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
The result was Speedy delete; no notability asserted.. Shell babelfish 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
doesnt show notablity Ian3055 21:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dakota 05:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website, doesn't meet WP:WEB, no alexa ranking, no reliable sources so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website, alexa ranking of 2,500,000+, no reliable sources on this, doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:V Xyzzyplugh 23:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute --- Deville ( Talk) 03:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
not notable programme WP:NOTABILITY 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
advert Yy-bo 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails the Google test; seems non-notable and no reliable sources are given per WP:RS - there's a dead external fansite link. Crystallina 01:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book available only in a handful of stores. Fails notability criteria for books. -- Tbeatty 01:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
“ | A contemporary book is generally notable if it
verifiably meets one or more of the following criteria:
|
” |
Notability is established by meeing one of the above. This book meets multiple criteria 1, 6 & 7.
1: Sander Hicks is notable, he has his own article
6: Guerrilla News Network and the Baltimore Chronicle.
7: see the article for full list.
Thus, is the notability disscusion settled. Since that is the only motiv nom has, this afd needs to bee speedy keept or a new nom must be presented.-- Striver 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I did not write that, so i have no idea how much work went into creating it. But i know it is all we have to go by. Regarding point 6, it has a note to it, and by the standards of that note:
“ | "Non-trivial" normally excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source. | ” |
And by that standard is the GNN and Baltimore Chronicle reviews non-trivial. Both Guerrilla News Network and the Baltimore Chronicle have articles, thuse are they both notable. You want to dissregard #1? Then Are you going also to dissregard #6 and #7 ? -- Striver 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Btw, the book also fullills #2. If you look closly, many times is the author presented as the author of this very book, and not as anything else. are we going to ignore #2? If yes, then we have ignored 4 of 7 points.-- Striver 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I just added Publishers Weeklys review, cementing #6 and #7. -- Striver 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
added a fourth source, this time an interview. -- Striver 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Although an important political set of facts, this article is entirely copyvio and a personal narrative. Looking for more opinions on what should be done. As of now, I favor deletion. Rama's arrow 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Only limited notability. Very minor political player not deserving of an entry. Google finds 37 unique hits [10], a number of which are irrelevant or Wiki mirrors. Should be deleted by WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep due to withdrawn nomination. Nufy8 23:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I have speedy deleted this twice now. This person is a nn criminal. Take it to Wikinews. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
STRONG KEEP - This fugitive is number 1 on the New York most wanted list with current reward of $250,000 and has been on the run for months on a mission. There is enough interest in his cause to justify this entry.
His addition to the Ten Most Wanted List makes him notable, I withdraw the nomination. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as nonsense. (I suspect that it is also an attack article, but can't confirm it.) -- Nlu ( talk) 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Urban dictionary neologism with 3 unique google hits. De-prod by anonymous user with an assurance in the article that this terms is gaining popularity (I suppose it would be hard for it to lose something it doesn't have...) Irongargoyle 01:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Gay porn site that fails WP:WEB --- Lid 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
reads like spam, from non-notable corp Akradecki 02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software company. Prod removed without reason given. Appears also to be vanity article as arctile and author have same name. And yes that is $14.02, not $14.02 MILLION. Wildthing61476 02:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. alphaChimp (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I see no real assertion of notability here. While it's not itself original research, it is report of research of little confirmed validity and importance. Delete Nlu ( talk) 02:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company fails WP:CORP. One of their primary vehicles of advertising is myspace. I prod'ed, author removed tag. I'm listing here. alphaChimp laudare 02:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
There is quite a bit of assertion of notability here. However, the links to the organizations that Griffin are involved in are all external links to organizations that appear to have little notability themselves. Unless notability actually shown, Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
As well as being the author of The_Creature_from_Jekyll_Island this man also made one of the first film documentaries about political corruption in regard to the Federal Reserve system, that alone in my opinion make this man one of the most remarkable people in media at least of or modern time. i know of no other person that clearly put themselves on the record like this man did in 1960(1)(2), and that is not even regarding the many organisations Mr Griffin Founded etc – Keep surely seriously - Theblackbay 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Also I find it a little perturbing that the article is under construction and someone is trying to delete it? can't we see it finished and then make a decision? or don't we want to see it finished? - Theblackbay 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as nonsense and non-notable. -- Nlu ( talk) 09:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - it seems we've got a hoax on our hands. A Google search for this "global principality" yields a whopping 7 hits. Its official site is some free web server laden with annoying ads and redirected via free service CJB.net. Its language smacks of Jennifer Government's online roleplay (especially the graphics).
Let's also take the time to sack Pazal's young monarch as well. Fabricationary 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect. --- Deville ( Talk) 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears abandoned by its creator, but even if fleshed out is still not sufficiently notable by itself as a fictional location in a novel. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The creator of this Article, who sounds like he might be the owner of the site, is bassically describing the whole site. I already removed two sections that were about his staff forums or something. He links to the Guidelines and Rules, making it look to me like he wants all users who he recruited from wikipedia to read the rules. This article fails WP:WEB in my opinion.
Alan 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be thoroughly unnotable. I was very tempted to simply speedy delete it, but since this is not an area that I know well, decided to AfD it just to make sure. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
"Jon is 'probably' one of the most hated people on the Internet"? If this typifies his work, I can see why (although, to be fair, I'd never heard of him before this. Listed here rather than speedied as it does seem to be asserting notability/notoriety, but not remotely to any standard we have. When you put your own name as a (redlinked, naturally) category, you have ended all need to argue that this isn't the vanity page's vanity page. Daniel Case 03:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Promo page for currently nn website. Daniel Case 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A quick check of the web site will confirm for your satisfaction that this is an advertisement masquerading as an article. Williamborg (Bill) 03:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Another promo page for NN website that claims it "has gained popularity extremely quickly". Yet I couldn't find any news coverage in 797 Ghits [Check Google hits]. Daniel Case 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi guys, I'm Bungledust - the guy who put the article up. I put it up because I thought people would generally be interested, because the site is growing and getting some big names, and thought that people would want to know what it is. It is completely unbiased and says exactly what somethingFM is about. However, it seems destined to be deleted. Just wanted to know: At what stage would this page be deemed fit to be a wikipedia article? Is it a certain number of hits, certain number of links, etc? It might not be relevant to American users (aimed at an Australian audience); would that affect it's notability? Thanks guys.
The result was merge and redirect. I would have to say that this doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (songs), but this isn't a very fleshed-out guideline. However, just running through the obvious list, it seems to me that none of the songs from Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, or Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, have their own pages. These movies (and thus their songs) are clearly much more notable than Kuch Naa Kaho, so, taking the other articles as precedent, I would say that Baat Meri Suniye To Zara doesn't cut the standard guidelines applied to WP articles about Bollywood. If and when the editors of Bollywood articles decide it's appropriate for films to have individual song pages, these can come back, but my guess is that the community will not go that way, since the information on these songs fits quite naturally and easily into the parent articles in the first place. --- Deville ( Talk) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no song notability guidelines yet, but I don't think a "great song" at the beginning of the movie would qualify under any standard.
Daniel Case 04:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of anti-Mormon attack pages lacking the slightest encyclopedic content. --- Deville ( Talk) 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This phrase is a protologism. A google search for this phrase only shows 12 pages of results. Of those, at least four are mirrors of this wikipedia entry and five are completely unrelated to the usage described in the article. This is far below the threshold to even be considered a Wikipedia:Neologism Ryan Gardner 03:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by Woohookitty per WP:VAIN and article recreation after this AFD from August.
Non notable academic on the basis of web page quoted in article [www.pblass.com]. Prod removed. Samir धर्म 03:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
for 5300 dollars that changes to having your name printed on the ballot I decided against this course of action. The recent palm beach post plambeachpost.com has published a major positive article about my campaign putting it in the context of ideas of einstien and gandhi
as for other comments i am preparing vast documentation of notability of my work including its inclusion in the paris academy,russia and japan mainly about zariski surfaces
also the important impact of ulam quarterly journal will be documented and discussed with top editors in jim wales office i take this very seriously and please do not feel you can decide this unless you know mathematics at the ph d level at least. thanks dr piotr blass
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable by herself per WP:BIO - Nv8200p talk 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, the article itself, and the sources, explicitly say that there is no evidence that this phenomenon exists. --- Deville ( Talk) 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Three sentences pretty much cover the basics: neologism, uses a blog post as its primary source and ends admitting the phenomenon is anecdotal and speculative. Daniel Case 04:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Pointless neoligism, huh? Considering that it is a common diagnosis of exclusion with computer technicians, I would hesitate to call it "pointless". However, I concur that it is a neoligism at this time, and consequently agree with the article's deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.34.243 ( talk • contribs)
The result was userfy and then delete. It barely satisfies WP:V and surely doesn't come close to being notable. No reference is made in the article, or here, or anywhere I can find of any third-party source writing about this. If there were an article on the WCBU 2004, then this could be a section in that article. --- Deville ( Talk) 20:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a blatant hoax, written well enough to avoid being speedied. Danny Lilithborne 04:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
As other sports teams (including ultimate frisbee teams) have appeared on the Wikipedia website, I don't see why Currier Island should not be included. -- Minhja 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Webcomic, not notable. Tracker/TTV ( myTalk| myWork| myInbox) 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. --jam es (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted under the A7 criteria. Apparently it now has enough to barely survive that, but I still don't think this person deserves an article. Her only claim to fame is that she wrote, directed, and produced the independent film Conceiving Ada. The film received no awards according to IMDb - and in fact, it doesn't even have any box office information listed there, which seems to indicate it never had any kind of real release pattern or distribution. -- Hetar 04:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Despite the boldfaced notability claims in the article, I don't think we have any articles on mock trial teams. Like marching bands, they mean a lot to the people in them but that doesn't make them WP-worthy Daniel Case 04:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I fail to see how they are not WP-worthy just because a person does not participate in them. The purpose of Wikipedia (in my opinion) is to spread information and educate people on a wide variety of issues. Just because something may "mean a lot to the people in them" does not justify why it can not be shared with people who "are not in them". I feel that Mr. Case's rational smacks of Exclusiveness and basically forces contents on Wikipedia to be "only things that people are apart of". If we are to follow Mr. Case's logic, then there should be no Wikipedia articles on any athletic teams, professional or collegiate since the majority of fans and viewers "are not apart of them".
What does Mr. Case mean by, "they mean a lot to people in them"? Does he simply mean the actual students who compete in them? Or does he mean the countless professionals in the legal community who volunteer to coordinate and regulate the competitions held on campuses all across the country? Or does he simply mean the hundreds, if not thousands of students who have participated in the competitions in prior years, but still wish to remain informed about other teams in the competition? I would ask that Mr. Case not be so broad and vague in his assumptions regarding who will and will not have an interest in this information.
Mr. Case is right in his assumption that there aren't any articles on mock trial teams on wikipedia. Considering that it is one of the most competitive collegiate activity with 600 teams, I feel that more schools should provide information about their Mock Trial programs so that others can learn about the educational and academic competition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TruOne ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
See the previous deletion discussion, which resulted in deletion. This article is probably substantially different from the original, which makes it an invalid speedy, but the underlying problem remains: There is a dearth of verifiable, reliable third-party sources for this series. Google returns only 31 unique hits, some of which are forums and other unreliable sources. No sources or even external links are provided beyond the production group's home page. Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." — TKD:: Talk 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, I'm not that convinced that there couldn't be an article about this, but this whole article is just cut and pasted from their website so it's a copyvio and nothing is lost by deleting it. - Bobet 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable corporation; advertising. Brianyoumans 05:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No notablity, no sources, and has been this way since 2004. Arbusto 05:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, publishing real book with awards meets at least the minimum bar of WP:BIO --- Deville ( Talk) 03:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. Author of a book and claims a PhD, no different than any other college professor. Has no sources or notablity. Arbusto 05:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Letting the Wikipedia community decide on this, for me its just some player guild from the game Ultima Online-- Jestix 06:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I say again the reason for deletion isn't good enough because this is not a guild. Please remove your delete request and start a new one if you really feel the need. Lenapeco911 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for deletion by THB but the second stage was not completed. The article appears to be a non-notable person, there does not appear to be a claim of notability, and there are no external links. MLA 12:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable person. THB 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazbot85 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Letting the wikipedia community again decide on this, for me this is just a player guild from the Ultima Online game not meeting encyclopedic notability criterias Jestix 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep You may search roleplaying for details. This is more of an information center on Orcs and roleplaying community for Orc fans. You may as well delete Orcs if your going to delete this. Lenapeco911 07:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Alright I will redo this with a lot my detail and follow all the guidelines. Delete it if you want so I can take another shot at this. I'm very new to Wikipedia and I'm still learning. -- Lenapeco911 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep This clan invented many words of black speech (i.e pizbur). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.115.19 ( talk • contribs) U01:11, 5 September 2006.
Delete: Not notable. The only keep vote is by the author. Fishermen1 15:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenapeco911 ( talk • contribs)
Keep Encyclopedic information needs to be unbiased. If another gaming guild, shadowclan, is to be allowed then you must allow all other gaming guilds. Or else delete shadowclan as well. If not, who is it that would then decide which gaming guilds are "noteworthy" and which are not? To remain unbiased you must apply a uniform policy. Jackson512 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jackson512 ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
KeepJackson is right. Fair is fair, gotta either keep them both or lose them both. I say keep em. Choirboy 05:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC):— Possible single purpose account: Choirboy ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
KeepIt was recently agreed to keep the Shadowclan entry. This group is closely linked to Shadowclan, taking on the role of "carrying the torch" so to speak, therefore it should stay. It is extremely notable as well. If it is removed, then the Shadowclan entry should be removed as well. Drouillm 06:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Orc Community Website This website appears to be well known and respected. They have Shadowclan listed right next Bloodclan. Gamers Network Another well known website has them listed here. Another Community website Has them listed as well.
member list This website also has archives of mentioning runuo sponsership. I was going to throw a link up for Runuo but it's already listed on wik and you can click the link.
Thordice 19:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Thordice ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
Thordice 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
- Being interviewed for a commercially-published book (a " ...for Dummies" book, no less). [21] - Being written into the official documentation of at least one game in which it was involved, Dark Age of Camelot. [22] - Being the focus of developers of games in which Shadowclan participates in aside from the above. [23], [24] - Being the focus of other, non-official game websites. [25], [26], [27]
According to this discussion and the present article, Bloodclan only appears to share this last item, attention from non-official game websites. Aside from falling short of equal notability with Shadowclan, this also constitutes failing to meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. Simoes 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
- Being the focus of other, non-official game websites
When this article was submitted it did lack some evidenc and detail. However I prefer it be wikified or kept because it's more than noteworthy. Visit the links I already provided above who represent online gaming websites that feature Bloodclan. Runuo and UOGamers Developers also have mentioned that they focus their attention on Bloodclan.
Thordice 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This vanity page has zero notability. Being mentioned on non-official gamer sites doesn't establish notability, nor does it compare to the recognition Shadowclan has garnered from game developers. Thanks for your effort though!
Shazbot85
Talk 04:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
Bloodclan has garnered recognition from game and software developers as well. contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Like who?
Shazbot85
Talk 04:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
Thordice 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Please keep in mind the flurry of sockpuppets are mostly Shadowclan sockpuppets.
Thordice 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep by default - the afd nomination was duplicated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blake_Ragsdale_Van_Leer which was closed as Keep by --jam es (talk). Yomangani talk 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to meet WP:BIO Jestix 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete if you want, I didn't study the guidelines when I added this page. I'm going to redo it correctly once it's deleted. [[User:Lenapeco911|Lenapeco911] 01:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Georgia Tech is a large, well respected school and I would say that its presidents are notable. Several others already have pages. Page should be cleaned up, but the subject is noteworthy. - The Bethling 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep, per reasons given by The Bethling. • WarpFlyght ( talk) 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The following comments are merged from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blake_Ragsdale_Van_Leer, apparently the result of a syntax error.
Does not seem to meet WP:BIO Jestix 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
End merged comments
Keep He's notable. Shazbot85 Talk 03:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Here's some more information. "Blake Ragsdale Van Leer, the first engineer to head the school. Van Leer, described as a direct man of military bearing, would oversee a dramatic expansion "
Publication from Georgia Tech Alumni Association
Thordice 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. The User:Nthompson71 who started the article just might be the "Nate Thompson" mentioned in the article. - IceCreamAntisocial 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Listed on dab pages for cleanup, but I can't see how this can be cleaned up or why it is needed at this time. Neither of the two topics linked to database and networking even contain the term "Access method". Maybe this should be a networking stub or a redirect somewhere but I don't think it should be a dab page. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect into Flatbread. — CharlotteWebb
One google hit that's not a mirror site (18 hits altogether for a very distinctive name), and apparently a 1984 article in National Geographic that I would suspect just mentioned this in a list of varietals. Not global, not even wholly Chinese, just the Qiang region, according to the article itself. Not notable cuisine. Seems like it's not very distinctive in terms of flat breads, and definitely, the notability quotient here is low.- Kmaguir1 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn websites.-- Nynyny 07:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:SPAM-- Nynyny 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The Land 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn websites.-- Nynyny 07:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The Land 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn websites.-- Nynyny 07:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The Land 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This a gallery of various ABC logos. Apart from the obvious fair use problems such an article creates, there really is nothing here to substantiate its existance. I am recommending delete under WP:NOT. -- Hetar 07:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as a violation of copyright policy and a article with no context. GRBerry 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect (please note ANY user may merge and redirect articles). The Land 16:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Um, well, one episode, I don't even recall him actually appearing as the article alleged, or having dialogue. But even if he did, he's not recurring in any sense, not even in mention--he is only mentioned in this episode, and not even a key figure in the episode. Merge and Delete.- Kmaguir1 07:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete The Land 16:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Rare presence, no notability. Delete and merge.- Kmaguir1 07:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The Land 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for prod and prod2. Web site for which it has not been shown that it meets WP:WEB. While Pokemon certainly is notable (shudder), Pokemon fansites are not automatically notable. Recommend delete. -- DrTorstenHenning 08:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Th ε Halo Θ 21:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a serious topic, at the very least, a dictionary definition for wiktionary. Iorek85 08:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Rogue subpage of RunEscape. If you look at what recent RuneScape pages got deleted, how does this non notable clan of NPC's stand a chance of surviving? J.J.Sagnella 08:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted as copyvio. The debate outcome would have been keep otherwise, so if someone wants to write original prose, they should feel free. Mango juice talk 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert for a non-notable company. AfD since prod and prod2 were removed. If the product is unique (and notable), then the product should have an entry. -- DrTorstenHenning 08:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable drink. The only google hits for "Astrovan" were unrelated. (This article was prodded, and has since been improved however the drink is still non notable. Listed here following disagreement on the talk page Ladybirdintheuk 08:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems non notable website. UK unique Ghits are one page only (given the nature of the site there are many non unique hits). This was originally marked as an advert and prod'ed but this was removed and not noticed. It may become notable but I do not consider it so now and seems to be intended to promote the site. -- Nigel ( Talk) 09:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETED. Nonsense, troll-bait. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Article claims to a world wide event gaining steam but the only source of this statement is in hebrew. No other sources beyond this and a possible hoax. Lid 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep as withdrawn nomination. — TKD:: Talk 09:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Transwiki'd to es.wikipedia.org
Joe 09:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Edit conflict. I transwiki'd and someone blanked and changed it to a redirect. Problem solved.
reply
The result was merged. My thanks to the participants for doing this for us.
Contested prod - No evidence that this company or its products meet WP:CORP. A speedy tag was earlier removed by the author whose only other edits are to Sena Cases also on AfD.
The result was keep. alphaChimp (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod - No evidence that this company or its products meet WP:CORP
Hi,
I saw that you did not like my post :) This is a real nice company with lots of cool pda and smartphone cases. It is one of the elading companies in the PDA case market and is appreciated by many users. A simple Google search for "sena cases" returns about 261,000 results in my computer which I believe is a sufficient indicator of the size and penetration of teh company. Here are a few further pointers for you if you want to see more:
The WP:Corp says the following: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Furthermore, it says any of the rules and I strongly believe that it satisfies this criteria if not the others. I believe about.com, pc magazine and gizmodo among many others are sufficiently independent and well established publishers.
There are many more articles from many different publishers in addition to lots of interviews with the founders. I will leave the Google work to you.
By the way, I am not affiliated with the company in any way. I am just a PDA Geek who thinks Sena Rocks! :)
I'm always about expanding , perhaps there is something unbelieveable about this company that we don't know, at least let the page develop it needs some work so i vote, Keep or Merge if it doesn't expand.
Hi Dlyson,
I have not really had much time to check if there is any media coverage about the company. However, I think you can not expect each company to get as much media coverage as Google or IBM. This is not a billion dollar worth multinational giant. This is probably a small/miod size private company which is not required to publish any data about itself until it goes public. I really don't think that they are just an online store operated by a couple of people. You can hardly find any small online store that has quarter million Google entries and that has real good reviews from well extablished publishers. As far as I could see, Amazon.com sells its products from its own inventory, Palm.com sells them, Dell.com sells them, I am sure many others sell them. All in all, I think it is a farily large and established company that is worth at least a brief mentioning in Wikipedia.
Also the fact that most coverage is about the products does not mean that the company is bad or worthless. Those products are what the company makes and in a sense the products are the company.
The result was SPEEDY KEEP. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notability TheBilly 10:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is surely just not suitable for an encyclopedia. WP:Fancruft? Inherently POV (what is the point of the "typical lineup from the 80s"?) Camillus (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The last paragraph begins: I think I've ranted on enough now. Need I say more? -- RHaworth 10:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online game. Not published by any notable publisher or developer, and the game hasn't been mentioned in any notable media sources. Alexa ranking of 6,298,776 and 125 unique Google results [45].-- TBC TaLk?!? 10:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I close this discussion with a delete decision, for the usual reason: that
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that its entries are therefore necessarily to be encyclopedic—that is to say scholarly, tertiary-source accounts of accumulated research and reporting on a given subject, written from a neutral point of view; that whereas Wikipedians utilize the collaborative
wiki approach to write the entries, in no way are the critical
verifiability and
sourcing requirements of such accounts thereby obviated; and that where an entry fails these requirements it ought to be remedied or removed. This article—and I use that word generously here—has never been remedied, and it is not clear to me that it can be; therefore it is hereby removed. Regards —
Encephalon 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
This article seems to be a description of a scene in the manga series One Piece. I know nothing about the series, but this article does not seem to be within wikipedia's scope. Ladybirdintheuk 11:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Vehicle weapons are weapons designed to be mounted on a military vehicle. Duh. And ship weapons are designed to go on ships, etc etc. This article has been around since Jan 2006, and hasn't been expanded. There apparently isn't much demand for this article as only one page links to it, Weapon, and what does that article state? drumroll....Vehicle weapons are designed to be mounted on any type of military vehicle.-- Nobunaga24 11:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable film, not in IMDb etc. feydey 11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged as a short and no content/context speedy, but I couldn't apply that to a deletion with good conciousness. Is this worth merging to the school/uni in question (in a heavily edited version)? - Mgm| (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article doesn't assert why this company is notable; contested speedy brought here. NawlinWiki 11:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Someone other than the creator tagged it with a "db-author" speedy tag which doesn't seem quite right. I can't find evidence the creator asked for deletion. Bringing it here instead. No vote from me. - Mgm| (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod that is blatant spam. MER-C 11:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
NN neologism. Reads like a dict def at that, but I doubt WT would want it Computerjoe 's talk 12:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer D iablo 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Bordering WP:BOLLOCKS, but I can't refute that the term was actually used in the 1950s. Please delete. Failing that, I'd suggets to redirect to Anti-gravity. -- Pjacobi 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research essay. Neologism. Prod removed by author. My favorite quote? "Now, unfortunately for 'facts,' I’m not an anthropologist, and unfortunately I don’t like doing research either, so I made that whole last part about the evolution of currency up." That pretty much screams WP:OR and WP:V, doesn't it? -- Merope 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is original research, without secondary sources. It also fails to establish how trolling of Yahoo! is in any way distinct from simply trolling. Most of the article is given over to repeating the comments of trolls and saying how offensive they are, when clearly the mature thing to do is to deny recognition. All in all it's one vast collection of forumcruft, with little or no chance of every being verifiable from reliable secondary sources; the verifiable content amounts to a description of Yahoo! (whihc we already have) and the fact that the Yahoo! forums get trolled (which is a trivial and obvious inference given that all unmoderated forums and many moderated ones are trolled). Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod (no reason given for the contesting). Appears to be a neologism. -- ais523 12:53, 4 September 2006 ( U T C)
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism (1100 Ghits), most of the content is either obvious or possible spam. -- ais523 12:58, 4 September 2006 ( U T C)
The result was speedied. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads as an advertisment, ~930 google hits [46]. Author deleted {{wiki}} and {{bias}} twice, and {{prod}} once -- TexMurphy 13:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
And 3 redirect pages pointing to it, and a link to it from Valve. This page looks like advertizing. It was created on 4 Sept 2006. Anthony Appleyard 13:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Anthony Appleyard 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible advertising for media player with no assertion of notability over the hundreds of other similar devices available. Was prodded as such and deprodded with only the "it's a cheap alternative to an iPod or Archos" comment added. ~ Matticus T C 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 23:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Fansite with no evidence of passing WP:WEB. Prod removed without comment or addressing concerns. ~ Matticus T C 13:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I have proved it is linked through ShareYourPage.com. I thought this passed
WP:WEB. If not, explain how I can do so? Also, can you explain what 'The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.' means?
Jonwood1 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable street gang jmd 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Even namechecked in "Surf's Up: The Girl's Guide to Surfing" see [49]. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No original research, no reason given for including shows in the list. Yamla 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been written by people with a vendetta against Overclockers UK and its owner, Mark Proudfoot. Most of the data is incorrect and probably libelous. Do not believe what you read here. (Preceeding comment added by 82.69.11.153)
reply to above
How does ocuk 'deserve' to be mentioned? OCUK has no cultural relevance or academic notability, it is merely an internet forum (shrug) and a small business with a poor reputation. DELETE. - panoptic0n
I don't agree that ocuk is something 'people' expect to see on wikipedia, it's a small company and a fairly popular pc forum, which only means something to hardcore pc enthusiasts. Any 'knowledge' of ocuk that could be gained by reading this page will no doubt already be known to anybody that uses the ocuk site. It serves as free advertising for the company nothing more. I think it needs to be established that personal enthusiasms should not be allowed to run riot in what is supposed to be an academic text. OCUK has no academic or cultural value whatsoever. Perhaps if the OCUK site or forums had created some kind of cultural phenomenon like Myspace etc. then they would be notable but they haven't, the shop is just a small commercial enterprise and the forums are a place where people go to talk about computers, current events etc., just like many other forums.- panoptic0n
The result was delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-09-04 22:53Z
Delete. Non-notable Dragon Ball fanfic; Google results for "Fanfic Trunks" equal 34. Prod removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 16:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company per WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. Only mentions in Google are company's webiste and MySpace page. No multiple independent reviews as required by the guidelines. Leuko 16:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Petros471 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Debate blanked as a courtesy to the subject-- Doc 20:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Seems to be vanity, promotional in nature. No references to prove multiple claims. Username = article title. Propose deleting out of main name space and userfying. Leuko 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Maybe the band is notable. Its manager is not. This article originally had a tag to merge to the band's article, but I'm quite sure this article and Wikipedia are better off with it deleted. theProject 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Google cannot find any third party coverage of him. I don't think there's any sense in which he meets WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 17:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Kirby, but this is not a repost, it is a much larger unsourced article about a Flash animation of no objectively provable significance. Not much evidence of reliable sources in any of the 150 unique Googles. Fails to rise to the exalted level of having its own domain name. Guy 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't match WP:MUSIC. Reads like an advertisement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvernich ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this result in light of new information, for which please consult the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect.There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 19:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, does this really require an article of it's own? I say not - merge what trivia is worth keeping to the main article and flush the rest Charlesknight 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an article about a website that furnishes services to public relations professionals who work primarily in the Asian and Pacific Rim regions. Presently, the language hardly reflects a neutral viewpoint: it uses promotional language to redirect encyclopedia users to the services the site offers. If it were to be written with a neutral point of view, I believe very little more can be said about it than the summary I've written here, so the article would be a stub. Could the stub be developed into anything more substantial?
As of this writing, 28 August 2006, Google returns approximately 240 hits on the phrase 'Scoopasia'; these wholly fall into the realms of:
1. Wikipedia hits or hits on mirrors of Wikipedia, either on the article Scoopasia or on News release, which Melvinyuan had edited on 10 July 2006, furnishing a link to the Scoopasia site in the 'External Links' section. Melvinyuan is also the principle author of Scoopasia. (This external link was removed in early August; the editor who removed the link thought that it was advertising).
2. references from bloggers or individuals in link concentration sites who've noted the existence of the site but have not offered any independent views as to the site's notability
3. Pages that have since disappeared (" 404")
4. Echoed content from scoopasia itself.
No evidence of awards granted to the site has been found by me, nor are well known and independent parties distributing Scoopasia content as noteworthy and useful material.
This is not to say that Scoopasia doesn't serve its community, but I conclude that it does not do so in a noteworthy fashion that has caught the attention of neutral observers. The article, having as its topic a (presumed) notewothy website, fails the policy for such: Wikipedia:Notability (web) in my opinion. Let the discussion begin. Gosgood 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. I just realised I closed this 60 minutes before 5 days had passed. There's really no point in reopening it, but feel free to if you really want to. --jam es (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) --jam es (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
barely notable, only played a part in a kids bbc show, only her site has Kacey Louise Barnfield, and cannot find information on any Popcorn movie Matty238 14:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, no sources, produces precisely one Google hit. Prod contested by author. Delete Huon 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no political parties in Macau. Those listed under the page are not registered political parties or organisations but "nomination groups" who are formed ad hoc for the Legislative Assembly elections. Jonathanchandler 13:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Th ε Halo Θ 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising and self promotional content created by the article's subject User:Barryispuzzled (who admits he is the same person as the article on his user page). In addition, the Shakespeare book mentioned in the article is self published, bringing into question the author's notability Alabamaboy 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Per above.-- Alabamaboy 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - if he's writing regularly in the Telegraph, been published by Pan, Ward Lock and the CUP then I think he makes it. Only just though, and it is rather worrying that he's writing the entry himself. BTLizard 15:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 18:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
contested prod, superfluous pseudo genre with nothing more than links to other genres, no actual content. Largely redudent with List of heavy metal genres Spearhead 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisment. Was deprodded by an anon without comment. BryanG (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Nothing but unsourced speculation.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information a crystal ball.
Extraordinary Machine 17:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy redirect to Gone in 60 Seconds (1974 film) by User:Whomp.-- Andeh 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been created a couple of months ago, but there's already an article about it: Gone_in_60_Seconds_(1974_film).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafert ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Only a junior. Has not played professionally. I don't think this meets WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Even though the owner of the website/article creator claims it is not spam, it clearly is Vanity, Spam, and Advertisement for a non-notable website. Leuko 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious copyvio (see [58]), plus I don't think she meets any notability standards. Thorsten1 17:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete.-- Andeh 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable. Delete. Green caterpillar 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable; no claim of notability Ling.Nut 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm iffy about the notability of this one. From what I can tell, this character is not even the main character of the game in question. Maybe merging some of the information with Winback would be worthwhile. Heimstern Läufer 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, all books published by a vanity publisher; 34 unique Google hits, almost all of them mirroring Wikipedia content. Thorsten1 18:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as an empty article. Come on guys, there's no need to merge an article consisting of only the title of the book and its length. Mango juice talk 15:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
advertisement - Nv8200p talk 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Herostratus 17:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:V - Nv8200p talk 18:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Spam/advertisement of non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 789,265 Leuko 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyworld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GolfBuzz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studybreakers
and many more... MyMatrimony article is well within the boundaries of WikiPedia policy.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.162.141.163 (
talk •
contribs) 02:28, 5 September 2006
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a NN band as per this search [63] and the links currently provided in the article. Nomination also due to fact that the creator deleted the prod more than once. Kukini 18:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep
Although Allmusic lists no awards.
I find 20,000 Google hits for +band +"El buzzard".
:) Dlohcierekim 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect. History is still there if anyone wants to merge. Petros471 19:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A DRV consensus overturned the previous "keep" closure of this article at this AfD. The DRV showed support for redirecting and/or merging, as well as outright deletion, so this matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. Please review the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 22:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Debunking 9/11 Myths. Petros471 19:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a random collection of information. This article could be referenced at any of the 100 or so conspiracy articles we currently have. We don't need an encyclopedia article for every Popular Mechanics article.
"Debunking The Myths" popular mechanics gives 34k Ghits. -- Striver 14:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep as per the views of nickieee--
Pussy Galore 11:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned user for trolling
Merge/Delete per nom
HawkerTyphoon 12:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 03:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article on extremely obscure comic book character. The Google test lists 1100 results, including quite a few forum/blog user profiles and even pages claiming that they can't find that entry. Very obscure, not notable, void of any encyclopedic value. -- Mecanismo | Talk 17:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
its a word made up by the author Miles 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
ok, maybe this should have been speedy deletion. i've never done this type of editing before. Miles 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
so i did the right thing. cool. i'm getting better at this. Miles 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:CORP - Nv8200p talk 18:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article about alleged holiday arrangements in the British (?) construction industry. Reads like an hoax. -- RHaworth 19:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-noatble demo CD. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. - Nv8200p talk 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete A7 by User:Eagle 101. ColourBurst 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Suspected vanity article. A Google search for "Josh Nichols" + "Dickinson State" (to avoid getting results for the other Josh Nichols) produces 16 unique Goolge hits (out of 50), none of them provide grounds for encyclopedic notability of any kind. Thorsten1 19:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted under criterion A7 by Eagle 101. Thryduulf 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Orphaned self-advertisement of hobbyist live music promotors without any encyclopedic notability. Thorsten1 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an ever growing, unmaintanable, unencyclopedic list. WS 19:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The album this song is from doesn't have an article. If the song warrants one, this isn't it. TheMadBaron 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definiton - Nv8200p talk 19:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student hostel. Delete. BlueValour 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A writer with one self-published ( Trafford Publishing) novel, Traveling With An Eggplant, the subject fails WP:BIO. The claims are either unverifiable ("wary" agents, publishers demanding copyright) or exaggerated ("Breakthrough" first novel currently ranked #892,965 [19:36, 4 September 2006] on Amazon.com). Victoriagirl 19:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student hall. Delete. BlueValour 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, not even worth transwiki to Wiktionary. Delete Owen× ☎ 20:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No evidence of importance. Google garners very little [65] mostly this article and mirrors of this article. The article was created by Bjane who has only edited in this article and adding this name to another. This may very well be WP:VAIN IrishGuy talk 20:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable program, fails (for all I can tell) WP:SOFTWARE and WP:CORP, article reads like an advertisement, no reliable sources given (and no, the DownThemAll! homepage does not count). Contested prod. Delete Huon 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, as arguments based on policy ( verifiability) trump assertions that the series is 'popular' with nothing to back this claim up (Google searches are not reliable third-party coverage). -- Sam Blanning (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Although the film series is very popular within the flash and video game community, it fails Wikipedia's inclusion critera for web content miserably. It also lacks mainstream media coverage and its only reference is to its own website. LBMixPro <Sp e ak| o n|it!> 20:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a bar. The article reads like an advert. Per precedents bars and clubs are not generally deserving of an entry. Pascal.Tesson 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete A7 by User:Eagle 101. ColourBurst 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable. I live in NZ and follow the music scene closely, and have never heard of them. 1 self-released EP falls well below the wiki notability guidelines for band inclusion. noizyboy 21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Main claims to notability seems to be having been an inmate with Mary Kay Letourneau and self-publishing a book with her. Neither seem valid to me.
The result was DELETE. For one thing, inclusion of unfree images in galleries like this (where it's just a gallery and not a discussion of the subject of the photo) is not allowed. Herostratus 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The title of this page is not in English, however it seems to mostly be duplicating content from List of billionaires (2006). Someone speedied it as nonsense, tag was removed. Possibly it's an attempt to copy something into another language wiki, but I don't recognize the language. Anyone? Dina 21:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stuffing the debate with socks doesn't help this AfD. (aeropagitica) 05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Contested prod as advertisement for start-up non-notable cigar brand that get no Google hits. Request closing admin to check editors histories before deciding to Save.
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The only GHits I can find for this appear to be school plays. Notability is not asserted in the article, despite an edit summary in the article history which says "Play is notable". Such an assertion needs to be backed up. theProject 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete U1 by User:DVD R W. ColourBurst 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I edited this article myself and I discovered later that this corporation is not enough notable for Wikipedia it should be deleted. Frédérick Lacasse 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable home-made TV series that generate 40 unique google hits, some of which are Wikipedia or mirrors RMHED 21:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing afd started by User:Dukeseee and removed by article author. I also say Delete - this does not seem like an encyclopedic topic; part of it is a discussion of what fonts are, the rest reads like an advertisement and basically says 'wedding fonts should be fancy' -- Jamoche 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Media Law Resources In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.
The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff. Pjbruce 14:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
You guys are unbelievable I can't believe what I'm reading here. You know I'm not bothered in the slightest about the article (i've got too much else on) what concerns me is the lack of professionalism many of you editors demonstrate and is also what I am currently taking up with the foundation. The fact is people shouldn't be publishing comments that voice suspicions of copywright violation, that is libel under the terms of the law and why risk it? Nobody has threatened legal action, I'm trying to get you to see sloppy dealings with the public like this will only alienate you from the people you mean to serve. If you look at the editorial comments above many of them contain cheap shots and patronizing comments meant to enflame and ridicule. This is attrocius. Not one person has been able to deal with a valid complaint which was simply that instead of publishing incorrect and unjustified suspicions about a professional person, a private message or email would have been much better. I will certainly not contribute to wikipedia again and for one reason only you have alienated me by by your parochial attitude that demonstrates more a sense of a private club than a public service. I regret you've lost sight of the vision gentlemen.CC wikipedia foundation Pjbruce 13:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment You seem to think people citicizing your work is a bad thing. If you can't take criticism, I suggest you leave or simply not edit. It is completely acceptable for someone to nominate your article for deletion and criticize it until nothing remains. That is completely legal and accepted practice on Wikipedia. You sir, are the only person who lacks professionalism here. You couldn't hack your article being thrown out, you couldn't take the criticism, so you throw a fit and start inventing charges against someone who criticized you. That's seems like a pretty cowardly and pathetic action to me. If you actually have a problem with anything said in this article, I suggest you find a rule against it on Wikipedia and take it up with an administrator instead of making vauge accusations about libel (which you have no understanding of). If you find it strange that no one has dealt with a valid complaint of yours, that because you don't have a valid complaint. The libel "complaint" had my friend and I laughing for a good 5 minutes solid. If you can't defend what you wrote, that's fine, we'll delete it for you. Don't compensate for your inability to defend yourself by alluding to imaginary legal wrongs, simply admit your fault and move on. If your pride can't take that hit, then I don't suggest your put it on the line. Good day sir. Shazbot85 Talk 15:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
* If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
Perhaps read more before having another tantrum over criticism? Shazbot85 Talk 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Dear Mr Shazbot You still don't see, the complaint is about behaviour like yours which is rude and offensive and nothing constructive. I really don't understand why you keep going on about the article, the article has never been the issue. I have indeed forwarded the complaint to the wikipedia foundation along with a copy of this dialogue, I really am apalled that you treat members of the public this way. I think if this were public knowlegde you would loose a lot of support. It's a real shame. Pjbruce 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
unencyclopedic and silly neologism — optikos 21:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as an advert for a non-notable webforum. (aeropagitica) 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. The original version was a patent neologism, and this new edition is still "not in the dictionary", which doesn't exactly fill me with great hope and joy. I asked the author (who had written a header saying that it wasn't a neologism) to address the inconsistent spelling, the lack of attribution of sources and the lack of dictionary presence. Such adressing of sources has now thrown up an obituary of the mysterious "Dr Barnes", who apparently did something like this in one of his postdoctoral positions (although there's no proof of what he did in these positions, other than that he had them). It's also thrown up a Friendster profile on which a woman lists one of the two spellings as her occupation, which doesn't really impress me, since I could list myself as a "historiologist" on a site like that but it wouldn't mean that such a job existed or had a consistent job description. The author requested another 5 days at the same time as he de-tagged the article, so here they are. BigHaz Schreit mich an 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply
vanity page for nonnotable college professor — optikos 17:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
vanity page of non-notable college professor — optikos 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Consensus to delete. As to the references added, they are either 404's, do not include mention of Akhter, or do not show his position as notable. WP:NOT an agency for adjudication tribal vendettas. Herostratus 17:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Seriously not an Important Person. It seems like a self-projection. There are thousends of Government Servants like him in every country and providing pages for each of them will undermine Wikipedia's credibility. Jfksog 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
DMG (district management group officers) in pakistan wileded enormous powers in the past and were essentially mini kings of their areas. I think more references are needed, has the man written any books? had any published work? been associated with any major development projects? besides that the article needs a bit of a rewrite ..it sounds like a press release in some parts. I would like it to stick around as long as it gets rewritten and is better referenced. -- Zak 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
1) Yes, he is really some one of enormous influency in Pakistan. Being on so many high-posts, first licenced private pilot of Pakistan, clearly proves that he is someone of high repute.
2) Zak demanded some refferences and also wr-writing of this article. Let me tell you that when ever new things are going to be added here in this article, I will surely add some refferences here, I promise. As far as re-writing is concernced, kindly, let me know what should be added and what should be deleted, thanks.
This artilce be remained here, as I provided the refferences, those were demanded by Satori Son, please.
Anyhow, Satori Son, whatever it is, I am happy with it. Thanks
The result was keep. alphaChimp (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like it might be a hoax, I can find only one Ghit which clearly refers to this person (aside from mirrors). The claims in the article as it stands now are somwhat fantastic. I've just deleted an article related to this as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Kita -- Deville ( Talk) 22:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete, even if it's not
WP:BALLS, it still fails
WP:BIO. --
Kinu
t/
c 23:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Recommendation rescinded per information below. --
Kinu
t/
c 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus, even after discounting ballot-stuffing. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Already deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruth_Cameron, simply recreated with even less information. Seems a non-notable individual. Jefffire 22:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi. When I created this article, I had no idea that one had existed before. However, I do think that Cameron is worthy of inclusion given, as Alec Davison points out, that she is the head of a national NGO coalition. She is a well-known and increasingly important figure in Scottish civic society. As regards her public notability, she was the subject of a full-page profile article in the Sunday Herald Magazine of 13th August this year (sadly not online). I like to think that Wikipedia provides access to wider information than national newspapers; it certainly should not be providing less than them. MichaelMcNab 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment These people appear to be colleages of the individual in question, creating accounts in order to vote. Afd are discussion between editors, not a vote. Jefffire 18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - Although I've included Cameron as a civic society, rather than political, figure, I would argue that there is a substantial public interest in including election candidates on Wikipedia. For many, it will be the only source of information about aperson that you are being asked to vote for that is not a spun party press release or website. Providing this sort of information to voters is an excellent example of the value of Wikipedia.
That argument aside, as I say, Cameron is a Scottish civic society figure of note. She is the head of one of Scotland's most significant NGO coalitions, counting Friends of the Earth Scotland, WWF Scotland and the RSPB (itself one of the country's largest membership organisations) as members. Before taking up this role, she was a student leader of national significance, not just another run-of-the-mill union officer (and, having been to a run-of-the-mill university myself, I'm under no illusions as to the notability of those), as evidenced by the national press coverage of her tenure (search for "ruth cameron" at The Scotsman). She is now known by name and reputation to everyone of importance in the Scottish campaigning sector.
I'm a little surprised at the debate over Cameron's likelihood of election; it seems perverse and blinkered to say that a civic society leader becomes notable if and only if he or she is elected to parliament.
Over the next few weeks I hope to be able to add more detail to this article as well as, if permitted by the Wikipedia community, new articles for Stop Climate Chaos Scotland and other NGOs and key NGO leaders. It is a worrisome comment on Scotland that national figures like Richard Dixon (WWF Scotland), Rosemary Burnett (Amnesty) and Kevin Dunion (Scottish Information Commissioner) are exluded, but members of the Celtic squad that have never, to my knowledge, played a single first-team game (e.g. Diarmuid O'Carroll) warrant articles of their own. I hoped to remedy that, starting with an interesting figure about whom I know enough to work up a useful article. I would be very grateful to Wikipedians if they could allow me to do so.
MichaelMcNab 10:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't delete this page - surely the head of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland warrants her own Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopears ( talk • contribs)
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable song from a flop film . See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baat Meri Suniye To Zara Ageo020 22:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film series made by college students RMHED 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn model, gets no hits on google, the creator of the article seems to be recreating previously deleted WWE Diva Search articles, and this is of a similar vain. Renosecond 22:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn model, gets no hits on google (even putting "may lower" wwe, it's hard to tell since it's a common phrase), the creator of the article seems to be recreating previously deleted WWE Diva Search articles, and this is of a similar vain. Renosecond 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn model Renosecond 22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Does not meet WP:V - Nv8200p talk
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organization. Doesn't appear to cite any reliable sources. Article is written by the founder and as such may be vanity and POV. -- Chris (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Does not meet WP:V - Nv8200p talk 22:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as WP:BIO failures. The articles can be recreated if-and-when the players become notable. (aeropagitica) 05:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
These all are players in Arsenal's reserve squad who have not played a competitive first team match. They fail WP:BIO. I haven't included Ryan Garry because he has played 1 League and 1 League Cup game but there may be views on this. I also nominate:
Delete all. BlueValour 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be more appropriate for wiktionary, if it should exist at al as a separate article. Delete or Transwiki. -- Nlu ( talk) 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article as it stands right now does not make a valid argument for Franchezca to be considered notable as per WP:BIO guidelines and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 18:56, 15 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
The result was Speedy delete; no notability asserted.. Shell babelfish 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
doesnt show notablity Ian3055 21:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Dakota 05:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website, doesn't meet WP:WEB, no alexa ranking, no reliable sources so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website, alexa ranking of 2,500,000+, no reliable sources on this, doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:V Xyzzyplugh 23:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute --- Deville ( Talk) 03:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
not notable programme WP:NOTABILITY 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
advert Yy-bo 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails the Google test; seems non-notable and no reliable sources are given per WP:RS - there's a dead external fansite link. Crystallina 01:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book available only in a handful of stores. Fails notability criteria for books. -- Tbeatty 01:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
“ | A contemporary book is generally notable if it
verifiably meets one or more of the following criteria:
|
” |
Notability is established by meeing one of the above. This book meets multiple criteria 1, 6 & 7.
1: Sander Hicks is notable, he has his own article
6: Guerrilla News Network and the Baltimore Chronicle.
7: see the article for full list.
Thus, is the notability disscusion settled. Since that is the only motiv nom has, this afd needs to bee speedy keept or a new nom must be presented.-- Striver 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I did not write that, so i have no idea how much work went into creating it. But i know it is all we have to go by. Regarding point 6, it has a note to it, and by the standards of that note:
“ | "Non-trivial" normally excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source. | ” |
And by that standard is the GNN and Baltimore Chronicle reviews non-trivial. Both Guerrilla News Network and the Baltimore Chronicle have articles, thuse are they both notable. You want to dissregard #1? Then Are you going also to dissregard #6 and #7 ? -- Striver 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Btw, the book also fullills #2. If you look closly, many times is the author presented as the author of this very book, and not as anything else. are we going to ignore #2? If yes, then we have ignored 4 of 7 points.-- Striver 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I just added Publishers Weeklys review, cementing #6 and #7. -- Striver 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
added a fourth source, this time an interview. -- Striver 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Although an important political set of facts, this article is entirely copyvio and a personal narrative. Looking for more opinions on what should be done. As of now, I favor deletion. Rama's arrow 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Only limited notability. Very minor political player not deserving of an entry. Google finds 37 unique hits [10], a number of which are irrelevant or Wiki mirrors. Should be deleted by WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep due to withdrawn nomination. Nufy8 23:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I have speedy deleted this twice now. This person is a nn criminal. Take it to Wikinews. User:Zoe| (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
STRONG KEEP - This fugitive is number 1 on the New York most wanted list with current reward of $250,000 and has been on the run for months on a mission. There is enough interest in his cause to justify this entry.
His addition to the Ten Most Wanted List makes him notable, I withdraw the nomination. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as nonsense. (I suspect that it is also an attack article, but can't confirm it.) -- Nlu ( talk) 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Urban dictionary neologism with 3 unique google hits. De-prod by anonymous user with an assurance in the article that this terms is gaining popularity (I suppose it would be hard for it to lose something it doesn't have...) Irongargoyle 01:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Gay porn site that fails WP:WEB --- Lid 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
reads like spam, from non-notable corp Akradecki 02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software company. Prod removed without reason given. Appears also to be vanity article as arctile and author have same name. And yes that is $14.02, not $14.02 MILLION. Wildthing61476 02:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. alphaChimp (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I see no real assertion of notability here. While it's not itself original research, it is report of research of little confirmed validity and importance. Delete Nlu ( talk) 02:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company fails WP:CORP. One of their primary vehicles of advertising is myspace. I prod'ed, author removed tag. I'm listing here. alphaChimp laudare 02:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
There is quite a bit of assertion of notability here. However, the links to the organizations that Griffin are involved in are all external links to organizations that appear to have little notability themselves. Unless notability actually shown, Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
As well as being the author of The_Creature_from_Jekyll_Island this man also made one of the first film documentaries about political corruption in regard to the Federal Reserve system, that alone in my opinion make this man one of the most remarkable people in media at least of or modern time. i know of no other person that clearly put themselves on the record like this man did in 1960(1)(2), and that is not even regarding the many organisations Mr Griffin Founded etc – Keep surely seriously - Theblackbay 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Also I find it a little perturbing that the article is under construction and someone is trying to delete it? can't we see it finished and then make a decision? or don't we want to see it finished? - Theblackbay 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as nonsense and non-notable. -- Nlu ( talk) 09:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - it seems we've got a hoax on our hands. A Google search for this "global principality" yields a whopping 7 hits. Its official site is some free web server laden with annoying ads and redirected via free service CJB.net. Its language smacks of Jennifer Government's online roleplay (especially the graphics).
Let's also take the time to sack Pazal's young monarch as well. Fabricationary 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect. --- Deville ( Talk) 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears abandoned by its creator, but even if fleshed out is still not sufficiently notable by itself as a fictional location in a novel. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The creator of this Article, who sounds like he might be the owner of the site, is bassically describing the whole site. I already removed two sections that were about his staff forums or something. He links to the Guidelines and Rules, making it look to me like he wants all users who he recruited from wikipedia to read the rules. This article fails WP:WEB in my opinion.
Alan 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be thoroughly unnotable. I was very tempted to simply speedy delete it, but since this is not an area that I know well, decided to AfD it just to make sure. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
"Jon is 'probably' one of the most hated people on the Internet"? If this typifies his work, I can see why (although, to be fair, I'd never heard of him before this. Listed here rather than speedied as it does seem to be asserting notability/notoriety, but not remotely to any standard we have. When you put your own name as a (redlinked, naturally) category, you have ended all need to argue that this isn't the vanity page's vanity page. Daniel Case 03:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Promo page for currently nn website. Daniel Case 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A quick check of the web site will confirm for your satisfaction that this is an advertisement masquerading as an article. Williamborg (Bill) 03:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Another promo page for NN website that claims it "has gained popularity extremely quickly". Yet I couldn't find any news coverage in 797 Ghits [Check Google hits]. Daniel Case 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi guys, I'm Bungledust - the guy who put the article up. I put it up because I thought people would generally be interested, because the site is growing and getting some big names, and thought that people would want to know what it is. It is completely unbiased and says exactly what somethingFM is about. However, it seems destined to be deleted. Just wanted to know: At what stage would this page be deemed fit to be a wikipedia article? Is it a certain number of hits, certain number of links, etc? It might not be relevant to American users (aimed at an Australian audience); would that affect it's notability? Thanks guys.
The result was merge and redirect. I would have to say that this doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (songs), but this isn't a very fleshed-out guideline. However, just running through the obvious list, it seems to me that none of the songs from Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, or Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, have their own pages. These movies (and thus their songs) are clearly much more notable than Kuch Naa Kaho, so, taking the other articles as precedent, I would say that Baat Meri Suniye To Zara doesn't cut the standard guidelines applied to WP articles about Bollywood. If and when the editors of Bollywood articles decide it's appropriate for films to have individual song pages, these can come back, but my guess is that the community will not go that way, since the information on these songs fits quite naturally and easily into the parent articles in the first place. --- Deville ( Talk) 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no song notability guidelines yet, but I don't think a "great song" at the beginning of the movie would qualify under any standard.
Daniel Case 04:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of anti-Mormon attack pages lacking the slightest encyclopedic content. --- Deville ( Talk) 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This phrase is a protologism. A google search for this phrase only shows 12 pages of results. Of those, at least four are mirrors of this wikipedia entry and five are completely unrelated to the usage described in the article. This is far below the threshold to even be considered a Wikipedia:Neologism Ryan Gardner 03:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by Woohookitty per WP:VAIN and article recreation after this AFD from August.
Non notable academic on the basis of web page quoted in article [www.pblass.com]. Prod removed. Samir धर्म 03:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
for 5300 dollars that changes to having your name printed on the ballot I decided against this course of action. The recent palm beach post plambeachpost.com has published a major positive article about my campaign putting it in the context of ideas of einstien and gandhi
as for other comments i am preparing vast documentation of notability of my work including its inclusion in the paris academy,russia and japan mainly about zariski surfaces
also the important impact of ulam quarterly journal will be documented and discussed with top editors in jim wales office i take this very seriously and please do not feel you can decide this unless you know mathematics at the ph d level at least. thanks dr piotr blass
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable by herself per WP:BIO - Nv8200p talk 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, the article itself, and the sources, explicitly say that there is no evidence that this phenomenon exists. --- Deville ( Talk) 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Three sentences pretty much cover the basics: neologism, uses a blog post as its primary source and ends admitting the phenomenon is anecdotal and speculative. Daniel Case 04:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Pointless neoligism, huh? Considering that it is a common diagnosis of exclusion with computer technicians, I would hesitate to call it "pointless". However, I concur that it is a neoligism at this time, and consequently agree with the article's deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.34.243 ( talk • contribs)
The result was userfy and then delete. It barely satisfies WP:V and surely doesn't come close to being notable. No reference is made in the article, or here, or anywhere I can find of any third-party source writing about this. If there were an article on the WCBU 2004, then this could be a section in that article. --- Deville ( Talk) 20:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a blatant hoax, written well enough to avoid being speedied. Danny Lilithborne 04:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
As other sports teams (including ultimate frisbee teams) have appeared on the Wikipedia website, I don't see why Currier Island should not be included. -- Minhja 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Webcomic, not notable. Tracker/TTV ( myTalk| myWork| myInbox) 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. --jam es (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted under the A7 criteria. Apparently it now has enough to barely survive that, but I still don't think this person deserves an article. Her only claim to fame is that she wrote, directed, and produced the independent film Conceiving Ada. The film received no awards according to IMDb - and in fact, it doesn't even have any box office information listed there, which seems to indicate it never had any kind of real release pattern or distribution. -- Hetar 04:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Despite the boldfaced notability claims in the article, I don't think we have any articles on mock trial teams. Like marching bands, they mean a lot to the people in them but that doesn't make them WP-worthy Daniel Case 04:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I fail to see how they are not WP-worthy just because a person does not participate in them. The purpose of Wikipedia (in my opinion) is to spread information and educate people on a wide variety of issues. Just because something may "mean a lot to the people in them" does not justify why it can not be shared with people who "are not in them". I feel that Mr. Case's rational smacks of Exclusiveness and basically forces contents on Wikipedia to be "only things that people are apart of". If we are to follow Mr. Case's logic, then there should be no Wikipedia articles on any athletic teams, professional or collegiate since the majority of fans and viewers "are not apart of them".
What does Mr. Case mean by, "they mean a lot to people in them"? Does he simply mean the actual students who compete in them? Or does he mean the countless professionals in the legal community who volunteer to coordinate and regulate the competitions held on campuses all across the country? Or does he simply mean the hundreds, if not thousands of students who have participated in the competitions in prior years, but still wish to remain informed about other teams in the competition? I would ask that Mr. Case not be so broad and vague in his assumptions regarding who will and will not have an interest in this information.
Mr. Case is right in his assumption that there aren't any articles on mock trial teams on wikipedia. Considering that it is one of the most competitive collegiate activity with 600 teams, I feel that more schools should provide information about their Mock Trial programs so that others can learn about the educational and academic competition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TruOne ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
See the previous deletion discussion, which resulted in deletion. This article is probably substantially different from the original, which makes it an invalid speedy, but the underlying problem remains: There is a dearth of verifiable, reliable third-party sources for this series. Google returns only 31 unique hits, some of which are forums and other unreliable sources. No sources or even external links are provided beyond the production group's home page. Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." — TKD:: Talk 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, I'm not that convinced that there couldn't be an article about this, but this whole article is just cut and pasted from their website so it's a copyvio and nothing is lost by deleting it. - Bobet 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable corporation; advertising. Brianyoumans 05:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No notablity, no sources, and has been this way since 2004. Arbusto 05:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, publishing real book with awards meets at least the minimum bar of WP:BIO --- Deville ( Talk) 03:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. Author of a book and claims a PhD, no different than any other college professor. Has no sources or notablity. Arbusto 05:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Letting the Wikipedia community decide on this, for me its just some player guild from the game Ultima Online-- Jestix 06:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I say again the reason for deletion isn't good enough because this is not a guild. Please remove your delete request and start a new one if you really feel the need. Lenapeco911 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for deletion by THB but the second stage was not completed. The article appears to be a non-notable person, there does not appear to be a claim of notability, and there are no external links. MLA 12:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable person. THB 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazbot85 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Letting the wikipedia community again decide on this, for me this is just a player guild from the Ultima Online game not meeting encyclopedic notability criterias Jestix 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep You may search roleplaying for details. This is more of an information center on Orcs and roleplaying community for Orc fans. You may as well delete Orcs if your going to delete this. Lenapeco911 07:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Alright I will redo this with a lot my detail and follow all the guidelines. Delete it if you want so I can take another shot at this. I'm very new to Wikipedia and I'm still learning. -- Lenapeco911 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep This clan invented many words of black speech (i.e pizbur). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.115.19 ( talk • contribs) U01:11, 5 September 2006.
Delete: Not notable. The only keep vote is by the author. Fishermen1 15:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenapeco911 ( talk • contribs)
Keep Encyclopedic information needs to be unbiased. If another gaming guild, shadowclan, is to be allowed then you must allow all other gaming guilds. Or else delete shadowclan as well. If not, who is it that would then decide which gaming guilds are "noteworthy" and which are not? To remain unbiased you must apply a uniform policy. Jackson512 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Jackson512 ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
KeepJackson is right. Fair is fair, gotta either keep them both or lose them both. I say keep em. Choirboy 05:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC):— Possible single purpose account: Choirboy ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
KeepIt was recently agreed to keep the Shadowclan entry. This group is closely linked to Shadowclan, taking on the role of "carrying the torch" so to speak, therefore it should stay. It is extremely notable as well. If it is removed, then the Shadowclan entry should be removed as well. Drouillm 06:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Orc Community Website This website appears to be well known and respected. They have Shadowclan listed right next Bloodclan. Gamers Network Another well known website has them listed here. Another Community website Has them listed as well.
member list This website also has archives of mentioning runuo sponsership. I was going to throw a link up for Runuo but it's already listed on wik and you can click the link.
Thordice 19:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Thordice ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
Thordice 19:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
- Being interviewed for a commercially-published book (a " ...for Dummies" book, no less). [21] - Being written into the official documentation of at least one game in which it was involved, Dark Age of Camelot. [22] - Being the focus of developers of games in which Shadowclan participates in aside from the above. [23], [24] - Being the focus of other, non-official game websites. [25], [26], [27]
According to this discussion and the present article, Bloodclan only appears to share this last item, attention from non-official game websites. Aside from falling short of equal notability with Shadowclan, this also constitutes failing to meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. Simoes 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
- Being the focus of other, non-official game websites
When this article was submitted it did lack some evidenc and detail. However I prefer it be wikified or kept because it's more than noteworthy. Visit the links I already provided above who represent online gaming websites that feature Bloodclan. Runuo and UOGamers Developers also have mentioned that they focus their attention on Bloodclan.
Thordice 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This vanity page has zero notability. Being mentioned on non-official gamer sites doesn't establish notability, nor does it compare to the recognition Shadowclan has garnered from game developers. Thanks for your effort though!
Shazbot85
Talk 04:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
Bloodclan has garnered recognition from game and software developers as well. contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Like who?
Shazbot85
Talk 04:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
Thordice 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Please keep in mind the flurry of sockpuppets are mostly Shadowclan sockpuppets.
Thordice 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep by default - the afd nomination was duplicated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blake_Ragsdale_Van_Leer which was closed as Keep by --jam es (talk). Yomangani talk 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not seem to meet WP:BIO Jestix 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete if you want, I didn't study the guidelines when I added this page. I'm going to redo it correctly once it's deleted. [[User:Lenapeco911|Lenapeco911] 01:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Georgia Tech is a large, well respected school and I would say that its presidents are notable. Several others already have pages. Page should be cleaned up, but the subject is noteworthy. - The Bethling 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep, per reasons given by The Bethling. • WarpFlyght ( talk) 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The following comments are merged from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blake_Ragsdale_Van_Leer, apparently the result of a syntax error.
Does not seem to meet WP:BIO Jestix 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
End merged comments
Keep He's notable. Shazbot85 Talk 03:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Here's some more information. "Blake Ragsdale Van Leer, the first engineer to head the school. Van Leer, described as a direct man of military bearing, would oversee a dramatic expansion "
Publication from Georgia Tech Alumni Association
Thordice 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. The User:Nthompson71 who started the article just might be the "Nate Thompson" mentioned in the article. - IceCreamAntisocial 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Listed on dab pages for cleanup, but I can't see how this can be cleaned up or why it is needed at this time. Neither of the two topics linked to database and networking even contain the term "Access method". Maybe this should be a networking stub or a redirect somewhere but I don't think it should be a dab page. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect into Flatbread. — CharlotteWebb
One google hit that's not a mirror site (18 hits altogether for a very distinctive name), and apparently a 1984 article in National Geographic that I would suspect just mentioned this in a list of varietals. Not global, not even wholly Chinese, just the Qiang region, according to the article itself. Not notable cuisine. Seems like it's not very distinctive in terms of flat breads, and definitely, the notability quotient here is low.- Kmaguir1 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn websites.-- Nynyny 07:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:SPAM-- Nynyny 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The Land 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn websites.-- Nynyny 07:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The Land 16:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn websites.-- Nynyny 07:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The Land 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This a gallery of various ABC logos. Apart from the obvious fair use problems such an article creates, there really is nothing here to substantiate its existance. I am recommending delete under WP:NOT. -- Hetar 07:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as a violation of copyright policy and a article with no context. GRBerry 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect (please note ANY user may merge and redirect articles). The Land 16:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Um, well, one episode, I don't even recall him actually appearing as the article alleged, or having dialogue. But even if he did, he's not recurring in any sense, not even in mention--he is only mentioned in this episode, and not even a key figure in the episode. Merge and Delete.- Kmaguir1 07:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete The Land 16:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Rare presence, no notability. Delete and merge.- Kmaguir1 07:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The Land 16:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for prod and prod2. Web site for which it has not been shown that it meets WP:WEB. While Pokemon certainly is notable (shudder), Pokemon fansites are not automatically notable. Recommend delete. -- DrTorstenHenning 08:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Th ε Halo Θ 21:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not a serious topic, at the very least, a dictionary definition for wiktionary. Iorek85 08:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Rogue subpage of RunEscape. If you look at what recent RuneScape pages got deleted, how does this non notable clan of NPC's stand a chance of surviving? J.J.Sagnella 08:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted as copyvio. The debate outcome would have been keep otherwise, so if someone wants to write original prose, they should feel free. Mango juice talk 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Advert for a non-notable company. AfD since prod and prod2 were removed. If the product is unique (and notable), then the product should have an entry. -- DrTorstenHenning 08:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non notable drink. The only google hits for "Astrovan" were unrelated. (This article was prodded, and has since been improved however the drink is still non notable. Listed here following disagreement on the talk page Ladybirdintheuk 08:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mango juice talk 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems non notable website. UK unique Ghits are one page only (given the nature of the site there are many non unique hits). This was originally marked as an advert and prod'ed but this was removed and not noticed. It may become notable but I do not consider it so now and seems to be intended to promote the site. -- Nigel ( Talk) 09:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETED. Nonsense, troll-bait. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Article claims to a world wide event gaining steam but the only source of this statement is in hebrew. No other sources beyond this and a possible hoax. Lid 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep as withdrawn nomination. — TKD:: Talk 09:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Transwiki'd to es.wikipedia.org
Joe 09:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Edit conflict. I transwiki'd and someone blanked and changed it to a redirect. Problem solved.
reply
The result was merged. My thanks to the participants for doing this for us.
Contested prod - No evidence that this company or its products meet WP:CORP. A speedy tag was earlier removed by the author whose only other edits are to Sena Cases also on AfD.
The result was keep. alphaChimp (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod - No evidence that this company or its products meet WP:CORP
Hi,
I saw that you did not like my post :) This is a real nice company with lots of cool pda and smartphone cases. It is one of the elading companies in the PDA case market and is appreciated by many users. A simple Google search for "sena cases" returns about 261,000 results in my computer which I believe is a sufficient indicator of the size and penetration of teh company. Here are a few further pointers for you if you want to see more:
The WP:Corp says the following: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Furthermore, it says any of the rules and I strongly believe that it satisfies this criteria if not the others. I believe about.com, pc magazine and gizmodo among many others are sufficiently independent and well established publishers.
There are many more articles from many different publishers in addition to lots of interviews with the founders. I will leave the Google work to you.
By the way, I am not affiliated with the company in any way. I am just a PDA Geek who thinks Sena Rocks! :)
I'm always about expanding , perhaps there is something unbelieveable about this company that we don't know, at least let the page develop it needs some work so i vote, Keep or Merge if it doesn't expand.
Hi Dlyson,
I have not really had much time to check if there is any media coverage about the company. However, I think you can not expect each company to get as much media coverage as Google or IBM. This is not a billion dollar worth multinational giant. This is probably a small/miod size private company which is not required to publish any data about itself until it goes public. I really don't think that they are just an online store operated by a couple of people. You can hardly find any small online store that has quarter million Google entries and that has real good reviews from well extablished publishers. As far as I could see, Amazon.com sells its products from its own inventory, Palm.com sells them, Dell.com sells them, I am sure many others sell them. All in all, I think it is a farily large and established company that is worth at least a brief mentioning in Wikipedia.
Also the fact that most coverage is about the products does not mean that the company is bad or worthless. Those products are what the company makes and in a sense the products are the company.
The result was SPEEDY KEEP. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notability TheBilly 10:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is surely just not suitable for an encyclopedia. WP:Fancruft? Inherently POV (what is the point of the "typical lineup from the 80s"?) Camillus (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The last paragraph begins: I think I've ranted on enough now. Need I say more? -- RHaworth 10:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable online game. Not published by any notable publisher or developer, and the game hasn't been mentioned in any notable media sources. Alexa ranking of 6,298,776 and 125 unique Google results [45].-- TBC TaLk?!? 10:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I close this discussion with a delete decision, for the usual reason: that
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that its entries are therefore necessarily to be encyclopedic—that is to say scholarly, tertiary-source accounts of accumulated research and reporting on a given subject, written from a neutral point of view; that whereas Wikipedians utilize the collaborative
wiki approach to write the entries, in no way are the critical
verifiability and
sourcing requirements of such accounts thereby obviated; and that where an entry fails these requirements it ought to be remedied or removed. This article—and I use that word generously here—has never been remedied, and it is not clear to me that it can be; therefore it is hereby removed. Regards —
Encephalon 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
This article seems to be a description of a scene in the manga series One Piece. I know nothing about the series, but this article does not seem to be within wikipedia's scope. Ladybirdintheuk 11:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Vehicle weapons are weapons designed to be mounted on a military vehicle. Duh. And ship weapons are designed to go on ships, etc etc. This article has been around since Jan 2006, and hasn't been expanded. There apparently isn't much demand for this article as only one page links to it, Weapon, and what does that article state? drumroll....Vehicle weapons are designed to be mounted on any type of military vehicle.-- Nobunaga24 11:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable film, not in IMDb etc. feydey 11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Was tagged as a short and no content/context speedy, but I couldn't apply that to a deletion with good conciousness. Is this worth merging to the school/uni in question (in a heavily edited version)? - Mgm| (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article doesn't assert why this company is notable; contested speedy brought here. NawlinWiki 11:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Someone other than the creator tagged it with a "db-author" speedy tag which doesn't seem quite right. I can't find evidence the creator asked for deletion. Bringing it here instead. No vote from me. - Mgm| (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod that is blatant spam. MER-C 11:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. --- Deville ( Talk) 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
NN neologism. Reads like a dict def at that, but I doubt WT would want it Computerjoe 's talk 12:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer D iablo 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Bordering WP:BOLLOCKS, but I can't refute that the term was actually used in the 1950s. Please delete. Failing that, I'd suggets to redirect to Anti-gravity. -- Pjacobi 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research essay. Neologism. Prod removed by author. My favorite quote? "Now, unfortunately for 'facts,' I’m not an anthropologist, and unfortunately I don’t like doing research either, so I made that whole last part about the evolution of currency up." That pretty much screams WP:OR and WP:V, doesn't it? -- Merope 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is original research, without secondary sources. It also fails to establish how trolling of Yahoo! is in any way distinct from simply trolling. Most of the article is given over to repeating the comments of trolls and saying how offensive they are, when clearly the mature thing to do is to deny recognition. All in all it's one vast collection of forumcruft, with little or no chance of every being verifiable from reliable secondary sources; the verifiable content amounts to a description of Yahoo! (whihc we already have) and the fact that the Yahoo! forums get trolled (which is a trivial and obvious inference given that all unmoderated forums and many moderated ones are trolled). Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 10:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod (no reason given for the contesting). Appears to be a neologism. -- ais523 12:53, 4 September 2006 ( U T C)
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism (1100 Ghits), most of the content is either obvious or possible spam. -- ais523 12:58, 4 September 2006 ( U T C)
The result was speedied. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Reads as an advertisment, ~930 google hits [46]. Author deleted {{wiki}} and {{bias}} twice, and {{prod}} once -- TexMurphy 13:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
And 3 redirect pages pointing to it, and a link to it from Valve. This page looks like advertizing. It was created on 4 Sept 2006. Anthony Appleyard 13:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Anthony Appleyard 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Possible advertising for media player with no assertion of notability over the hundreds of other similar devices available. Was prodded as such and deprodded with only the "it's a cheap alternative to an iPod or Archos" comment added. ~ Matticus T C 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 23:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Fansite with no evidence of passing WP:WEB. Prod removed without comment or addressing concerns. ~ Matticus T C 13:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I have proved it is linked through ShareYourPage.com. I thought this passed
WP:WEB. If not, explain how I can do so? Also, can you explain what 'The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.' means?
Jonwood1 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable street gang jmd 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Even namechecked in "Surf's Up: The Girl's Guide to Surfing" see [49]. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No original research, no reason given for including shows in the list. Yamla 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been written by people with a vendetta against Overclockers UK and its owner, Mark Proudfoot. Most of the data is incorrect and probably libelous. Do not believe what you read here. (Preceeding comment added by 82.69.11.153)
reply to above
How does ocuk 'deserve' to be mentioned? OCUK has no cultural relevance or academic notability, it is merely an internet forum (shrug) and a small business with a poor reputation. DELETE. - panoptic0n
I don't agree that ocuk is something 'people' expect to see on wikipedia, it's a small company and a fairly popular pc forum, which only means something to hardcore pc enthusiasts. Any 'knowledge' of ocuk that could be gained by reading this page will no doubt already be known to anybody that uses the ocuk site. It serves as free advertising for the company nothing more. I think it needs to be established that personal enthusiasms should not be allowed to run riot in what is supposed to be an academic text. OCUK has no academic or cultural value whatsoever. Perhaps if the OCUK site or forums had created some kind of cultural phenomenon like Myspace etc. then they would be notable but they haven't, the shop is just a small commercial enterprise and the forums are a place where people go to talk about computers, current events etc., just like many other forums.- panoptic0n
The result was delete — Quarl ( talk) 2006-09-04 22:53Z
Delete. Non-notable Dragon Ball fanfic; Google results for "Fanfic Trunks" equal 34. Prod removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 16:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company per WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. Only mentions in Google are company's webiste and MySpace page. No multiple independent reviews as required by the guidelines. Leuko 16:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Petros471 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Debate blanked as a courtesy to the subject-- Doc 20:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Seems to be vanity, promotional in nature. No references to prove multiple claims. Username = article title. Propose deleting out of main name space and userfying. Leuko 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Maybe the band is notable. Its manager is not. This article originally had a tag to merge to the band's article, but I'm quite sure this article and Wikipedia are better off with it deleted. theProject 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Google cannot find any third party coverage of him. I don't think there's any sense in which he meets WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 17:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Kirby, but this is not a repost, it is a much larger unsourced article about a Flash animation of no objectively provable significance. Not much evidence of reliable sources in any of the 150 unique Googles. Fails to rise to the exalted level of having its own domain name. Guy 14:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't match WP:MUSIC. Reads like an advertisement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvernich ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this result in light of new information, for which please consult the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect.There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish, and consensus at the destination article allows. Petros471 19:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, does this really require an article of it's own? I say not - merge what trivia is worth keeping to the main article and flush the rest Charlesknight 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an article about a website that furnishes services to public relations professionals who work primarily in the Asian and Pacific Rim regions. Presently, the language hardly reflects a neutral viewpoint: it uses promotional language to redirect encyclopedia users to the services the site offers. If it were to be written with a neutral point of view, I believe very little more can be said about it than the summary I've written here, so the article would be a stub. Could the stub be developed into anything more substantial?
As of this writing, 28 August 2006, Google returns approximately 240 hits on the phrase 'Scoopasia'; these wholly fall into the realms of:
1. Wikipedia hits or hits on mirrors of Wikipedia, either on the article Scoopasia or on News release, which Melvinyuan had edited on 10 July 2006, furnishing a link to the Scoopasia site in the 'External Links' section. Melvinyuan is also the principle author of Scoopasia. (This external link was removed in early August; the editor who removed the link thought that it was advertising).
2. references from bloggers or individuals in link concentration sites who've noted the existence of the site but have not offered any independent views as to the site's notability
3. Pages that have since disappeared (" 404")
4. Echoed content from scoopasia itself.
No evidence of awards granted to the site has been found by me, nor are well known and independent parties distributing Scoopasia content as noteworthy and useful material.
This is not to say that Scoopasia doesn't serve its community, but I conclude that it does not do so in a noteworthy fashion that has caught the attention of neutral observers. The article, having as its topic a (presumed) notewothy website, fails the policy for such: Wikipedia:Notability (web) in my opinion. Let the discussion begin. Gosgood 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. I just realised I closed this 60 minutes before 5 days had passed. There's really no point in reopening it, but feel free to if you really want to. --jam es (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) --jam es (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
barely notable, only played a part in a kids bbc show, only her site has Kacey Louise Barnfield, and cannot find information on any Popcorn movie Matty238 14:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, no sources, produces precisely one Google hit. Prod contested by author. Delete Huon 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
There are no political parties in Macau. Those listed under the page are not registered political parties or organisations but "nomination groups" who are formed ad hoc for the Legislative Assembly elections. Jonathanchandler 13:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Th ε Halo Θ 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertising and self promotional content created by the article's subject User:Barryispuzzled (who admits he is the same person as the article on his user page). In addition, the Shakespeare book mentioned in the article is self published, bringing into question the author's notability Alabamaboy 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Per above.-- Alabamaboy 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep - if he's writing regularly in the Telegraph, been published by Pan, Ward Lock and the CUP then I think he makes it. Only just though, and it is rather worrying that he's writing the entry himself. BTLizard 15:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sango 123 18:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
contested prod, superfluous pseudo genre with nothing more than links to other genres, no actual content. Largely redudent with List of heavy metal genres Spearhead 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Advertisment. Was deprodded by an anon without comment. BryanG (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Nothing but unsourced speculation.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information a crystal ball.
Extraordinary Machine 17:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy redirect to Gone in 60 Seconds (1974 film) by User:Whomp.-- Andeh 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This article has been created a couple of months ago, but there's already an article about it: Gone_in_60_Seconds_(1974_film).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafert ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Only a junior. Has not played professionally. I don't think this meets WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Even though the owner of the website/article creator claims it is not spam, it clearly is Vanity, Spam, and Advertisement for a non-notable website. Leuko 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious copyvio (see [58]), plus I don't think she meets any notability standards. Thorsten1 17:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete.-- Andeh 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable. Delete. Green caterpillar 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable; no claim of notability Ling.Nut 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Petros471 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm iffy about the notability of this one. From what I can tell, this character is not even the main character of the game in question. Maybe merging some of the information with Winback would be worthwhile. Heimstern Läufer 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Not notable, all books published by a vanity publisher; 34 unique Google hits, almost all of them mirroring Wikipedia content. Thorsten1 18:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as an empty article. Come on guys, there's no need to merge an article consisting of only the title of the book and its length. Mango juice talk 15:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
advertisement - Nv8200p talk 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Herostratus 17:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:V - Nv8200p talk 18:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Spam/advertisement of non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 789,265 Leuko 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyworld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GolfBuzz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studybreakers
and many more... MyMatrimony article is well within the boundaries of WikiPedia policy.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.162.141.163 (
talk •
contribs) 02:28, 5 September 2006
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a NN band as per this search [63] and the links currently provided in the article. Nomination also due to fact that the creator deleted the prod more than once. Kukini 18:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep
Although Allmusic lists no awards.
I find 20,000 Google hits for +band +"El buzzard".
:) Dlohcierekim 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect. History is still there if anyone wants to merge. Petros471 19:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A DRV consensus overturned the previous "keep" closure of this article at this AfD. The DRV showed support for redirecting and/or merging, as well as outright deletion, so this matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. Please review the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 22:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Debunking 9/11 Myths. Petros471 19:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a random collection of information. This article could be referenced at any of the 100 or so conspiracy articles we currently have. We don't need an encyclopedia article for every Popular Mechanics article.
"Debunking The Myths" popular mechanics gives 34k Ghits. -- Striver 14:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
*Keep as per the views of nickieee--
Pussy Galore 11:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned user for trolling
Merge/Delete per nom
HawkerTyphoon 12:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 03:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article on extremely obscure comic book character. The Google test lists 1100 results, including quite a few forum/blog user profiles and even pages claiming that they can't find that entry. Very obscure, not notable, void of any encyclopedic value. -- Mecanismo | Talk 17:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
its a word made up by the author Miles 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
ok, maybe this should have been speedy deletion. i've never done this type of editing before. Miles 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
so i did the right thing. cool. i'm getting better at this. Miles 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:CORP - Nv8200p talk 18:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article about alleged holiday arrangements in the British (?) construction industry. Reads like an hoax. -- RHaworth 19:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Bobet 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-noatble demo CD. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. - Nv8200p talk 19:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete A7 by User:Eagle 101. ColourBurst 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Suspected vanity article. A Google search for "Josh Nichols" + "Dickinson State" (to avoid getting results for the other Josh Nichols) produces 16 unique Goolge hits (out of 50), none of them provide grounds for encyclopedic notability of any kind. Thorsten1 19:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted under criterion A7 by Eagle 101. Thryduulf 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Orphaned self-advertisement of hobbyist live music promotors without any encyclopedic notability. Thorsten1 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an ever growing, unmaintanable, unencyclopedic list. WS 19:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. alphaChimp (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The album this song is from doesn't have an article. If the song warrants one, this isn't it. TheMadBaron 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definiton - Nv8200p talk 19:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student hostel. Delete. BlueValour 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A writer with one self-published ( Trafford Publishing) novel, Traveling With An Eggplant, the subject fails WP:BIO. The claims are either unverifiable ("wary" agents, publishers demanding copyright) or exaggerated ("Breakthrough" first novel currently ranked #892,965 [19:36, 4 September 2006] on Amazon.com). Victoriagirl 19:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student hall. Delete. BlueValour 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Neologism, not even worth transwiki to Wiktionary. Delete Owen× ☎ 20:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No evidence of importance. Google garners very little [65] mostly this article and mirrors of this article. The article was created by Bjane who has only edited in this article and adding this name to another. This may very well be WP:VAIN IrishGuy talk 20:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable program, fails (for all I can tell) WP:SOFTWARE and WP:CORP, article reads like an advertisement, no reliable sources given (and no, the DownThemAll! homepage does not count). Contested prod. Delete Huon 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, as arguments based on policy ( verifiability) trump assertions that the series is 'popular' with nothing to back this claim up (Google searches are not reliable third-party coverage). -- Sam Blanning (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Although the film series is very popular within the flash and video game community, it fails Wikipedia's inclusion critera for web content miserably. It also lacks mainstream media coverage and its only reference is to its own website. LBMixPro <Sp e ak| o n|it!> 20:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sango 123 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Just a bar. The article reads like an advert. Per precedents bars and clubs are not generally deserving of an entry. Pascal.Tesson 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete A7 by User:Eagle 101. ColourBurst 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
non-notable. I live in NZ and follow the music scene closely, and have never heard of them. 1 self-released EP falls well below the wiki notability guidelines for band inclusion. noizyboy 21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Main claims to notability seems to be having been an inmate with Mary Kay Letourneau and self-publishing a book with her. Neither seem valid to me.
The result was DELETE. For one thing, inclusion of unfree images in galleries like this (where it's just a gallery and not a discussion of the subject of the photo) is not allowed. Herostratus 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The title of this page is not in English, however it seems to mostly be duplicating content from List of billionaires (2006). Someone speedied it as nonsense, tag was removed. Possibly it's an attempt to copy something into another language wiki, but I don't recognize the language. Anyone? Dina 21:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Stuffing the debate with socks doesn't help this AfD. (aeropagitica) 05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Contested prod as advertisement for start-up non-notable cigar brand that get no Google hits. Request closing admin to check editors histories before deciding to Save.
The result was delete. - Mailer D iablo 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The only GHits I can find for this appear to be school plays. Notability is not asserted in the article, despite an edit summary in the article history which says "Play is notable". Such an assertion needs to be backed up. theProject 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete U1 by User:DVD R W. ColourBurst 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I edited this article myself and I discovered later that this corporation is not enough notable for Wikipedia it should be deleted. Frédérick Lacasse 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A non-notable home-made TV series that generate 40 unique google hits, some of which are Wikipedia or mirrors RMHED 21:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing afd started by User:Dukeseee and removed by article author. I also say Delete - this does not seem like an encyclopedic topic; part of it is a discussion of what fonts are, the rest reads like an advertisement and basically says 'wedding fonts should be fancy' -- Jamoche 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Media Law Resources In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.
The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff. Pjbruce 14:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
You guys are unbelievable I can't believe what I'm reading here. You know I'm not bothered in the slightest about the article (i've got too much else on) what concerns me is the lack of professionalism many of you editors demonstrate and is also what I am currently taking up with the foundation. The fact is people shouldn't be publishing comments that voice suspicions of copywright violation, that is libel under the terms of the law and why risk it? Nobody has threatened legal action, I'm trying to get you to see sloppy dealings with the public like this will only alienate you from the people you mean to serve. If you look at the editorial comments above many of them contain cheap shots and patronizing comments meant to enflame and ridicule. This is attrocius. Not one person has been able to deal with a valid complaint which was simply that instead of publishing incorrect and unjustified suspicions about a professional person, a private message or email would have been much better. I will certainly not contribute to wikipedia again and for one reason only you have alienated me by by your parochial attitude that demonstrates more a sense of a private club than a public service. I regret you've lost sight of the vision gentlemen.CC wikipedia foundation Pjbruce 13:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment You seem to think people citicizing your work is a bad thing. If you can't take criticism, I suggest you leave or simply not edit. It is completely acceptable for someone to nominate your article for deletion and criticize it until nothing remains. That is completely legal and accepted practice on Wikipedia. You sir, are the only person who lacks professionalism here. You couldn't hack your article being thrown out, you couldn't take the criticism, so you throw a fit and start inventing charges against someone who criticized you. That's seems like a pretty cowardly and pathetic action to me. If you actually have a problem with anything said in this article, I suggest you find a rule against it on Wikipedia and take it up with an administrator instead of making vauge accusations about libel (which you have no understanding of). If you find it strange that no one has dealt with a valid complaint of yours, that because you don't have a valid complaint. The libel "complaint" had my friend and I laughing for a good 5 minutes solid. If you can't defend what you wrote, that's fine, we'll delete it for you. Don't compensate for your inability to defend yourself by alluding to imaginary legal wrongs, simply admit your fault and move on. If your pride can't take that hit, then I don't suggest your put it on the line. Good day sir. Shazbot85 Talk 15:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
* If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
Perhaps read more before having another tantrum over criticism? Shazbot85 Talk 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Dear Mr Shazbot You still don't see, the complaint is about behaviour like yours which is rude and offensive and nothing constructive. I really don't understand why you keep going on about the article, the article has never been the issue. I have indeed forwarded the complaint to the wikipedia foundation along with a copy of this dialogue, I really am apalled that you treat members of the public this way. I think if this were public knowlegde you would loose a lot of support. It's a real shame. Pjbruce 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
unencyclopedic and silly neologism — optikos 21:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as an advert for a non-notable webforum. (aeropagitica) 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. The original version was a patent neologism, and this new edition is still "not in the dictionary", which doesn't exactly fill me with great hope and joy. I asked the author (who had written a header saying that it wasn't a neologism) to address the inconsistent spelling, the lack of attribution of sources and the lack of dictionary presence. Such adressing of sources has now thrown up an obituary of the mysterious "Dr Barnes", who apparently did something like this in one of his postdoctoral positions (although there's no proof of what he did in these positions, other than that he had them). It's also thrown up a Friendster profile on which a woman lists one of the two spellings as her occupation, which doesn't really impress me, since I could list myself as a "historiologist" on a site like that but it wouldn't mean that such a job existed or had a consistent job description. The author requested another 5 days at the same time as he de-tagged the article, so here they are. BigHaz Schreit mich an 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply
vanity page for nonnotable college professor — optikos 17:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
vanity page of non-notable college professor — optikos 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Consensus to delete. As to the references added, they are either 404's, do not include mention of Akhter, or do not show his position as notable. WP:NOT an agency for adjudication tribal vendettas. Herostratus 17:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Seriously not an Important Person. It seems like a self-projection. There are thousends of Government Servants like him in every country and providing pages for each of them will undermine Wikipedia's credibility. Jfksog 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
DMG (district management group officers) in pakistan wileded enormous powers in the past and were essentially mini kings of their areas. I think more references are needed, has the man written any books? had any published work? been associated with any major development projects? besides that the article needs a bit of a rewrite ..it sounds like a press release in some parts. I would like it to stick around as long as it gets rewritten and is better referenced. -- Zak 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
1) Yes, he is really some one of enormous influency in Pakistan. Being on so many high-posts, first licenced private pilot of Pakistan, clearly proves that he is someone of high repute.
2) Zak demanded some refferences and also wr-writing of this article. Let me tell you that when ever new things are going to be added here in this article, I will surely add some refferences here, I promise. As far as re-writing is concernced, kindly, let me know what should be added and what should be deleted, thanks.
This artilce be remained here, as I provided the refferences, those were demanded by Satori Son, please.
Anyhow, Satori Son, whatever it is, I am happy with it. Thanks
The result was keep. alphaChimp (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like it might be a hoax, I can find only one Ghit which clearly refers to this person (aside from mirrors). The claims in the article as it stands now are somwhat fantastic. I've just deleted an article related to this as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Kita -- Deville ( Talk) 22:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete, even if it's not
WP:BALLS, it still fails
WP:BIO. --
Kinu
t/
c 23:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Recommendation rescinded per information below. --
Kinu
t/
c 13:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus, even after discounting ballot-stuffing. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Already deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruth_Cameron, simply recreated with even less information. Seems a non-notable individual. Jefffire 22:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Hi. When I created this article, I had no idea that one had existed before. However, I do think that Cameron is worthy of inclusion given, as Alec Davison points out, that she is the head of a national NGO coalition. She is a well-known and increasingly important figure in Scottish civic society. As regards her public notability, she was the subject of a full-page profile article in the Sunday Herald Magazine of 13th August this year (sadly not online). I like to think that Wikipedia provides access to wider information than national newspapers; it certainly should not be providing less than them. MichaelMcNab 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment These people appear to be colleages of the individual in question, creating accounts in order to vote. Afd are discussion between editors, not a vote. Jefffire 18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - Although I've included Cameron as a civic society, rather than political, figure, I would argue that there is a substantial public interest in including election candidates on Wikipedia. For many, it will be the only source of information about aperson that you are being asked to vote for that is not a spun party press release or website. Providing this sort of information to voters is an excellent example of the value of Wikipedia.
That argument aside, as I say, Cameron is a Scottish civic society figure of note. She is the head of one of Scotland's most significant NGO coalitions, counting Friends of the Earth Scotland, WWF Scotland and the RSPB (itself one of the country's largest membership organisations) as members. Before taking up this role, she was a student leader of national significance, not just another run-of-the-mill union officer (and, having been to a run-of-the-mill university myself, I'm under no illusions as to the notability of those), as evidenced by the national press coverage of her tenure (search for "ruth cameron" at The Scotsman). She is now known by name and reputation to everyone of importance in the Scottish campaigning sector.
I'm a little surprised at the debate over Cameron's likelihood of election; it seems perverse and blinkered to say that a civic society leader becomes notable if and only if he or she is elected to parliament.
Over the next few weeks I hope to be able to add more detail to this article as well as, if permitted by the Wikipedia community, new articles for Stop Climate Chaos Scotland and other NGOs and key NGO leaders. It is a worrisome comment on Scotland that national figures like Richard Dixon (WWF Scotland), Rosemary Burnett (Amnesty) and Kevin Dunion (Scottish Information Commissioner) are exluded, but members of the Celtic squad that have never, to my knowledge, played a single first-team game (e.g. Diarmuid O'Carroll) warrant articles of their own. I hoped to remedy that, starting with an interesting figure about whom I know enough to work up a useful article. I would be very grateful to Wikipedians if they could allow me to do so.
MichaelMcNab 10:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't delete this page - surely the head of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland warrants her own Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopears ( talk • contribs)
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non notable song from a flop film . See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baat Meri Suniye To Zara Ageo020 22:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film series made by college students RMHED 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn model, gets no hits on google, the creator of the article seems to be recreating previously deleted WWE Diva Search articles, and this is of a similar vain. Renosecond 22:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn model, gets no hits on google (even putting "may lower" wwe, it's hard to tell since it's a common phrase), the creator of the article seems to be recreating previously deleted WWE Diva Search articles, and this is of a similar vain. Renosecond 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
nn model Renosecond 22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Does not meet WP:V - Nv8200p talk
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organization. Doesn't appear to cite any reliable sources. Article is written by the founder and as such may be vanity and POV. -- Chris (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Does not meet WP:V - Nv8200p talk 22:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as WP:BIO failures. The articles can be recreated if-and-when the players become notable. (aeropagitica) 05:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
These all are players in Arsenal's reserve squad who have not played a competitive first team match. They fail WP:BIO. I haven't included Ryan Garry because he has played 1 League and 1 League Cup game but there may be views on this. I also nominate:
Delete all. BlueValour 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be more appropriate for wiktionary, if it should exist at al as a separate article. Delete or Transwiki. -- Nlu ( talk) 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Article as it stands right now does not make a valid argument for Franchezca to be considered notable as per WP:BIO guidelines and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply