowhere. Fiddle Faddle 21:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The article contains tons of factual errors, all relevant information in this article is already in other Oddworld articles. Also the games described here are not two parts of the same game. Mika1h 21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A debut album that is yet to be released does not have any nobility, and it also fails the crystal ball test. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. -- Nishkid64 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This entry fails WP:CORP. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, it's been expanded to include notability since the nomination and no objections to keeping after that. - Bobet 10:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This entry fails WP:CORP. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This entry fails WP:CORP. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 07:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination for deletion
The result was Speedy delete: A7 & Author requests deletion. — Centrx→ talk • 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not establish notability. (Page blanked by creator) Dystopos 21:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability not verifiable per WP:V. A Google search with "Kha Hoang" and "royal" find only two hits that indicate he was a doctor for the Vietnamese royal family. One of these is from the "institute" that supports his work [27] and the other is a mirror of that site [28]. - AED 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 13:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Inherently a game guide, providing little meaningful material but that which appears to have been copied directly from the manual. Should therefore be deleted as gamecruft. Daveydw ee b ( chat/ patch) 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Fails Google test; probably a hoax. — M isza 13 18:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This has been prodded and tagged as a hoax - both removed by the starting editor. No Ghits, so I have it down as a hoax, but even then being the grandson of somebody famous doesn't warrant inclusion anyway. So fails WP:HOAX, WP:BIO, Firm delete from me.-- Richhoncho 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Already have Lists of famous short men and women. Alleged shortness of Tom Cruise, Dustin Hoffman etc. can be mentioned in their respective articles, if necessary. JScott06 22:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This sub-stub (current entire content: "B. Volkan Yucel (18 January 1978) Turkish writer.") does not identify who this person is or provide any evidence of notability even within the Turkish-speaking world, let alone the English one. Google has only about 50 distinct hits for this name, the top ones of which don't look like potential reliable sources. Not speaking Turkish, I can't tell if any of these sites make a notability case, but the fact that (A) tr:Wikipedia apparently has no article for this person, although it lists 8 other names with "Yücel" in them); (B) the U.S. Library of Congress lists no such person, although it has 33 Yücels or Yucels; and (C) Amazon.com knows nothing of this person, make it look very much like a vanity article. en:Wikiquote also has the corresponding q:B. Volkan Yucel up for deletion. Since the creator (same ID on both en:WP and en:WQ) recreated the article several times after it was deleted on WQ, I didn't bother to {{ prod}} it here for failure to assert notability. I recommend deletion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Note that schools at this moment appears to be a rather contentious issue, please consider discussing at relevant pages (e.g. WP:SCHOOL) before considering future school-related deletion. - Mailer D iablo 13:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete not notable and SOMEBODY had to get alex to read his messages! Charlesknight 23:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Note that schools at this moment appears to be a rather contentious issue, please consider discussing at relevant pages (e.g. WP:SCHOOL) before considering future school-related deletion. - Mailer D iablo 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete not notable Charlesknight 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. By an astonishing coincidence, User:DirectBuy's only contribs are to this article. A more flagrant case of WP:SPAM would be hard to find. VoiceOfReason 22:50, 22 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
What the heck? I got sent an email that my page on the word Fwenty was a test page. I assure you it is not, and I can name over 100 people that know about the word and would approve its use. If I need a petition of some sort, then I'll do it. Otherwise, I don't see what is so wrong with it.
The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This looks like someone's attempt to get their own work published on Wikipedia, like if WP was a hosting service. Scobell302 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No sources per WP:RS, fails Google test. The choreographer may be notable but I doubt this dance style is. Doesn't seem to be documented well enough, at least. Crystallina 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
spammy, alexa rating of 375,090, limited scope, nn Giant onehead 00:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 06:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn website, spam, alexa rating of 465,299 Giant onehead 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads like an advertisement, seems to fail WP:WEB Khatru2 00:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn/local site, spammy, alexa rating of 1,379,309, not useful here Giant onehead 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn internet radio station, alexa rating a dismal 2,700,827 Giant onehead 00:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn message board, alexa rating of 2,706,463 Giant onehead 01:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn website, made-up claims and spammy, the alexa rating is a pitiful 4,769,238, I almost want to speedy it Giant onehead 01:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
violates WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, and WP:SPAM, article was created by webmaster of site (see user name), alexa rating of 1,345,723 Giant onehead 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn website, fails WP:WEB, alexa of 2,631,652 Giant onehead 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn web radio show, alexa 4,180,466 Giant onehead 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
website based on local scene of a mexican city, no alexa rating, nn, violates WP:WEB] Giant onehead 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, borderline speedy candidate. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Google search shows no results for this person with either spelling of her name. This article is probably just somebody's joke played on a friend. Nunquam Dormio 16:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Article was created by user with history of (re)creating delete-able articles. Since there seems to be a massive concensus on this, I will apply WP:SNOW and speedily close this as a delete. - Mgm| (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The article looks horrid, but even if it didn't, there's simply no way this can pass WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article was deleted via WP:PROD in July and recreated today. Subject is still a non-notable website, per the article's own admission (still in beta). Delete for lack of notability and measured importance per the WP:WEB criteria. — C.Fred ( talk) 01:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, see final comment. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
From WP:CRUFT: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative. Please find more objective way to describe any reason you may have for deletion. - Mgm| (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Very nebulous concept in Transformers fiction. This very, very minor aspect doesn't deserve an article. Interrobamf 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Despite the final comment on this AfD, this really appears to be original research, and consensus here is as such. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be original research, 10 unique Google hits. Accurizer 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
It may be that there was little to go on, except for Zizzi's paper itself, but I did read that more than once and have compared with other formulations of LQG. The reasoning seems sound, especially if the reader has also read her "Minimal Model" paper. Zizzi's work was cited in an article in November 2004 Scientific American entitled Black Hole computers by Seth Lloyd and Jack Ng. The Emergent Consciousness paper was published in the journal of NeuroQuantology in 2003, and supports the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model of consciousness. The Big Wow article was written to fill a blank space, as the link in the Orch-OR entry had remained red for too long, and this author is familiar with Zizzi's work. I am trying to be as objective as possible, but the only other reviewer to the author's knowledge is Joy, in her Telic Thoughts blog, which can be accessed at
http://telicthoughts.com/?p=473
(
JonathanD
03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC))
reply
Note: Black Hole Computers was the Cover Article of the November '04 Scientific American, so the authors of that publication must consider this work important! ( JonathanD 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)) reply
Delete I actually like LQG; it's a bit of a maverick theory (which is part of what I like about it), but it is respectable. There is a difference, though, between "maverick" and "fringe". Zizzi's work is interesting, but I do not believe that it is a correct or even particularly rigorous interpretation of LQG: it's ad hoc and seems to set out to prove something by assuming aspects of it to be true to start with (which is not a reason to delete the article: I could be wrong, after all). The arXiv paper linked to in the article also doesn't talk about consciousness at all...it offers us a "minimal model of quantum gravity": using quantum computers and black hole entropy to address issues of the Immirzi parameter in LQG. On the other hand, this paper does talk about Penrose Orch-OR stuff (and barely touches on LQG except for spin network blab, which could come from anywhere), but it is bollocks, as far as I am concerned. It is based on a most tenuous analogy (which is not strictly formal), and the argument is unconvincing. But again, that isn't a reason to delete the article: it just needs a lot of help to come straight, because the article is only barely talking about what the papers are saying. And this is help I am not sure is merited, because...
This theory is not sufficiently notable at the moment, and nor is this particular research program yet developed and prominent enough, to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia: it seems to largely be limited to Zizzi. Citebase mentions 10 cites of the LQG paper, 4 of which are papers with Zizzi as author [2], and 6 cites of the consciousness paper, with 3 of those by Zizzi [3]. NeuroQuantology publishes more bunk than reasonable content. Articles on subjects like this shouldn't be listed under their "colloquial names", either. Scientific American is also a popular science publication, and qualified to judge neither the accuracy nor the importance of developments in quantum gravity/cosmology and so forth: we are already having a huge problem with New Scientist "legitimising" dodgy articles on Wikipedia (see this thread).
Why not just do an article on Penrose's stuff, if that's what the original idea was? Byrgenwulf 13:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Uncertain I believe Byrgenwulf's assessment of the ad-hoc nature of Zizzi's line of reasoning is a legitimate claim. It is somewhat tenuous, if taken as a proof of validity, but if the paper is viewed as attempting to show the feasibility of the universe having the capacity for reaching the computational threshold for conscousness, during the inflationary period, it does this fairly well. I do agree that the "Emergent Consciousness.." (Big Wow) paper is not a particularly satisfying formulation of LQG, but it does highlight some interesting possiblities about how consciousness might first arise, and her later "Minimal Model" paper does the LQG thing more justice. It's possible the focus on this topic should center on Penrose's work, as this subject does evolve from his "The Emperor's New Mind" book, which I particularly enjoyed. I jumped in with something, when I noticed a RED link on the Orch-OR page for this topic.
For the record, I believe a complete unifying theory will reveal 'Stringy' aspects to reality, and a real value to the LQG approach. It may well be that Noncommutative Geometry may leapfrog both, in addition to being a part of the underpinnings for both String Theory and LQG. I don't claim to have those answers yet, but I know the various contenders well enough. No unique Calabi-Yau space has been found, and a hundred thousand answers that work (from M-theory) is no answer at all, or no usable one. I do acknowledge that Strings are still considered a 'safer' bet and are considerabley more mainstream than LQG, at this point. Insofar as Zizzi's paper draws several of its conclusions from work of Whitehead and Chalmers that is not widely regarded as factual, I feel it could suffer deletion, for being tenuous.
If the test is whether this idea has captured the popular imagination, and is a jumping off point for more legitimate work on the possible quantum origins of consciousness, it may pass that test. This is not to say that the quantum mechanical nature of consciousness has been proven, but it has not been disproved either, at least not in a satisfying way. In this regard; Zizzi's paper may be a significant landmark for consciousness researchers. JonathanD 04:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Let it be known that I did a more thorough search for papers inspired by the Big Wow theory concepts using a web seach for Paola Zizzi and paring down to references that pertain to the line of reasoning explored by that paper, and I found a lot more material than I expected, and quite a few more citatons of this work. And the term 'Big Wow' seems to have been a catalyst, as well. Perhaps there is no other single term which sums up this concept so aptly, just as the 'Big Bang' did. Perhaps that was not the most apt despcription either, but the name stuck. I shall include a few more references and citations, if I have time later today. If I am not compelled to recuse myself, I vote to keep this article, or modify it for possible inclusion under a different name. JonathanD 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Is it because Paola is not having a nice zizi like yours that your are practicing mental masturbation on her ideas? I vote to keep this article, or modify it for possible inclusion under a different name. Hervey from Canada — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.130.64.248 (
talk •
contribs)
Please Keep - Important Citation Discovered! Jonathan back again, respectfully requesting that this work's impact be re-assessed. I was about ready to throw in the towl on this item myself, but have discovered a bunch of additional citations and derivative work. Note that her work was cited in
Gregory Chaitin's
Alan Turing Lecture last year in Sweden, entitled "Epistemology as Information Theory: From Leibniz to Ω". She was listed among the 'real physicists' who are working seriously on researching the view that the universe is made of information. Ergo; I would state that it's becoming more clear that the Big Wow is indeed a seminal landmark, and clearly does not fall in the category of NN, as Wikians like to put it. I'll try to weed out the lower quality external links, once I get time. Again; please reconsider the question of this article's relevance as someone of Chaitin's caliber would not cite her work in this way, if that work was not significant. Perhaps changing the title to Big Wow hypothesis would be more accurate.
JonathanD
00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn radio show Giant onehead 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, insufficient arguments to keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
A band that doesn't meet criteria set out in WP:MUSIC, regarding at least two albums on a major record label or a notable indie record, and no national tours- the closest thing was playing a San Antonio show on the Warped Tour. No reliable third party sources for verification either. Also, there is a redirect from Prevail within. Wafulz 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn localized music blog, fails WP:WEB, alexa rating of 1,976,724 Giant onehead 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn website, fails WP:WEB, alexa rating of 644,265 Giant onehead 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn music site, gets a few dozen unique google hits, fails WP:WEB Giant onehead 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 08:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
See User:Vilerage/Iamas for the backstory on this article. There are at least three different separate organizations called IAMAS. Previous edits by User:Iamascorp have falsely claimed a connection between a non-notable country music manager based out of a PO Box in North Carolina and this "IAMAS Corporation", a non-notable "academy of arts and sciences". Neither organization passes WP:CORP nor a Google test: most hits are for IAMAS (International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences). wikipediatrix 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I know the first nomination reached a no conensus, but this is cruft at it's absolute worst. It's a page about a message board to a site that only has an alexa rating of 212,784. The site it is hosted on is barely notable, if at all, so why would a forum be? Giant onehead 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This organization is nn. The available reliable information on this topic indicates that only 22 lodges of this type exist in North America, which is easily less than one-tenth the number of Masonic lodges in any given state in the US or province in Canada. Only three exist in Australia. The relevant RS hits on Google are a paper on the concept, a list on a webpage, and this article. Therefore it is not yet at the point of being notable, and the article is serving as an advertising vehicle to increase visibility rather than being due to already established notability. MSJapan 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website per WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 03:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd do a long discussion on this, but really I don't need to. Instead, here's their website: [5] That's about all the Google they get. The North Shore Outlook is a small community newspaper (I live in Vancouver and haven't heard of it before now, which gives an indication of its coverage). EP coming soon. Fails WP:MUSIC. They removed a CSD tag, twice, so I'm doing the long way. Delete, probably speedy. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not-quite-neoligism which falls short of actually being a 'term' and is actually more of a phrase with a self evident meaning. Artw 04:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Combination neologism (with few gHits) and essay article. Artw 04:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
NN Neologism. Artw 04:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 11:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Sillier joke version of 2.0 Meme Artw 04:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Marked as A7 speedy, but the claim that they have been lauded as one of the 13 best unsigned bands negates that. Brought here for a wider audience, without opinion myself (I'm crap with new bands). -- nae' blis 04:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a collection of mathematical proofs (per WP:MSM). The theorem is true for any prime number (not just 3) and represents a very "simple" fact that is already covered by the cyclic group page. grubber 05:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website with absolutely no signs of satisfying WP:WEB. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Arguments for keeping this article are insufficient given the weight of the deletion arguments. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is nothing but an advertisement for a website, created by the person/group that maintains the size. Violation of Wikipedia policy. Additionally, the site's notability is very minor; alexa rating is 803,669. Dr. Cash 05:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
"Oppose Deletion." Of course, I'm just the editor of Orato, but I'm not sure I understand the logic. When I do a search for "obscure rock bands", I get a list of 1146. While I'm all for maintaining the entries on all 1146 of 'em, why delete a reference to one of the world's first meaningful citizen journalism sites, with more than 1600 registered correspondents and more than 10,000 visitors in August? I would be more than willing to clean up the article to eliminate marginal passages. Paul Sullivan.
The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Apparently copyright violation ( [6]), and in any case I am not sure that he's notable enough. Delete as written. -- Nlu ( talk) 06:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I see no copyright violation and wonder what is gained by deleting the Hogan articles from wikipedia. Hogan´s writings offer a unique perspective from an intellectual who also has extensively experiencesd life and culture in Latin America. All of us will be diminished if the choice is made to delete.
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Hogan_%28poet%29" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfxhogan ( talk • contribs) 17:54, September 25, 2006
No copyright violation. This material is in the public domain. Also, Hogan's books (with the exception of Mexican Mornings) were all published buy university presses and small presses, not vanity presses. He's as notable as Jimmy Santyiago Baca and has won most of the same literary prizes including the NEA. In addition, his credit as historian appears on the Berenger movie and his book is a best seller in Mexico. Do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfxhogan ( talk • contribs)
Seems like the copyright notice on the author's page is to protect the images. The other information, date and place of birth, books published, etc. is clearly in the public domain: birth records, books in print, Directory of American Poets, etc. I am not the author but it seems to me that this entry should stay whether it was submitted by him or his wife or daughter, or just some fan. He is a well-recognized writer and certainly appears as author of many books on amazon.com, has several articles in monthly review, alterinfos, and seems to be pretty famous in Latin America.,etc. We wouldn't turn down a page on Clinton just because Chelsea submited it. 200.52.124.151 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Melissa When I google Michael Hogan+Mexico I find about a hundred entries mostly referring to the author's articles on Latin Amnerica, his books on history and poetry. Fairly notable in Latin America, I would say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.116.194.50 ( talk • contribs) I feel a little responsible for this thread. In my work as a professor at the University of Guadalajara I was browsing through Wikipedia to see how discriminating my students might be in their online research (on various subjects), when I came upon the site listing all the "Michael Hogans". Noting that the "American poet" was listed but there was no biographical info, which seemed both a necessary and an easy blank to fill in, and being short on time but wanting the info to be as accurate as possible, I simply emailed the poet himself and suggested he provide the data -- never imagining that questions would arise as to his "importance". I think the copyright issue has been thoroughly addressed, so will just briefly concentrate on why an entry on this writer is of value. I and my colleagues, in the U.S., Mexico and other countries, have all had students of various ages who very much wanted to research both the work and life of Michael Hogan, poet (and historian, essayist...) He has been a working, regularly-published writer since the 1970's (the majority of his publications by respected U.S. presses, and the few seeming "self-publications" having been sponsored by well-known Latin American educational institutions -- choices of presses having been made in response to requests by educators on both sides of the border, and in other countries, for more immediately-available texts.) He has worked with many other poets who are inarguably part of any "canon" of poetry in English (Baca, Bukowski, Ginsberg, Piercy, Stafford, etc. etc.) and is well-known as a valiant and gifted director of successful programs aimed toward both advanced and under-served communities of writing students. He also maintains strong links with other writers and scholars throughout the U.S. and Mexico, in Ireland, Italy and Germany, etc. -- another reason that his presence on the "world-wide" web makes particular sense. And, if breadth of readership were a criterion, the fact that his work currently appears in important English literature anthologies (by the most established U.S./international publishers) and thus reaches hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of students, would be motive enough to have his background data available to them. If actual authorship of this wikipedia entry is of concern, there are various of Hogan's colleagues throughout the world who'd compose another version -- as I noted at the beginning, my concern was for accuracy in the entry, and that has been achieved. Lmayo 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Prof. L. Mayo, Univ. de Guadalajara User's third edit. Note also that the article says he is married to a "textile artist and historian Lucinda Mayo". reply
KEEP: See among others: History Net http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=32002876521003 and MexConnect at http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/acogan/acbkmexmornings.html Also, Paris Review poetry http://www.theparisreview.com/viewissue.php/prmllD/72 and American Book Review http://www.litline.org/ABR/Issues/volume13/133.html and listing in Poets and Writers at http://www.pw.org 148.244.181.86 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Melissa reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn bio, webmaster of low-traffic website and violates WP:VAIN as said subject created article. Google search is hard to determine, because most entries are for a defunct auto company Giant onehead 06:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 06:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
listcruft Giant onehead 06:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page because it is of similar vain to the previous list:
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article reads like an advertisement. For some reason it has no link to the website being described; for that matter it cites no sources at all. The only incoming links are from the talk-page for the sole author (who also just happens to run the site) and from Gaming convention (to which it was recently added by the same editor). Phil | Talk 06:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi
> This article reads like an advertisement.
My apologies if it reads like an advertisement. Consupport is a free service, like google is a free service. In fact I have used the google entry to try and make the consupport article fit in. If you have any suggestions that would make it look less like an advertisement, I would appreciate them.
> For some reason it has no link to the website being described
There is a link. It's the first link under General Information. It's after "You can look at Consupport on ..."
However as you didn't spot it, and you do consider it important enough to comment on, I have also added a link to the official homepage, in a section called External Links, using the same method as in the Google entry.
> The only incoming links are from the talk-page for the sole author (who also just > happens to run the site) and from Gaming convention (to which it was recently added > by the same editor).
There was a message a few days ago which said there were not enough links to the page. Originally I wanted the page to settle in before I added lots of links to it, but following your message I went round and added in links in the most appropriate places.
I will look round for more links to add.
The problem is that many of the conventions that consupport supports do not themselves have wikipedia entries. I could add these conventions as well if you think it's worthwhile.
As I say, it's a service like Google. And I have tried to model the entry on google. Google has a section on "Products and Services" - would it be better if I changed the titles to also use "Products and Services?"
All suggestions and comments on improving the entry are appreciated.
All comments and suggestions are welcome.
Ratty. 20:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi
Thanks for the suggestion.
I've figured out how to do references and put a couple in (including one to the web site itself, like google does). The problem is that there is very little written about the subject, which is why everything had to be developed from scratch. There should be a lot more information, but many commercial companies keep the information confidential to avoid competitors.
As I find more references, I'll add them
Ratty. 20:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi
Added a couple more references. If anyone knows of any other references where we can refer people to, please either post here, or feel free to edit the page.
Ratty. 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is about a comic. Other than that and the names of the characters, it offers little else. Google is understandably not helpful, and my prod was removed by an anonymous user. My vote is Delete, at least until the author offers some context. Danny Lilithborne 06:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Catchpole 21:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy but notability is asserted, so brining here. Article itself is pretty poor but the subject may be worth saving. Guy 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This page more or less copies the content from a copyrighted Web site; see http://www.lotusland.org/gardens/cycad.htm and the sidebar on the left. The subject itself isn't a bad idea for an article, but the garden by the name "lotusland" does not appear to be notable. The term itself goes back to the "Odyssey". modify 07:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Just another run-of-the-mill MMORPG. I doubt it's noteworthy, but the CSD A7 it was tagged with certainly doesn't apply. Procedural nomination; Abstain. - Mgm| (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Inherently a game guide, providing little meaningful material but that which appears to have been copied directly from the manual and various websites. Does not assert the notability or importance of this specific map, and cannot be expanded beyond its current (uninformative) style unless the map becomes significant in some real way. Prod removed by Anon. Daveydw ee b ( chat/ patch) 08:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The Enlightenment has not been without its critics, from Joseph de Maistre onwards, so a section on criticisms would not go amiss in Age of Enlightenment. This article, however, is an essay (and WP:SOAP applies to those), probably original research (in which case WP:NOR applies), and does not cite any sources beyond those for the indiscriminate rummelcruft list of deaths. Philosophical criticisms of enlightenment ideas are already mentioned where appropriate (PoMo etc). Was previously deleted by WP:PROD on unknown grounds. In my view it would be appropriate to delete it again (and allow the AFD to run so that future incarnations can be speedied under WP:CSD G4). Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Conditional Delete I could believe that this might be sourceable to some political philosopher but until it is, it looks too much like OR. I'm going to put an "unsourced" tag on it and, if it doesn't get sourced by the time this AFD debate is over, then it should be deleted. -- Richard 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dakota 05:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A decidedly non-notable video which generates ninety unique ghits. Usual blogesque plugs, YouTube and GVideo links, but nothing to suggest anything has been written about this that would meet WP:V. Undoubtedly fails WP:WEB, but it's the lack of reporting that really proves this is NN. Was prod'd, prod removed by author. Given the lack of evidence for notability, I think delete is the Right Thing to do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable local church youth club. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but subsequent improvements made it assert notability and I think any prod tag would be removed. Anyway, it's just of local interest. Graham 87 09:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's no source for this, and hardly any information present! Was created a month ago, and still has these major problems. Prod was removed without comment.} JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to Pop Idol. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The subject is not notable. An also-ran in Pop Idol, who has not had significant achievements since pop idol. Ohconfucius 09:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, with blessings from the original author. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The station was never built. The analog permit was canceled and the DTV permit dismissed on July 3, 2002. The station's callsign was deleted per CDBS. Propose to delete the article as Not Notable. dhett 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Since the station's licenses and construction permits were cancelled, i support the deletion, even a speedy deletion if that may help. The sources i had (though legitimate, reliable, and very detailed), were incorrect. (FCC.gov, w9wi.com, and so on) Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 01:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Whispering( talk/ c) 18:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Withdraw Nomination Delete as neologism and/or dicdef. According to the prior AfD at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheeple which was closed "No Consensus" there was already a wiktionary entry. This is
here. Since
WP:NOT a dictionary this article, which also does not cite its sources, is both inappropriate and, co of the Wiktionary entry, redundant. It adds no value to wikipedia.
Fiddle Faddle
10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Unanimous agreement. There is no apparent need for further discussion. Uncle G 10:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Also ran in Pop Idol 2, Eurovision qualifying round, and is enjoying success as an entertainer at Pontins' holiday camps ;-) Delete as not notable per
WP:BIO
Ohconfucius
10:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Seemingly inconsequential journalist. Not sure about popularity or notability. Seems as though this article should be deleted WP:BIO Drak 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Wiki. No reliable secondary sources providing information on the subject. Looks like borderline vanity/advertising. Delete as per WP:WEB, WP:RS. Wickethewok 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Australian Idol. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Child actress in 2 season run before, also-ran in Australian Idol, and no significant achievements since. Delete Merge to Australian Idol per
WP:BIO
Ohconfucius
10:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. It could not have been said any clearerer. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedaic, utterly biased. Possibly non-notable. Should be either expanded rapidly to be an article worth keeping, or deleted for recreation later when the subject becomes notable and/or more details are available about the person Firi e n § 10:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Australian Idol. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The subject was unknown before Australian Idol2, enjoyed her 5 minutes of fame in the show, was placed 8th, and is notable only for having been canned by Australia's Channel 10 for "un-presenterlike behaviour". Delete per
WP:BIO
Ohconfucius
10:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 06:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No real notability here: seems to fail WP:BIO. Journalist for a minor local paper; she did get some award - some obscure thing, not Pulitzer prize stuff - but Wikipedia's guidelines state that multiple awards are necessary: most people in the world have probably received some sort of minor award in their life. The fact that the photo in the article is a "self-portrait" of the subject, and the general tone of the article, seem to indicate that there is a possible vanity angle here as well. Wikipedia isn't MySpace. Byrgenwulf 11:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to A380. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary article. Doesn't even deal with the topic it is named for. We don't have articles on airports that serve the 747 or other aircraft. Just because the A380 is a large aircraft doesn't mean it needs that special attention, just a runway long enough. Ben W Bell talk 11:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
May i remind all of you that the A380 is a very important and interesting topic for many Wiki viewers! after all i know many pilots and aviators who are very interested in the A380 and also are members or viewers of this site. If you dont like this article then add to it or just dont look at it!
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 12:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem notable, nothing on Google, which is usually a reliable indicator of the significance and popularity of hip-hop bands. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep due to bad faith nom, WP:SNOW, and an AfD determining keep mere days ago. . - PT ( s-s-s-s) 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete:This article has no bearing on information that would be found in an encyclopedia of any kind. This information is more likely to be found in a tabloid type newspaper.-- MechCommander 08:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
insignificant Doc aberdeen 14:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 06:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable event, not televised or put on pay per view, and the article is extremely poorly written to boot. Tromboneguy0186 11:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, non-notable house show. Had a prod but it was removed by an anon. --> So sayeth M e t h n o r Sayeth back| Other sayethings
The result was speedily deleted under CSD A1 by NawlinWiki. MER-C 12:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
per request of owner of corporation Johnmorrow 16:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirected. MER-C 12:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
the information in this article has been merged into World Scout Jamboree. Horus Kol 09:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to 2006 allegations of corruption in English football. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a notable player only in the youth team but you can add him when he is part of the first team at Middlesbrough F.C. but not yet.
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 15:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
possibly Non-notable. Can anyone prove otherwise? Nekohakase 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I am withdrawing this AfD. Based on suggestions from those commenting below, I agree that forks are required. Please see Talk:Colonialism#Splitting_this_article_up_-_five_.22eras.22_not_two for an alternative suggestion. Comments welcome. Gsd2000 18:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary fork from Colonialism, that simply duplicates its content under a heading that is an arbitrary and subjective slicing of historical time, that noone will ever directly search for, unlike say the The Scramble for Africa, which is a recognised term in English. Same goes for The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century). There is no reason why the content cannot remain in Colonialism with links to concrete topics with uncontentious titles that people would actually search for, such as the British Empire or British Raj. Just to reiterate: this article is simply duplicated text from Colonialism - deleting it would not constitute loss of information from Wikipedia. Gsd2000 12:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I am withdrawing this AfD. Based on suggestions from those commenting below, I agree that forks are required. Please see Talk:Colonialism#Splitting_this_article_up_-_five_.22eras.22_not_two for an alternative suggestion. Comments welcome. Gsd2000 18:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary fork from Colonialism, that simply duplicates its content under a heading that is an arbitrary and subjective slicing of historical time, that noone will ever directly search for, unlike say the Age of Discovery, which is a recognised term in English. Same goes for The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century). There is no reason why the content cannot remain in Colonialism with links to concrete topics with uncontentious titles that people would actually search for, such as the Spanish Empire or Hernan Cortes. Just to reiterate: this article is simply duplicated text from Colonialism - deleting it would not constitute loss of information from Wikipedia. Gsd2000 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an advert, created by the subject. It has already been prodded twice, and had the templat removed by the subject twice Chris 12:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced, largely unverifiable, often implausible, [8] shows 60-odd unique hits from under half a million, which is very low for a supposedly popular blogging system. Guy 13:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
With that logic you may as well delete the entry for MySpace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.226.16 ( talk • contribs) Exactly, delete this one and delete the MySpace entry at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.174.155 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Prod removed by anon. Looks like a thinly disguised ad for www.netellerbonuses.com, created by Netellerbonuses ( talk · contribs) and even if the linkspam is removed I don't see a worthwhile article here. Title strikes me as a Neologism. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 13:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This and The Great Story are up for deletion as non-notable pseudoscientific mystical flapdoodle, and possible original research, since no really reliable sources are cited. The Great Story article mentions lots of notable thinkers, but doesn't cite any of their work, because these people didn't write about "the Great Story". They wrote about other teleological philosophies, but these often have their own articles. "Ecozoic" is not a recognised geological era, nor a term in evolutionary biology or any indeed any established field other than "Great Story Studies". Byrgenwulf 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. A university student-produced TV show that ran for six episodes one time. Not on IMDB, while "The Hot Plate"+sitcom" does not give us anything relevant within the 45 Google results. ... discospinster talk 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Whispering( talk/ c) 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This really is simply a page of opinions, totally POV its completely made up of commentary and accusations about korea. basically its what someone thinks
Frogsprog
13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Article is about a film yet to be released, by an unknown production company (the only Google result for the company's name is this article), and involving non-notable people. The only source for the film is its official website, which contains no content other than a placeholder page and a link to this article. That fact, and the fact that the article's primary author Bgashler1 ( talk · contribs) may well be "director/producer/writer" Brad Gashler, leads me to suspect that the article was created as an advertisement for the film. The only Google result for the film's title is this article; others are misspellings of "from this movie".
In summary, an unknown film by non-notable people, possibly created for vanity/advertisement purposes. Delete. -- bainer ( talk) 13:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online radio station, does not meet WP:WEB Wildthing61476 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged CSD as a "hoax", but that is not a valid criterin for speedy. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax, however, so I'm bringing it here. Deville ( Talk) 14:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, with no prejudice against Huon's test version at User:Huon/Test being used instead, at the proper name of Battle of Salyersville. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no sources for this battle. "Battle of Salyersville" produces 2 Ghits, both of which seem to refer to an event in 1862, not 1863. The service history of the 14th Kentucky infantry shows only a Union defeat a few days earlier. The National Park Service's list of battles also does not contain this one. Even the Magoffin County Historical Society's website does not mention it. Considering the massive casualties claimed (almost 200 dead, which would probably translate to more than a thousand total casualties), this total lack of evidence is highly unlikely. Delete as probable hoax. Huon 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
[keep]] maby less casualties happend and the year might be off i was just going by my grand fathers old storys that his grandpa told him about my great great great grand pa who was actually in the battle of salyersville dont delete the deaths could easily have been exagerated over the years and i guesed at the month. so keep it and change it some im actually frome magoffin and i know they were a battle of salyersville but soldiers storys are often exagerated it was suposed to have happend before the battle of puncheon creek like a few hours before it but it did happen just change the date and year.]] [us men from back here aint bad for lying i promise me and many people belive the event happend its part of local folklore of the area.] [my pa also told me that they were a unioun recruting station at one end of salyersville and a confederate station at the other]
[what does per nom mean] if any one wants to know more about the battle like men that were in it just type who were there and ill tell you. one man that was in it my ancestor i talked about was william jenkins a private in the 3rd ky mtd rifles csa he went home after his unit was dissolved later in the war.] other relatives i have that were in it was my 5thgreat uncles stephen and martin howard. and my 4th uncle who was unioun that disserted there william howard.]
[keep] you should not delete it just because its not in the national archives the archives only contian important strategic battles not minnor battles such as this one . [if it is deleted put it in a diffirent category such as legonds of the civil war or little known battles. [if you guys would agree we could have a reenactment at the site to prove wether a battle could have been fought there but wee have to have the 14thkyregiment and other reenactment units to do this and we could put it on television.old men dont always tell the truth to little kids ..go to user page samuel purtee for more information.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuel purtee ( talk • contribs) 16:53, September 23, 2006 (UTC) [[final solution about the topic]frome sam purtee i recently asked the owner of the magoffin county historical society he sead the battle was a small skirmish with about 80 men involved. so change it keep it and end the discussion any ways half mountian is only 3 miles south of salyersville the events i sead took place exactly like i sead just at a smaller scale. the battle of puncheon creek is what we call the action at half mountian it was after the skirmish in salyersville and in reality there was only like 10 people killed in salyersville during the battle and only about 8 unioun men died . im fixing it with acuracy after this stuff has been typed. lets put an end to this argument i admit i was wrong very wrong about the casualties. but around here we like a good story.. i am a member of licking stations sons of confederate veterans im good in geneology and history.frome samuel purtee Samuel purtee 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC) [have any of you ever been to this area prestonsburg is only 20 miles frome salyersville. and history references cant always be belived a lot is left out. [samuel purtees last sentence] well think about it this way i wont agree to delete my history how would you agree to delete yours if you must then delete this article and make one about the battle of half mountian.frome samuel purtee i quit arguing with you city slikers. and i apologise for trying to expose some little unkown history about my home town. reply
from [sam purtee] i agree with you huon lets use your draft for the article but if we change the name lets call it the battle of ivy point hill Samuel purtee 22:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)samuel purtee reply
The result was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Small company from Ireland, only founded in 2004, doesn't seem to meet any of the guidelines in WP:CORP. Google results (excluding this article and the official website) are limited to local council records, local business directories and so forth (along with false positivies for people using "stone warehouse" otherwise than as a proper noun). -- bainer ( talk) 14:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Subject appears to have not independent notability outside of the unaccredited school he leads, 309 ghits of which 118 unique. Guy 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)\ reply
The result was speedy keep because article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Horus Kol ( talk · contribs) merged content with this edit, amongst others. Therefore the GFDL requires that the edit history of this article be retained. Please read Wikipedia:Merge for the correct procedure to follow when merging articles. Uncle G 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The content of this article is now part of World Scout Jamboree Horus Kol 14:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is redundant as mostly all of the information is already on Sonic's page, and no other Super form has an article to itself. The comic information can go in Sonic's articles for the respective canons. Grandmastergalvatron 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
From "What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia entries are not: Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." Mmoneypenny 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism that nets 323 google hits, many about unrelated things. Talk page has some claims that Wired has used this, but I doubt this word has seen too much wider use. wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 15:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Dubious validity, and non-notable. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory, and this guy is notable, if at all, only for who his descendants might be. But even that is unclear; the article cites a single reference which doesn't mention this individual, and the content of the article itself seems dubious. How did the "son of a poor man" become an Army general? In which Army? In the 18th century British army, you didn't become a general unless you were from a noble family or similarly privileged background. And the article admits that any relationship to the George Bush family is purely speculative. Russ Blau (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn notable band, no ghits for this band but title exists for a band by this name over 20 yrs ago which did not and does contain the members this band list in the article or image, vanity or hoax, creater removed speedy tag and prod without comment Shella * 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non descript housing estate Pally01 16:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
School not notable ENeville 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
1. The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself.
2. The school has been or was in existence for over 50 years, due to the great likelihood of—but greater difficulty of uncovering—non-trivial historical coverage of that school.
3. The school participates in the highest grade of the state, province or regional competitions in at least three extracurricular activities. These can include, for example, sports teams, band competitions, cheerleading competitions, engineering contests, and so forth. In addition, the school has won at least two regional championships or one national championship in any of these activities.
4. The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools.
5. Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff.
6. The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC).
7. The school building or campus has notable architectural features that set it apart from others.
AmitDeshwar 08:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC) — AmitDeshwar ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non descript housing estate Pally01 16:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The article is a direct contradiction of WP:AVTRIV. I've merged the trivia in the main SG-1 article and thrown some none notable bits out. The article now has no purpose The Filmaker 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. AfD is not a vote, and GassyGuy makes a very powerful argument. -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable music label ENeville 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. While the last three keep !votes certainly have more weight than the first four deletes, the last comment also makes a valid point. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable. Nekohakase 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable housing estate Pally01 16:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable school Pally01 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
See how easy this is? One addresses the source material that is available for the school at hand. No "stuck record" arguments, assertions of flawed blanket criteria, or subjective judgements of what one personally considers to be notable, are required. Uncle G 08:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is what a "telephone book" entry would look like, for comparison. Uncle G 10:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Redundant one-line page. That person and his notability is already listed on Seattle Baroque. Is Seattle Baroque even notable? Nekohakase 16:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable. Nekohakase 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List of Emmerdale characters. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
a non-notable minor character, in the show for less than 2 months. Fails WP:FICTION character is already listed at List of Emmerdale characters ENeville 16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer D iablo 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable school Pally01 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
Roberts Primary School
Coseley High School
The result was Keep. Whether this article is kept or merged is a debate that can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The only useful info in the article is a duplication of that presented in a much nicer way already at Chanyu ENeville 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Mike 7. MER-C 06:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO - Nv8200p talk 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 19:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Nominated by anon. Completing nom with no vote. Fan-1967 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Fan-1967 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, possible advertising/spam Tim1988 talk 17:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a specialist auction (and classified ad) website, was deleted after Prod and restored on request. I added the single source I could find that could be considered about the site (it covers LabX and two others). Two more articles are press releases, plus a passing mention (all from Newsbank). The cited Keskinocak and Tayur article is a passing mention and not about LabX, so WP:WEB and WP:CORP don't seem to be met. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - Added story from Wired Magazine (author is a senior scientist in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington). Also added reference to a recently released paperback book by Greg Holden being sold on Amazon. So perhaps this helps meet
WP:WEB and
WP:CORP.
Kenpiech
15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep. Catchpole 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article has only one sentence saying that this is a drink. No references, description or anything saying why this is notable. Dugwiki 17:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
completely unnotable information- even if the Board of European Students of Technology is notable, surely this complete list of all its committee members is completely superfluous. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Robotforaday 17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Coney Island. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article on a non-notable light aircraft crash, these sorts of things happen everyday (unfortunately). See the following prior AFDs on similar subjects: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Indiana Plane Crash (2nd nomination). Nilfanion ( talk) 18:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep- Nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete. -- Aaron 21:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article on a non-notable light aircraft crash, these sorts of things happen everyday (unfortunately). The only claim to notability here is that the plane was owned by
Hendrick Motorsports however no notable person was on the aircraft.
WP:NOT a memorial. See the following prior AFDs on similar subjects:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Indiana Plane Crash (2nd nomination). The Long Island crash is very similar.
Nilfanion (
talk) 18:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Speedy Keep, withdrawing deletion req. At the
time the article made no assertion as to the notability of its victims; and as I had not heard of it. The article still needs work, but that is what cleanup templates are for.--
Nilfanion (
talk)
20:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination for deletion Encyclopedically non-notable student internet classifieds startup launched in 2005. Fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP, WP:SPAM. There are a couple of press articles on the website - one a press release from Oxford University press office (this is not an independent or reliable source, given that the startup is supported by the Oxford University Entrepreneurs Society) and the other a trival puff piece in the Times Online (the Oxbridge Old Boy Network in action - hurray. Or okay, someone on the team had some success with media relations). Its currently miscategorized, I think, as an online auction site (its just classified ads as far as I can see) - in any case, the claim that its the first online marketplace for students is highly dubious. I was happily buying and selling academic books and other student items on my university's for-sale usenet newsgroup back in the 1990s, as many other people were (I could take a gander at other universities' newsgroup classifieds too). Best of luck to the team, but currently this website's no Facebook.com by a long chalk (Launched 1 and half years ago, and has only supported 1,467 transactions or about 3 a day; Alexa ranking of ~662,634 for the .com domain or ~4,310,107 for the co.uk domain)) Bwithh 18:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as hoax. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable obscure occultist. I suspect it is a hoax, which would be interesting, as it has been around since 2002. Leibniz 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep as no consensus (3 keep, 3 delete; excluding my own vote. Some reasoning for both sides) The JPS talk to me 21:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not an article. It's not even clear, what's the intended topic is. -- Pjacobi 19:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was flagged as copyvio. MER-C 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
It is a page that blatantly is self-advertising and looks like it was copied and pasted from the companies website. KaoB e ar (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced speculation. The only concrete fact here is that Carey has been writing songs for the album; she's made no mention of the title, or with whom she's going to collaborate, or anything else the article is claiming. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 20:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I tried to find sources supporting the claims made in this article but I couldn't find a single one, so I'm almost certain they are complete fabrications. Besides, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Pure advertisement, doesn't meet requirements for a page. The article in question has been here since June so I'm not sure whether the general decision so far is keep or go, so I'm bringing it up for discussion. Sivius T- C 20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. - Doc 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is an attempt to mock a junior tennis player named Shaun Bussert. The vast majority of the information in the article is made up, and the information on his "principles" are obviously an attempt to make fun of his tennis playing ability. This article should be deleted as it serves no informational purpose and only serves to satirize somebody. Hindudot1788 20:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Article about a pornographic films actress; no assertion of meeting either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
She's a well-known porn industry figure, with dozens of videos to her credit, hundreds of magazine appearances and thousands of webpages referencing her (110,000 pages referencing the term "traci topps" in Google).
The result was Keep. Whether this article is kept, merged, or redirected is a debate that can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Is being a finalist on one reality show ( America's Got Talent) enough for an article? I don't think so, but listing here for further comment. NawlinWiki 21:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Okay, two things to say:
- I was wrong. This article meets WP:BAND; see ninth bullet point, "Has won or placed in a major music competition". The definition of "major music competition" is open to debate, but it's certainly plausible that America's Got Talent (a show with which I am unfamiliar) qualifies. Accordingly I withdraw my vote to delete and vote to keep.
- If this article didn't meet WP:BAND, I still hold that it would be a candidate for speedy deletion. The fact is that CSD A7 is a joke. I've lost count of how many newly-created articles I've seen that say something like, " Joseph Q. Wikinewbie is the GREATAST PERSON EVAR!!!!1!!", and every single one of them has been speedily deleted under A7. Why? Surely the GREATAST PERSON EVAR is notable, so the article definitely asserts the notability of the subject. But the admins (wisely, IMHO) ignore the rules and speedily delete the articles anyway. The CSD process needs reform.
Sorry for getting on a soapbox, but that's what WP:IAR is all about.
VoiceOfReason 06:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable to WP:BIO standards Islamic equivalent of a Christian pastor. Outside by comfort zone, so I got the opinion of two editors I respected (with knowledge about Islam) and they both suggested the article be AFD nominated to see if anyone can find evidence that he is worth keeping an article on. [22] [23] GRBerry 21:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article is part of a tranche of articles on ordnary housing estates none of which have any notablity at all, though are doubtless loved by their residents. It fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Estates like this are ten a penny in the UK. The article is unreferenced and is not linked to. It also links nowhere. Fiddle Faddle 21:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The article contains tons of factual errors, all relevant information in this article is already in other Oddworld articles. Also the games described here are not two parts of the same game. Mika1h 21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A debut album that is yet to be released does not have any nobility, and it also fails the crystal ball test. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. -- Nishkid64 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This entry fails WP:CORP. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, it's been expanded to include notability since the nomination and no objections to keeping after that. - Bobet 10:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This entry fails WP:CORP. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This entry fails WP:CORP. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 07:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Nomination for deletion
The result was Speedy delete: A7 & Author requests deletion. — Centrx→ talk • 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not establish notability. (Page blanked by creator) Dystopos 21:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Notability not verifiable per WP:V. A Google search with "Kha Hoang" and "royal" find only two hits that indicate he was a doctor for the Vietnamese royal family. One of these is from the "institute" that supports his work [27] and the other is a mirror of that site [28]. - AED 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer D iablo 13:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Inherently a game guide, providing little meaningful material but that which appears to have been copied directly from the manual. Should therefore be deleted as gamecruft. Daveydw ee b ( chat/ patch) 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Fails Google test; probably a hoax. — M isza 13 18:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This has been prodded and tagged as a hoax - both removed by the starting editor. No Ghits, so I have it down as a hoax, but even then being the grandson of somebody famous doesn't warrant inclusion anyway. So fails WP:HOAX, WP:BIO, Firm delete from me.-- Richhoncho 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Already have Lists of famous short men and women. Alleged shortness of Tom Cruise, Dustin Hoffman etc. can be mentioned in their respective articles, if necessary. JScott06 22:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This sub-stub (current entire content: "B. Volkan Yucel (18 January 1978) Turkish writer.") does not identify who this person is or provide any evidence of notability even within the Turkish-speaking world, let alone the English one. Google has only about 50 distinct hits for this name, the top ones of which don't look like potential reliable sources. Not speaking Turkish, I can't tell if any of these sites make a notability case, but the fact that (A) tr:Wikipedia apparently has no article for this person, although it lists 8 other names with "Yücel" in them); (B) the U.S. Library of Congress lists no such person, although it has 33 Yücels or Yucels; and (C) Amazon.com knows nothing of this person, make it look very much like a vanity article. en:Wikiquote also has the corresponding q:B. Volkan Yucel up for deletion. Since the creator (same ID on both en:WP and en:WQ) recreated the article several times after it was deleted on WQ, I didn't bother to {{ prod}} it here for failure to assert notability. I recommend deletion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Note that schools at this moment appears to be a rather contentious issue, please consider discussing at relevant pages (e.g. WP:SCHOOL) before considering future school-related deletion. - Mailer D iablo 13:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete not notable and SOMEBODY had to get alex to read his messages! Charlesknight 23:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Note that schools at this moment appears to be a rather contentious issue, please consider discussing at relevant pages (e.g. WP:SCHOOL) before considering future school-related deletion. - Mailer D iablo 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete not notable Charlesknight 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply