< January 17 | January 19 > |
---|
The result was speedy redirect to Amish Paradise, the correct spelling. — CharlotteWebb 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparently a test article. ck lostsword| queta!| Suggestions? 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I prodded this as non-notable, prod was contested, I thought I'd bring it here. Fair amount of google hits, nothing I see that's reliable. Article on Swedish WP is no better. Smells promotional Delete Aagtbdfoua 00:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
It's just lots and lots of original research. -- Lijnema 00:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Seraphimblade 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Cynicism addict 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
*Delete and it sure looks like a speedy to me, as I don't see an assertion of notability.
Heimstern Läufer
00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
**Ah, missed that part. OK. This still doesn't seem notable enough for an article, and should perhaps be redirected to
Björgvin Halldórsson per
WP:MUSIC.
Heimstern Läufer
01:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was DELETE. - Docg 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Please keep in mind while reading this that I can always be swayed in my opinions. This article does not site its sources ( WP:V). It reads close to the edge of an advert, and I suspect it may have been planted to support a company. From looking at the first couple pages of ghits, of which there are many, it looks like they aren't for this exact phrase, they're for some combination of "home and garden" and "real estate". I suspect that "Garden real estate" may be a non-notable neologism. Delete. If someone can make this into a real sourced article which makes sense, I'm always willing to rescind my nomination. Mak (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Tumor filled with original research such as "One bird-like petpet resembles the character Fobs from The Adventures of Teddy Ruxpin." Completely fails at WP:V; we have no assurance that this article isn't a complete lie or that editors aren't grasping at straws. ' ( Feeling chatty? ) ( Edits!) 00:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Obvious delete, tagged as probable copyvio, hoax (i.e. vandalism) and WP:SNOW. Guy ( Help!) 12:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
PROD contested by page author. PROD reason was "No relevant google hits for "Poison the hedgehog"; probable hoax". I endorse the prod reason; see my opinion. Hoaxes aren't eligible for speedy deletion or I'd do it instead of this. GRBerry 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not meant to hold FAQs or instruction manuals. ReyBrujo 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Seraphimblade 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This page was originally authored by Dr. Piotr Blass who has recently been banned from Wikipedia due to his exhaustion of the community's patience with his repeated creations of his vanity autobiography and abuse of the courtesy blanking performed on his autobiography's first AfD to just continue to make his biography over ten unique times. However, this is not the entire reason that this article is being deleted.
The only resources for this article are books and articles by Dr. Blass himself, and one by the individual this manifold is named after. If one does a Google Search and has it so any pages containing either "Piotr" or "Blass" show up, Google gives 374 "unique" pages of which Oscar Zariski's article shows up on Wikipedia and its mirrors. Compounded by the fact that Dr. Blass has used the page to promote his original research and had plastered his name all over it, until JzG got rid of nearly all mentions of him, this article should be deleted as an unimportant geometric figure with no reliable sources that do not promote the primary author of the article ( R.e.b. was the originator, but Dr. Blass has taken a stranglehold on this article).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Remark: The motivating examples to which our theorem applies are the generic Zariski surfaces introduced by P. Blass in [two preprints] Blass uses the phrase "generic Zariski surface in two different senses in these two papers, but in both case it refers to the non-singular model of a weighted hypersurface with only rational double points, to which our theorem applies.
The result was Delete. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
No info on page, other Hole songs don't have own articles (unless they were a single) FlareNUKE 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nomination ForrestLane42 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42 reply
The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Only marginally notable. Subject considers himself non-notable and requested the page be listed for deletion. juli. t ? 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The article fails WP:BIO (it might have passed if the significance of U-439 was noted). Also, the article has been tagged since August 2006 for not stating the notability of the subject, but hasn't received any non-technical edits (i.e., the notability tag and a bot edit) since July 7, 2006, and seems unlikely to be expanded. Black Falcon 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merged with Alex Etel. NawlinWiki 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This is pretty much a newly created duplicate of the long-standing article on UK child actor Alex Etel. Suggest replacing with a redirect to Alex Etel, -- Arwel ( talk) 01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge or Delete This character does not deserve it's own article; though he is featured in both games as, perhaps, a minor character, he isn't nearly important enough; merge into the "Max Payne" characters article or delete the whole page. Klptyzm 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
unreferences listcruft delete Cornell Rockey 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
As the nominator, I'm completely open to nominating all these pages. I singled out an example, knowing there was a larger problem here. All these lists are indiscriminate, unsourced and partial > all of which are bad for an encyclopedia. Cornell Rockey 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
As for previous AfD that resulted in delete. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Mason (son of Belinda Carlisle) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
NN-webcomic delete Cornell Rockey 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, non-notable bio. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 15:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Nice comedian, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Fails WP:BIO. Jyothisingh 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP (nomination withdrawn). -- Metropolitan90 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This article reads like a personal ad. I suspect that this is just a vanity page.-- Azer Red Si? 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Navou banter 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a list of lists Kungfu Adam ( talk) 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
) but we still have articles on them. Jcuk 21:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable mall. Contested endorsed prod. Contested by an IP address, which didn't address my concerns, with "malls are notable". I stand by my original justification of "notability not asserted". Akihabara 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This Mall Sucks, Thats Why It Shouldn't Be On Wikipedia, I Should Know, I Worked In The Roach Infested Rathole For 3 Years. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.230.47.21 (
talk)
06:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Article already speedly deleted as "a7 nonnotable hacker" and then recreated. Even in this version, in my opinion, the article still doesn't prove Doctor Pk's notability and the 50000 defacements that the article say made by his hacking crew (but if the deface, aren't they crackers? lol) and recorded on Zone-h.org, aren't listed there (or maybe I didn't find them, anything is possible). But since the decision seems to be controversial, I brought the discussion here. by Snowolf (talk) on 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy deletion disputed here. Please confirm that this is pure spam. -- RHaworth 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect all. No sources, all spoilers, so nothing for me to merge, but the edit histories remain for salvaging if someone can locate independent sources and add encyclopedic content. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I am nominating all of the V for Vendetta secondary characters (with the exeception of Valerie page who apparently is the topic of a separate graphic novel) as they are mentioned to sufficient length on the main article a merge is not necessary. These pages provide little additional information and do not assert the significance of the characters outside of the fictional world Daniel J. Leivick 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Unable to find any evidence of notability despite searching. See Talk:American TESOL Institute for details A. B. (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 07:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails notability test. Google search turned up few to no independent articles. Few other articles link to it. Ocatecir 16:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell this song has zero relevance outside of the fictional Spinal Tap universe Daniel J. Leivick 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete This article should be deleted and at most the information may be merged into Messianic Judaism. This subset may not even exist, and if it does, it is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Avi 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arguments to delete outweight those to keep. Our rules on verifiability are non-negotiable. Proto:: ► 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable blog. Cited sources assert notability, but don't really show it. Alexa ranking below 90,000. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:11, 26 January 2007 (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}} . |
Speedy deletion means just that, deletion without a five-day AFD process, nuke on sight. Recreation of previously deleted material is eligible for speedy deletion. If players wish to refer their friends to the game then that is exactly what they should do, point them to the Shogun Wars website so they can create an account. Video games in general are not under the microscope here, there is no reason that VGs cannot be in WP which is why that hasn't been said - Half Life got on the front page because it is a featured article, IE is an article of the highest quality on WP. All featured articles are loaded with secondary sources, that's what WP is about. If yourself or any other contributor wishes to keep this article, Valthalas, then I'd suggest you try to find some secondary sources (if they exist), because it's the lack of them which is the problem here. QuagmireDog 12:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g3/g10, vandalism/attack page. NawlinWiki 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Becca manns ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- ( View AfD)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a hoax. The author has been unable to provide any sources to substantiate the notability claim of the subject. Prod removed by the author. Leebo 86 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Subject won't ever be anything more than a stub or small entry. The article has been a stub since 2002. I've already taken the little information that the article contained and put it into the Vanuatu article ( [8]) so that it wouldn't be lost. Cla68 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Buckshot06 07:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Nonsense such as "In the episode about secrets, Ned and Cookie, after getting chased by Billy Loomer, ran to Moze, who told them "You guys look like you've seen a ghost" in a similar way Captain James T. Kirk told Captain Spock in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier." The article is filled to the brim with trivial, unsourced opinions of editors. ' ( Feeling chatty? ) ( Edits!) 04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Unexplained list of Spanish song titles. "What links here" reveals that it's an end-of-year chart for Billboard Magazine's Hot Latin Tracks. I'm not sure if we can legitimately republish this list without running afoul of Billboard's intellectual property rights. In any case, I don't believe it belongs here - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Note: PROD removed by anonymous editor without explanation or change to article. FreplySpang 04:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about a self-produced on-line one man awards show for the Transformers community. No sign whatsoever of reliable third-party coverage. I doubt that much can be found outside the transformers community itself which does not exactly control reliable publications. Of course Googling for "Trannies" is useless, unless... ahem, unless your looking for a different kind of tranny. Here's the result of a more specific search. [11] Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedied as nonsense, bad joke, etc. -- Fang Aili talk 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
An "upcoming movie" with no evidence outside this article that it is in fact coming up. Which is a bit odd, given the number of big name actors that are apparently slated to appear in it. You'd think someone would have mentioned it, at least enough to get a note on IMDB. I suspect that this is a daydream, a hoax, and/or something made up in school one day.. (Note: PROD removed without addressing the sourcing issue) FreplySpang 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Wafulz marked this as speedy! (rightfully so Delete) SkierRMH 05:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, but some relevant references in a quick search on google, so might not quite be a CSD. Delete. Kesac 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, as far as I can tell. Less than 180 Ghits, and oddly enough, this is the only edition of this pageant which happens to be mentioned anywhere here, which makes me think that perhaps the page was made for vanity purposes by the winner. It's also plenty of NPOV and embellishment (Tawes Theatre is anything but prestigious.....). fuzzy510 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Unreleased and unfinished film. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all that. Delete. MikeWazowski 04:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
wikipedia is NOT a random collection of information. delete as listcruft Cornell Rockey 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G5 (MascotGuy). Nishkid 64 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
wikipedia is NOT a indiscriminate collection of information. delete as listcruft. Article does not source, nor will it ever be likely to cite a source. As with most indiscriminate lists the article will either be massively incomplete or impossible to keep accurately. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. ST47 Talk 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This is the 2nd time that a WALL-E or W.A.L.-E. related page has been created in short weeks. Consensus last time was to delete the page and wait until more information about the film has been released before adding it to Wikipedia SpikeJones 05:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Cartoon Boy 3:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The result was Keep. I think notability was clearly established by Wafulz and no other reason was given for deletion. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:WEB — Ashley Y 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Barely notable band that just passes WP:BAND requirements. I don't feel that a band who's entire discography consists of two albums should have an article devoted to thier discography, as well as articles on each album. For right now I think the discography should be merged and deleted back into Young Love (band) until there is more content. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Can't see where this article asserts notability. The only thing separating this from my delete button is my not-expertness. theProject 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedied as spam. -- Fang Aili talk 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
112 Google hits for a major company is not impressive. Article reads like an ad, which is not grounds for deletion by itself but suggests a possible conflict of interest that might explain the inflated statements. I say not notable; delete. N Shar 06:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Article of MIT course, too specific for WP CrashingWave 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
[Check Google hits] Non-notable film director. Fails WP:BIO.
Also listing the following related article for deletion as the non-notable film he produced:
Looking at the IMDB profile for this person
[18], it was created by the user "Bdonovan24", the same username that created both of these articles. I suspect the movie's IMDB entry
[19] was likewise created by him (though it doesn't say), so this appears to be nothing more than a
self-promo campaign. --
AbsolutDan
(talk)
06:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Google shows 11 pages with the title and the artist, and all of them are some kind of copies of the wikipage Lajbi Holla @ me 08:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Odinic Rite. As Kubigula correctly mentions, all the content was merged prior to the close of this AfD; however, if someone feel some was missed, feel free to pluck it out of the history behind the redirect. Daniel.Bryant 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
subject doesn't meet WP:BIO, article doesn't meet WP:V. Tunnels of Set 08:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Suspected Hoax, about some fishermen from Jersey. No relevant Google hits. Also related is Mullacdin H'Sarmque and Tales Of The Riverside. Chris 08:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Zoe as nonsense. BryanG (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Neologism, advertising campaign, notability, advocacy Young Skywalker 09:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Guinnog per WP:CSD#A7. BryanG (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
A message board. This does not seem notable enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia Jvhertum 09:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep at correct spelling. Eluchil404 08:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I prodded this article yesterday but there was an objection, so to open up the debate I thought I'd nominate. I couldn't find anything from searching the web that lived up to the WP:N "that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" - all I found were term papers and wikipedia mirror sites. As there were 1600 hits for the name on google this has been disputed (as I obviously couldn't check every one). I still say delete - but open to suggestions Madmedea 10:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Note I moved the article to "Arther Ferrill" which is the spelling shown at Univ. of Washington site, with redirect from "Arthur" -- Kevin Murray 13:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Research Lead http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/perseus/book_detail.jsp?isbn=0813333024 cites the following reviews:
While a bookseller’s quotes of other reviews may not be credible evidence, maybe someone could research these sources. My online search has not found these articles. -- Kevin Murray 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Two more reviews are claimed by the publisher on the book cover of "fall of Rome":
Another unverified article:
The result was delete. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
not notable professor
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete: This article is very shallow and seems to exist just to provide an external link (I've deleted the links). ergo spambait. ergo delete BozMo talk 10:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating as a batch
All of which appear to be shallow spambait articles created with the sole purpose of providing an external link to the same websites. The creator appears to be linked to the website (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Reference_Spam.2C_8_Months_of_S.E.O.) -- BozMo talk 11:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Shallow spambait article -- BozMo talk 10:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Shallow spambait article existing only to hang an external link on -- BozMo talk 10:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was MERGE into List of minor characters on South Park Herostratus 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
A one time character / tv show in South Park. Cruft. DietLimeCola 11:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. - Docg 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Spam; written by site's webmaster (Daniel Maldonado as User:Virtualchicano) for self-promotion – note the use of "we". See also http://www.aztlanelectronicnews.net/content/view/104/2/ – Gloy 11:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I strongly object to the term "self-promotion". I did write the article myself because I worried that the nativists and white supremacists would write the article first and fill the article with half-truths and mis-information. I have seen cases in Wikipedia where articles were written by writers from VDare.com and I was simply trying to avoid an article being written about us by them.
I sent an email to a Wikipedian who writes for the "Chicano" category requesting assistance on writing a successful article but I've yet to receive a reply.
I was informed last night to change the "we" in the article and that is what I came in to do when I read my article was marked for deletion.
The changes have been made.
Please reconsider.
In addition, the link to our news website was removed.
If anything, I am guilty of being clumsy and new to Wikipedia. I certainly meant no disrespect and I appoligise for the badly phrased article.
But my concerns remain valid and I prefer to write the article myself than to read a misleading article written by nativist groups.
Kindest Regards,
Virtualchicano 14:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
ADDED COMMENT:
AztlanElectronicNews.net is a FREE service to our community, readers and anyone who chooses to use it. AztlanElectronicNews.net is included into GOOGLE news feed. AztlanElectronicNews.net is simply a news outlet for our community. The list of writers can be viewd in the "contact Us" page.
Virtualchicano 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
It is highly unlikely you will ever find "verifiable third party coverage" due to the fact that the word "Aztlan" sends people rushing to silence us. Aztlan is a word that people love to hate. Aztlan is never given a chance to be explained for what it really is, the homeland of the Mexica people. Aztlan is most often used along with the words "myth" and "racist" in a deliberate attempt to discredit anyone who believes the Mexica are entitled to a homeland.
Virtualchicano 15:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Other "forums" software powered sites are allowed.
I repeat, this article was written by me on an effort to head off the nativists from portraying us as a bunch of mongrels. This article was not written to promote/market our community. Virtualchicano 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
What interest does anyone have in writing an objective article about us? Surely you can see the catch-22 involved. What about the link to Urban Dictionary, will that not suffice? It is unlikely anyone will ever write "verifiable coverage" because they believe it would be furthering or cause. That's like asking the growers to write about the farm workers.
Virtualchicano 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Please do not imply that I am paranoid. Even if you were a qualified professional to make this statement you still do not know me.
I am not paranoid and no qualified professional has ever made that diagnosis about me. I deeply resent this suggestion. Thank you.
As I previously stated, I've seen at least one article written by a member of VDare.com. This is what prompted me to write the article myself.
The Chicano Movement was fine but our community is more about a modern resurgence with a focus on aiding migrant workers.
Lastly, our community served as the main "hub" during last years migrant right's marches. Activists from from dozens of groups were using our site to keep thousands of people informed on upcoming events, throughout the nation, and they still do. I often post the information myself as a courtesy to academics, professionals and Latino community leaders.
The suggestion statement that no one has written about our site because no one has heard of it is mistaken and false.
Virtualchicano 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I did not say that VDare has written an article about us. I am saying that I was trying to avoid a occurance such as this: Afro-Mexican , please scroll down to "Admixture" and follow the link "1" in brackets. This link takes you to an article written by a writer for VDare. The problem is that there is no shred of physical or DNA proof that Emiliano Zapata was an Afro-Mexican. The writer makes a comment about his hair as proof. I have viewed the original image and his hair is straight. Also, some people claim that because his parents were from a town where there were Afro-Mexicans living that one can deduce that he was Afro-Mexican. That is also circumstantial, however, but the author leaves the reader believing Zapata was Afro-Mexican. He was not. My daughters were born in Los Angeles, CA where there is a large African American community, this does not make my daughters African American. Although there were and are Afro-Mexicans who deserve there rightfully earned place in Mexican history, Emiliano Zapata was an indigenous, Nahua speaking person.
I simply took the initiative to write the article myself before someone else came along to intentionally write an article that isn't accurate.
Also, I would like to add that we are separate from the above Chicano Nationalist article mentioned in that we do not espouse a "ethnocracy". We believe in a multi-cultural, democratic, center-left nation.
The article I wrote was still incomplete as I fully intended to address false notions of "reconquista" and so on.
Virtualchicano 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Herostratus 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Tagged for deletion as WP:CSD#G11, and it is undoubtedly horriibly spammy, but the subject looks as if it might be notable. That may just be because few advertisements actively promote the subject's lack of importance. Please review. Guy ( Help!) 12:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Left message in discussion:~Sb1920alk
Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. No idea if the assertion ios credible, certainly as a private company it is not a shoo-in for WP:CORP. Distinctly promotional in tone and lacks independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 12:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. Looks like advertising to me. Young Skywalker 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep Compares to other mortgage companies entries. Would like to see more small companies with entries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.89.54 ( talk • contribs)
Delete The assertion of notability seems weak. Being comparable to another entry is not a reason to keep or remove this one. Leebo 86 13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Poorly-defined criteria for inclusion; "wizard" is a rather subjective term. ~ Matticus T C 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE and MOVE to List of chess openings named after places (Although the Slav openings don't meet that critera, but life isn't perfect). Based mainly on strength of argument, I think the Delete argument has the upper hand but only by a small amount, thus no real consensus. Herostratus 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I am a bit cautious about nominating this list, because the author is one of our most prolific chess contributors who has made a number of very valuable and highly respectable contributions, yet I fear that the presence of this list is not justified. The list is of "ethnic" chess openings, in the context of the list it means chess openings named after a country or region. Typically chess openings are either descriptive (e.g. Four Knights Game), named after places (e.g. Vienna Game) or players ( Alekhine's Defense). From a chessical point of view, what an opening is named after has no bearing on the qualities of the opening. There is for instance no similarity between the Scotch Game and English Opening even though they're on the same island (the openings differ already on move 1, one is a classical open game the other is more modern flank opening). Some etymological explanation behind each opening name is of course of historic interest, but such information is already covered in the various chess opening articles. In addition, the term "ethnic chess opening" appears to be a neologism, the hits at Google are either to Wikipedia or its mirrors. I'm afraid that this method of categorising the openings appears to run afoul of violating the no original research policy since it "defines new terms". Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. ST47 Talk 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Claimed to be "the oldest continuously operating amateur radio club in the United States." Claim has not been reliably verified, see Talk:South Jersey Radio Association. But even if it were properly verified, and even if that would count as a good claim to notability, actual notability of the organization can only be shown if the organization has been profiled in reliable, unaffiliated sources. Pan Dan 12:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Sources amount to a local BBC piece on Terminal 1, an art space, and a directory listing. ~ trialsanderrors 07:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy deletion as A7 and G11, but not a clear-cut case. What do you think? Guy ( Help!) 12:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, recreation possible once some non-Harvard sources show up. Although not determinative here, I agree that it is at least questionable whether the school newspaper is an independent source when covering a school band. The text is available for a merger if anyone wants to. Sandstein 06:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
( Nominated recently, but closing admin agreed to a renomination, see Talk:Harvard Opportunes.) No evidence of being the subject of multiple non-trivial external sources that show notability and that we could use to write a good encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 12:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Mixup article between Pay per click and Paid inclusion. Pay per ranking does not exist. Old PPC Systems ranked you higher if you bid higher, but you did not pay for the position itself, but if somebody clicked the ad. Paid inclusion on the other hand does not guarantee any ranking. You pay simply for being included in the search index. Pay per ranking would be a hubrid which does not (and did not) exist roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising (G11).-- Kchase T 11:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete as per WP:CORP, and dodgy title (shouldn't "Honda dealer" refer to more than one specific dealership?). Walton monarchist89 13:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Khoi khoi 09:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability to satisfy WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 13:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
seems unnecessary. he's not notable enough for a list like this. if a separate discography got deleted, this should too. Evan Reyes 08:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Patrick who?
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
fails WP:CORP, prod tag removed — Swpb talk contribs 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This is twice in one day that Swpb has marked this page for deletion with a somewhat vague reference to failing WP:CORP. Perhaps someone could elaborate and detail why this page is marked and explain how this page differs from similar pages in the VoIP Companies category ( Voxbone, Free World Dialup, Gizmo5, etc). Modifications were made, but it's somewhat difficult to know what modifications need to be made in order to comply without further guidance. Eneref 23:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Eneref reply
(UTC)
swpm comments fail: Wikipedia:New pages patrol - Sobedai
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable website. No sources, only reviews repeated elsewhere. Nuttah68 11:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Proto:: ► 14:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. No stance Cbrown1023 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep - There seems to be several news articles about this thing, whatever the hell it is. .V. ( talk) 14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The earlier opinions to delete could not have taken the intermittent cleanup into account. Sandstein 06:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The argument made by the advocate for deletion is on the discussion page to the article (it's not here, obviously)... quote by IP 220.255.26.145 : I was searching for the wiki entry to 'incunabula' when I came across this puff piece. Wikipedia is not a tool for self-promotion. Clearly the inclusion of intimate personal details of what the author did in the 70s and 80s (traveling, sending articles to obscure journals) and a veritable CV can only be known by the author himself. Please delete.
-- deletor
quoted by Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I moved this nomination (from the article's talk page) in an attempt (not a very successful one, since DumbBOT still had to finish the job) to be helpful only. I believe that the article is notable. Some assistance was sought from its subject as has happened in some similar cases. As to obscure journals, unless Incunabula itself is the reference, that's the only reference I see offhand, and it has a respectable number of google hits. I say Keep. Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
As per suggestions above, I have deleted the "Traveller" section, added several references, and made the article somewhat more neutral in tone. More could be done, but it's a start. 24.97.18.42 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, as mandated by WP:V for any article with no independent reliable sources. The text is available for recreation once such sources turn up. Sandstein 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a non-notable person who has posted his resumé. Creator has only ever edited this article and its image. JMcC 14:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Closer's rationale:
Apparent failure of WP:BIO, Zero GNews hits, many Ghits but seem to be only selling her marginally popular books - the highest ranked such one on Amazon is ~ 11500 (If she passes WP:BIO, this is where, but I don't think she does). She apparently runs some sort of maternity products webstore, and has written a few books, none of which seem particularly noteworthy. WilyD 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 07:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I found this on PROD as a original research essay. I did a bit of poking around and did find some sources. I removed the essay and replaced it with a sourced stub, but I'm still concerned this is possibly not an appropriate article because it appears to be a neologism coined by M. P. Bhattathiri and many of the mentions appear to be by him or by people text dumping his article into forums. It is possible thought that this is a more widely used term than I'm seeing in the context of the Indian business world. Regardless I figured I'd nominate it for AfD to get a community consensus since I'm not the most knowledgable person on this topic. -- Isotope23 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete vandalism (either egregious vanity or more likely hoax, accompanied by other apparent hoaxing at Pictionary) Guy ( Help!) 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability questioned, this person is simply the winner of a pictionary contest, no further notable info is found Janarius 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry about the lack of info, I'm currently gathering it. Give me one week and it will be perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywholikestoeditstuff ( talk • contribs)
The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7 - author requests deletion Tonywalton | Talk 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The article itself says that it is unofficial and made up by high-school students. I tried {{ nonsense}} but it was contested, so I brought it here John Reaves (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod. Reason for prod was "notability lacking from reliable sources. Created by member of family; a conflict of interest". See talk page for reason for removal of prod. Despite entry on talk page, the first two references are references to subject's own website, and I could not see anything of relevance in the 3rd, but I might have missed something. So I stick with my original contention: non-notable according to reliable sources; only significant editor has a conflict of interest. Akihabara 15:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 20:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability requirements. ↪ Lakes ( Talk) 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep but Expand This Wrestler has worked/works for four notible Indy promotions (International Wrestling Cartel, Combat Zone Wrestling, Ring of Honor, and IWA Mid-South) and has held titles in two (CZW and IWA Mid-south). He's worked for TNA multiple times through 2003-2004, and now He's also working for another nationally aired promotion in WSX. He seems notible enough to meet WP:NOTE needs greatly expanded, though, as it is now his notablity isn't really shown. Vladamire Steelwolf 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, text and reference given state that subject's claim to fame is "Young Planner of the Year 2004 for the state of New South Wales". Grant65 | Talk 15:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
No source found to alleged meaning. Other weak potential meanings mentioned at Talk:Euler prime. Possibly turn into poorly sourced or unsourced disambiguation page. PrimeHunter 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable mod, fails WP:SOFTWARE. BJ Talk 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Aussie Gamer mag- issue 100.
PC game issue- 150
[22ndCW, IC ArmA]Dell970 16:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Aussie Gamer mag- issue 100 is a mag and you can onlyfind it on a .au site
you idiot. THE PAGE IS FOR THE 21st AAF NOT THE 21st CW! [22ndCW, IC ArmA]Dell970 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The result was redirect. As my nomination was technical, I feel comfortable closing the AFD also. GRBerry 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
PROD on article with prior AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuchel heath. This is a technical nomination, because PROD does not apply to articles with prior AFDs. Prod rationale was "Content is already in Battle of Krojanty, Linkless". GRBerry 15:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is exceedingly short and the only information provided that is not in the title is a 6 word unsourced statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddstone ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 January 2007
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is exceedingly short and the only information provided that is not in the title is a 6 word unsourced statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddstone ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 January 2007
The result was withdrawn, merged and redirected by nominator. Daniel.Bryant 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't feel that these individual articles on cast members of The Class add anything significant to what is already in the main article. In some instances, the cast member article was lifted directly from the main article. I think these individual articles need to be deleted. Dbart 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn, merged and redirected by nominator. Daniel.Bryant 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I am proposing that all the articles for individual cast members of The Class be deleted. These individual articles add nothing significant to what is already in the main article. Dbart 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The accuracy of this article has been disputed. With an ache in my heart and a tear in my eye, I nominate this page for deletion because of the large amount of debate surrounding the article. We should use the List of Darkwave releases page instead, due to the rapidly evolving sound of the bands afiliated with it. Emevas 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This has been deleted before, no references cited - No information on Martin J. Camilleri or his work in darts is available anywhere. Check any of the pages in the templates below showing the history of darts Seedybob2 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Originially PROD'd, subject is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post and has authored a book. I don't feel this is a clear enough WP:BIO failure to just PROD it outright. So I'm bringing it here.-- Isotope23 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as mandated by WP:V, WP:NOT#CBALL and WP:NOR in particular. Sandstein 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is about plot element that has only had vague references in print, but has not actually seen print itself. Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Subjective listcruft, violates WP:OR and WP:POV. Spoiler to who? Moreschi Deletion! 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete trivia. This article, which needs serious cleanup and verification, is crufty trivia that serves little purpose. Wryspy 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, maybe it can be recreated if the claim to notability comes true. ~ trialsanderrors 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actor who clearly fails WP:BIO. An earlier Prod tag was removed. Original author was a sockpuppet account which has been indef blocked Gwernol 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Not a proper article; perhaps merge to the main South Park article. LoganK 17:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus. I find it somewhat interesting those who wished to delete the article were both IPs. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Originally PROD'd with the reason that the subject did not find himself to be notable. I'd prefer if this was decided based on WP:BIO, which he may meet. Bringing to AfD for consensus.-- Isotope23 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This article does not contain anything that the main articles at 1960 Winter Olympics and Bobsleigh at the Winter Olympics don't already say. Note that the navigation box already excludes this year, as per the standard style we have adopted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics. The article is already virtually orphaned. I had hoped to use prod to quickly delete this article, but an admin disagreed, so it's up for AFD now. Andrwsc 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, it appears there will be no consensus for deletion WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. Navou banter 03:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Absurdly excessive detail. The article is unverifiable original research. One Night In Hackney 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
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}} . |
Comment:This has nothing to do with what "we all want"; if the article contains unsourced statements then pressure should be applied to the relevant wikiproject to find and include such sources. I'm just not convinced an AfD is the best way to speed that procedure along. Flakeloaf 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong keep all - It sounds to me like the nominator (not a real word i know) has something against wrestling or else NO knowledge of it and wants to cripple the entire Wrestling Wiki project on a technicality, deleting these articles would be an absurd move and only prove to sow that Wikipedia is more concerned with its own petty technical rules than to actually serves its fuction: To be a comprehensive guide. As someone learning Pro Wrestling these pages re a valuable asset, and I for one would have a difficult time without them, I am sure others are in the same boat as me there. Absolutely Keep keep keep keep keep, over and over again.
-- Cosmic Larva Cosmic Larva 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong keep - Removing all of these articles is ridiculous. Why would you need references for wrestling moves? Are you saying that they don't exist? Makiyu 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep, and revoke proposer's posting privileges for 30 days. This is trolling. -- ChrisP2K5 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong keep due to bad faith nom - The original nominator has admitted on his user page that he despises professional wrestling; it is obvious that he is merely electing them for deletion due to his bias against the subject matter. Fhb3 10:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)fhb3 reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory of song lyrics. Walton monarchist89 17:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Old nom failed for obvious reason. However, I believe this article does not meet our notability guidelines. I have nothing against Recom; I am a member myself. Nevertheless, I cannot find any independent sources to verify the claims made by the article, and most of the Google hits are irrelevant. The Alexa rank is not convincing either. On the balance, considering the article makes unverifiable claims (we don't have independent sources to back them up), and without these claims the article would clearly not be notable, I believe the article should not be included at the moment. (And IIRC, the original nominator was a co-founder of Recom...) Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Edgar181. BryanG (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
this is nonsense Stizz 17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, see also WP:CSD#A3. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod and merge. Prod was contested on merge to Gantt chart grounds. That merge has been contested with the edit comment 'This page was created to keep advertising out of Gantt Chart article. Options are to delete this page or continue to keep them separate'. The page is nothing more than a link farm and having this page to stop people adding links to the Gantt chart page is not a valid reason for it to exist Nuttah68 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
There is very little ENCYCLOPEDIC content here, and Wikipedia is quite clear about external advertising links and internal advertising pages (the wikilinks). There's really only one choice. Garrybooker 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an extremely useful page and is clearly not advertising. I don't understand the controversy as there are many lists in Wikipedia of various types of software.
The result was Keep. ST47 Talk 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
non-notable musician, claim of notability was that he was "popular", no discography/biography or anything else that would merit inclusion. Part of the reason for removing the db-bio tag left on my talk pge was "dead Nigerian musicians aren't exactly over-represented in Wikipedia" SkierRMH 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - Clear consensus. Not certain what "Test Case for films not yet completed means", we normally look at each case on it's own merits and the existence (or non existance) of one article does not justify the same for another article. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This film does not yet exist, and can not be evaluated for notability. Promotional materials and prerelease articles can not be deemed sufficiently reliable. Test Case for films not yet completed. zadignose 18:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to East Carolina University as feasible search term. I added the reference links to the ECU talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Unencylopeadic and what Wikipedia is not. Colours should be mentioned on the university's article but the pantone colours, let the official sites cover that. Nuttah68 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, repeatedly reposted. NawlinWiki 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Complete failure of WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 18:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense by admitted hoaxer (now blocked). NawlinWiki 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax page and recreation of previously speedy deleted material. Google search reveals no returns legitmate results. Delete TheRealFennShysa 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, admitted hoax, user now blocked. NawlinWiki 18:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax page (as admitted by article creator on page) and recreation of previously speedy deleted material. Google search reveals no returns legitmate results. Delete TheRealFennShysa 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. ST47 Talk 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician, no discography, no criteria under WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO included. Vague claims to notability "taken his brand of Fuji music all over the world" not documented or substantiated in the article SkierRMH 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep This artist seems to be a name within the fuji genre and has quite a few google hits, and having conducted a small resarch I feel confident that he is not a hoax and that he is a notable artist ithin his genre and probably wihin Nigeria in general. Webpages visited mention him as " a well known performer in Nigeria" " the hottest thing in fuji right now" and "the king of fuji", and Nigerian news report that Obesere has bought a million dollar home]. In other words i think the 6th criterion of WP:MUSIC is met I also believe that the sources indicate that the "large following" criterion of WP:BIO is met, and the many interviews from independent internet news media certainly attest that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". I don't think a discography is a necessity for a musician being notable particularly not within non-western genres, but the article mentioned linked to on the talk page mentions his recording history (I have tried to incorporate it into the article). Most importantly I think keeeping and expanding this article is a necessity in the fight against the systemic bias - not only western music is notable! I acknowledge that wider set of references would be preferrable but I think that we have to be more lenient on references these kinds of topics - african musicians simply don't get the media coverage that Britney Spears does - even if they are every bit as notable as musicians. And the fact that the article is expandable is in fact an argument for it's being kept. ·Maunus· tlahtōlli 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11. Sandstein 07:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
del promo of a nonnotable self-published book by an unknown author. It sucks, by the way (judging from preview pages at its promo website). `' mikka 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. As one editor below puts it: "underground publications, by definition, do not have formal, static, verifiable sources", which also makes it clear why it can't have a formal, static, verifiable Wikipedia entry. ~ trialsanderrors 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable subject. ZERO Reliable source references that I can find. Appears to be SPAM for the product. BenBurch 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - Non notable Myspace artist who's bio has already been deleted a number of times e.g. here. The Rambling Man 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Back up your accusations with knowledge and use Wikipedia rules and regulations. Please do not turn this institution into the new myspace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Nysted Music can be re-directed to "The Lee Nysted Experience"
Any one of the following can be used for "The Lee Nysted Experience" Band/Ensemble clearly does not "fail"
1.) AMG (World's largest source of music info.) 2.) THE ORCHARD.com Largest digital label in the world signed Lee Nysted...see link. 3.) 99% of all digital sites now carry Nysted Music, including parts of his second album with noted artist Todd Sucherman, drummer for STYX with Wikipedia page. 4.) Retail outlets like BestBuy, and Starbucks are listed as having signed Lee Nysted (See THE ORCHARD.) 5.) Matt Walker, (the drummer) verified musician in Lee Nysted band / ensemble. Same for Todd Sucherman, the drummer.(See Wikipedia.) 6.) Lee Nysted web site verifies all digital sites as does Orchard. 7.) Artistopia verifies the above 8.) Google: Lee Nysted and you will find 15,000 sites that will verify the above. 9.) Several of Lee's songs are played right now on the largest radio stations in the world. (See Orchard) Criteria for inclusion have been met many times over. ("any one of...")
Truly yours,
Lee Nysted
Please note: I did not write the articles. I did not hire anyone to write the articles. I have no pending litigation with Wikipedia, nor do I intend on same. I pray for the vandals that have started this mess.
Thank you, Lee Nysted 1-19-07 8:55 a.m. Chicago time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.148.105 ( talk • contribs).
I am sorry for implying that any of you are "vandals." Someone (or, in the plural) has been vandalizing my sites worldwide; not just here.
I have little time for this, but it is important for my business that an accurate depiction of what and who we are is entered herein.
My employees (At NystedMusic, LLC.)on my (MySpace site) have encountered numerous "kids" with nothing better to do with their time than to deface and destroy my good name.
As you can plainly see, my band/ ensemble which is now underway; in full swing, is inclusive of, and from, very noteworthy individuals. My label is the largest digital and retail outlet available in the world. Go to the links, please.
Lee Nysted...End. 1-19-07 1:30 p.m. Time in: Tierra del Sol, Aruba. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Nysted ( talk • contribs).
COMMENT by Nysted The article written by journalist C.H. should be fine inclusive of the references added since the above arguments were entered. My short experience here has been interesting. My name and this article should be directed to the new article. (Per The Rambling Man's comments.) AMG, is but one of over a dozen sources suggested by Wikipedia for musicians, ensembles, albums, etc.(P.S., I have no puppets. This is no publicity stunt. Just the truth. All criteria have been met, and then some. Thank you, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted. Complete bollocks, and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- Slowking Man 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Neologism admitted by the author to have been made up at school. No sources, and nothing of real substance Leebo 86 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Autobiography by a wrestler who is not well known enough to have their own wikipedia profile Hiptossrana 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as nonsense. Opabinia regalis 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not qualify under WP:MUSIC; if it were translated, it would read: Mexican group, creator of "Rock Bonito". A genre inspired by immature girls, who live always next to their best friends. -5to Parke- It's a method of forgiving, recording the pain created by the worrying addiction, that produces a perfect woman. More or less nonsense in fact; maybe I should have done a speedy delete. Walton monarchist89 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, clear consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
AfD nominated by DUBJAY04 with reasons: "article is span" (sic) and "It seems rather an attempt to stir up publicity for a new economic venture." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral Tevildo 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Ive been following this article for a little while, the initial speedy request was commented that this article was notable because there was newspaper coverage of the wagon wheel. The creator of the original article claimed that "The players in the story are dead and the businesses closed so it is not a commercial page but rather a page of regional information and a link to the architecture of the 1940s and 1950s." A few days later the Future appeared, which simply seems to be a plea from the investor or the seller concerning the merits and potentials for future economic ventures. I had a scent of that before the future part was added, but left it alone. Now I think this article reeks of someone trying to make money. DUBJAY04 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC) I may have used the wrong forum for this, but I basically wanted to make sure that this didn't become a pitching ground for a sale of this property, which the article initially was, and then was reverted back to after initial changes. Although I was born in California, I have no knowledge of the Wagon Wheel, and have attempted to edit this article to make it the best possible. I believe in the validity of this article, but am not sure how to keep it from regressing into spam. I guess this was an attempt to let Schafphoto, who previously had his username deleted because it was an ad, know that an article should not be used to sell a property, or whatever his motives are. If possible, I would like to remove this article from AfD, but would like to keep an eye on it to be sure it doesn't revert to pure advertising. DUBJAY04 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources given or found on this guy. Googling for "Michael Schachter" + nintendo and Michael + Schachter + nintendo has yielded nothing at all relevant to this individual. Delete as not verifiable and failing WP:BIO. Wickethewok 18:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep by clear consensus. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 03:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Neutral bump up from A7 speedy. Assertion to notability is on talk page. No opinion. Kchase T 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability based on WP:BAND; prod was removed. This is band formed within the last year that doesn't currently have any albums released (with one in the pipeline). Also, one of the criteria based on past members does not apply, since Winter Solstice also appears as non-notable.-- moe.RON Let's talk | done 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
You guys can say that all you want but there are 1000's of bands on here that aren't as notable as Ghost Of A Fallen Age. Yes the album may be in the "pipeline" but on Smartpunk @ this link: [49] you can see that out of all the albums they sell Ghost Of A Fallen Age is ranked #10 because of how many people have bought the album on Pre-Order. They are ranked above bands that have been on here for a while and are considered "more notable" just because this band is newer and you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they aren't notable. The band is nominated for this year's Taste Of Chaos Tour, the band's manager and label are working out details for that right now, because Alesana who are Ghost Of A Fallen Age's label mates have just signed with Fearless Records and the owner of that label runs Warped Tour & Taste Of Chaos. Once again the album will be sold in Bestbuy, Target, Virgin Records, Tower Records, Hot Topic, Amazon, Etc... On Feb 6th when the album is released. Again, some of the bands already on here aren't even sold in a market that large. I think you should do a little more research on a band before you go off and assume they aren't notable.
- Noregret1 06:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree with everything Norgret1 has said, I think this band has just as much information as any other band on WIkipedia. Also I checked out the smartpunk page and Ghost Of A Fallen Age is on the front page of that site also; featured with notable bands such as:
Anberlin,
classic case
Also,
Ghost Of A Fallen Age is ranked #10 out of all signed artists. They are right behind
Fall Out Boy which I'm sure you've heard of.
- Jonnyrebel 07:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The band was followed on tour by The Lynchburg News & Advance and had a front page article written about it. Their new album was also mentioned in
Alternative Press Magazine.
- JoshuaJay 13:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I wrote this when I was a newbie, only concerned with generating articles. Looking at it now, its notability is questionable. Gray Porpoise Your wish is my command! 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete If someone wants to write an article about this, they need to start from scratch anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Listed for PROD and I executed the sentence, but then I noticed this is on the National Register of Historic Places. That being the case, I didn't feel an outright PROD was warrented here. I'm opening this up to an AfD.-- Isotope23 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete (G1)+(A7).-- Hús ö nd 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, offensive article. ck lostsword| queta!| Suggestions? 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and salt. This AfD is a mess, only one person objects to deleting the articles, and he seems to be more interested in shouting admin abuse than sensibly arguing to keep. -- Steel 00:14, 21 January 2007 (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 speedy (after, I believe, three previous speedies) and guaranteed to be a contested PROD, so direct to AfD. Apparently non-notable freeware. Commonness of name makes it difficult to Google, but the related official site garners 111 Ghits, none immediately apparently from reliable sources. Appears to be strong content pushing from those associated with the product. I'm far from expert in the field, and so leave it to fellow editors to determine the product's notability or lack thereof. Robertissimo 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The following comments have been moved from the top of this page and back again there; please note the common sense that when submitting an issue for discussion one needs to provide complete references to the issue before the discussion start. I am afraid that by insisting on hiding the true facts you show that you are not interested in having an unbiased discussion in an issue in which you admitted self not to know much about, you will not win this consensus you are after by playing techniqual edit/delete games (you= the sysop who started this process here).
Monty53
16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
Thirdly concerning personal attacks: I do not buy this "heart breaking" story. To have a personal attack, a name of a person should be subitted on some framing information to who it may be, I never did so, but this person did it himself (above) he also suggested that he was attacked for being belonged to some sort of "anti-open-source conspiracy", very interesting too, I never wrote that either. All I did was quoting few words from his personal page, the explanation for these words was given by him above and NOT me.
Next, I never blanked anyones userpage, this is complete nonesense!
Monty53
23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
1.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application contributors meant that since
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/webapp is redirected to the article about Web_application there was a need to start a new article at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP with a redirect link to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP (please check discussion at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application for more information.
2.) An article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP was added as requested and a sysop made a redirect link to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-APP too.
3.) Some sysop added a request for instant delete which was changed by another sysop for a request for more contribution as well as editing. After a long discussion and editing the article was accepted and one removed the tags asking for those.
4.) The original article was surviving without any troubles whatever for over a month and was further edited and added text. Presumingly a user by the name "webapp" added some text he copied from the development site at www.web-app.net a text written by him which consisted on one sentence.
5.) A sysop suspected a copyright violation and deleted the entire article (!).
6.) I came into the picture and since I had no backup whatever of the original article, I decided to submit my own (new) article instead and remove these irrelevant tags about spam and requests for delete, since "we have allready been there and allready did that".
7.) One has decided to restart the discussion of having/deleting/editing the article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP
8.) One has decided to add a vote for deleting of this article without even considering to edit out the original article or teh new article, an action that goes in contradiction to the original guidance of how and when one should add "delete vote".
My question: what is the point to have a new discussion and vote if we have allready been through this! If you guys decide yes/no and tomorrow one sysop will have a bad day (as it happened in this case) and will decide to delete the entire article because some small editable issue what does this discussion above worth? Can any sysop overrule earlier discussion and turn up side down the entire democratic process in Wikipedia? How many more times will we need to go through this deleting discussions? This makes no sense at all.
Monty53
19:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phpbb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YaBB
meet the criteria for deletion. I don't think they should be candidate for this either. Are there more? Probably, but let's look at this with an open mind and understanding that people are a complicated creature and we must control our inherent emotions for the good of mankind. I'm sure that once a decision is made we can move forward and that's really what everyone wants to do. Now the question is, will the WedAPP article be given the same amount of leaniency as other articles or will the article be deleted which, in itself, make for an interesting article. Tedcambron(UTC)
"If more energy continues to be put into contesting and disrupting the process, I will conclude no sources are forthcoming and add my support for deleting the article" If I read this at face value it states that a decison will be based on a condition that has little to nothing to do with the subject. I don't know how wikipedia works but for a decision to not be contested would be indigent of a dictatorship. Not that there's anything wrong with that type of political system. It's just not widely accepted. To state that anything I may have said as disruptive is debateable. I've only tried to help out a worthy cause. If helping the decision making out by contesting a decision is not acceptable here, then I stand corrected and I appologize for any inconvinience but too conclude "no sources are forthcomming" because of it, is deplorable. It's a completely different subject and should not be deluted to make a point. Let's also take a look at how the article has continued to grow not knowing if it will ever be accepted. That should speak volumes. Most people would have given up. Living in uncertainty is not anything I wish on anybody. Gentlemen, please do unto other as you would have done unto you. Tedcambron
The result was Speedy delete copyvio. Guy ( Help!) 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I now know that the text of the GPL is copyrighted and should not be included on Wikipedia. See the article's discussion page for more information. — Remember the dot ( t) 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The associated redirect page, Text of the GPL, should also be deleted. I'm sorry to have put these articles on Wikipedia in the first place. — Remember the dot ( t) 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Flash game. This is not an actual arcade game despite what the article says and is not to be confused with Galactic Warriors. Metrackle 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Created by me in the long long ago. Basically unverifiable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Deletion log states Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington deleted "Concierge medicine" (G11). Navou banter 10:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This could possibly be a valid subject but has been written as advertising for one business and would require considerable clean up to meet Wikipedia standards Random Passer-by 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Is tis actually different from any of the other variations on the theme of a trusted partner who turns out to be bad? The references do not support this. Oh, wait, there are none. So: probable OR as well. Guy ( Help!) 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Renaming the article can be discussed on the talk page and not here—the deletion question is settled. Philwelch 22:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This is not notable. KazakhPol 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this under the same reasons a similar porn actress's article ( Anna Marek) was deleted last month, i.e. no reliable source of information exists, except an "official page" which points users to where they can buy her movies.. Static Universe 00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
For a particularly amusing example of how unreliable the purported biographies in these advertisements are, consider this advertisement, equally as (un)reliable as the web site that the article cites (since it is simply yet another "official" advertisement), where the subject of this article is stated to be male. There is no fact checking going on here, and this example alone should convince you that truth and accuracy is not the intent of these web pages. The pornography industry not only has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy, it has entirely the opposite reputation for making false biographies up. These are not reliable sources. They are advertisements and most likely complete fiction. Uncle G 03:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
< January 17 | January 19 > |
---|
The result was speedy redirect to Amish Paradise, the correct spelling. — CharlotteWebb 22:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparently a test article. ck lostsword| queta!| Suggestions? 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I prodded this as non-notable, prod was contested, I thought I'd bring it here. Fair amount of google hits, nothing I see that's reliable. Article on Swedish WP is no better. Smells promotional Delete Aagtbdfoua 00:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
It's just lots and lots of original research. -- Lijnema 00:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Seraphimblade 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Cynicism addict 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
*Delete and it sure looks like a speedy to me, as I don't see an assertion of notability.
Heimstern Läufer
00:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
**Ah, missed that part. OK. This still doesn't seem notable enough for an article, and should perhaps be redirected to
Björgvin Halldórsson per
WP:MUSIC.
Heimstern Läufer
01:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was DELETE. - Docg 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Please keep in mind while reading this that I can always be swayed in my opinions. This article does not site its sources ( WP:V). It reads close to the edge of an advert, and I suspect it may have been planted to support a company. From looking at the first couple pages of ghits, of which there are many, it looks like they aren't for this exact phrase, they're for some combination of "home and garden" and "real estate". I suspect that "Garden real estate" may be a non-notable neologism. Delete. If someone can make this into a real sourced article which makes sense, I'm always willing to rescind my nomination. Mak (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Tumor filled with original research such as "One bird-like petpet resembles the character Fobs from The Adventures of Teddy Ruxpin." Completely fails at WP:V; we have no assurance that this article isn't a complete lie or that editors aren't grasping at straws. ' ( Feeling chatty? ) ( Edits!) 00:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Obvious delete, tagged as probable copyvio, hoax (i.e. vandalism) and WP:SNOW. Guy ( Help!) 12:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
PROD contested by page author. PROD reason was "No relevant google hits for "Poison the hedgehog"; probable hoax". I endorse the prod reason; see my opinion. Hoaxes aren't eligible for speedy deletion or I'd do it instead of this. GRBerry 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not meant to hold FAQs or instruction manuals. ReyBrujo 01:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Seraphimblade 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This page was originally authored by Dr. Piotr Blass who has recently been banned from Wikipedia due to his exhaustion of the community's patience with his repeated creations of his vanity autobiography and abuse of the courtesy blanking performed on his autobiography's first AfD to just continue to make his biography over ten unique times. However, this is not the entire reason that this article is being deleted.
The only resources for this article are books and articles by Dr. Blass himself, and one by the individual this manifold is named after. If one does a Google Search and has it so any pages containing either "Piotr" or "Blass" show up, Google gives 374 "unique" pages of which Oscar Zariski's article shows up on Wikipedia and its mirrors. Compounded by the fact that Dr. Blass has used the page to promote his original research and had plastered his name all over it, until JzG got rid of nearly all mentions of him, this article should be deleted as an unimportant geometric figure with no reliable sources that do not promote the primary author of the article ( R.e.b. was the originator, but Dr. Blass has taken a stranglehold on this article).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Remark: The motivating examples to which our theorem applies are the generic Zariski surfaces introduced by P. Blass in [two preprints] Blass uses the phrase "generic Zariski surface in two different senses in these two papers, but in both case it refers to the non-singular model of a weighted hypersurface with only rational double points, to which our theorem applies.
The result was Delete. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
No info on page, other Hole songs don't have own articles (unless they were a single) FlareNUKE 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nomination ForrestLane42 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42 reply
The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Only marginally notable. Subject considers himself non-notable and requested the page be listed for deletion. juli. t ? 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The article fails WP:BIO (it might have passed if the significance of U-439 was noted). Also, the article has been tagged since August 2006 for not stating the notability of the subject, but hasn't received any non-technical edits (i.e., the notability tag and a bot edit) since July 7, 2006, and seems unlikely to be expanded. Black Falcon 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merged with Alex Etel. NawlinWiki 03:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This is pretty much a newly created duplicate of the long-standing article on UK child actor Alex Etel. Suggest replacing with a redirect to Alex Etel, -- Arwel ( talk) 01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge or Delete This character does not deserve it's own article; though he is featured in both games as, perhaps, a minor character, he isn't nearly important enough; merge into the "Max Payne" characters article or delete the whole page. Klptyzm 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
unreferences listcruft delete Cornell Rockey 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
As the nominator, I'm completely open to nominating all these pages. I singled out an example, knowing there was a larger problem here. All these lists are indiscriminate, unsourced and partial > all of which are bad for an encyclopedia. Cornell Rockey 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
As for previous AfD that resulted in delete. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Mason (son of Belinda Carlisle) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
NN-webcomic delete Cornell Rockey 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, non-notable bio. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 15:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Nice comedian, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Fails WP:BIO. Jyothisingh 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP (nomination withdrawn). -- Metropolitan90 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This article reads like a personal ad. I suspect that this is just a vanity page.-- Azer Red Si? 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Navou banter 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a list of lists Kungfu Adam ( talk) 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
) but we still have articles on them. Jcuk 21:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable mall. Contested endorsed prod. Contested by an IP address, which didn't address my concerns, with "malls are notable". I stand by my original justification of "notability not asserted". Akihabara 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This Mall Sucks, Thats Why It Shouldn't Be On Wikipedia, I Should Know, I Worked In The Roach Infested Rathole For 3 Years. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.230.47.21 (
talk)
06:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Article already speedly deleted as "a7 nonnotable hacker" and then recreated. Even in this version, in my opinion, the article still doesn't prove Doctor Pk's notability and the 50000 defacements that the article say made by his hacking crew (but if the deface, aren't they crackers? lol) and recorded on Zone-h.org, aren't listed there (or maybe I didn't find them, anything is possible). But since the decision seems to be controversial, I brought the discussion here. by Snowolf (talk) on 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy deletion disputed here. Please confirm that this is pure spam. -- RHaworth 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect all. No sources, all spoilers, so nothing for me to merge, but the edit histories remain for salvaging if someone can locate independent sources and add encyclopedic content. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I am nominating all of the V for Vendetta secondary characters (with the exeception of Valerie page who apparently is the topic of a separate graphic novel) as they are mentioned to sufficient length on the main article a merge is not necessary. These pages provide little additional information and do not assert the significance of the characters outside of the fictional world Daniel J. Leivick 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Unable to find any evidence of notability despite searching. See Talk:American TESOL Institute for details A. B. (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 07:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails notability test. Google search turned up few to no independent articles. Few other articles link to it. Ocatecir 16:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell this song has zero relevance outside of the fictional Spinal Tap universe Daniel J. Leivick 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete This article should be deleted and at most the information may be merged into Messianic Judaism. This subset may not even exist, and if it does, it is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Avi 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arguments to delete outweight those to keep. Our rules on verifiability are non-negotiable. Proto:: ► 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable blog. Cited sources assert notability, but don't really show it. Alexa ranking below 90,000. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:11, 26 January 2007 (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}} . |
Speedy deletion means just that, deletion without a five-day AFD process, nuke on sight. Recreation of previously deleted material is eligible for speedy deletion. If players wish to refer their friends to the game then that is exactly what they should do, point them to the Shogun Wars website so they can create an account. Video games in general are not under the microscope here, there is no reason that VGs cannot be in WP which is why that hasn't been said - Half Life got on the front page because it is a featured article, IE is an article of the highest quality on WP. All featured articles are loaded with secondary sources, that's what WP is about. If yourself or any other contributor wishes to keep this article, Valthalas, then I'd suggest you try to find some secondary sources (if they exist), because it's the lack of them which is the problem here. QuagmireDog 12:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g3/g10, vandalism/attack page. NawlinWiki 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Becca manns ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- ( View AfD)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a hoax. The author has been unable to provide any sources to substantiate the notability claim of the subject. Prod removed by the author. Leebo 86 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Subject won't ever be anything more than a stub or small entry. The article has been a stub since 2002. I've already taken the little information that the article contained and put it into the Vanuatu article ( [8]) so that it wouldn't be lost. Cla68 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Buckshot06 07:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Nonsense such as "In the episode about secrets, Ned and Cookie, after getting chased by Billy Loomer, ran to Moze, who told them "You guys look like you've seen a ghost" in a similar way Captain James T. Kirk told Captain Spock in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier." The article is filled to the brim with trivial, unsourced opinions of editors. ' ( Feeling chatty? ) ( Edits!) 04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Unexplained list of Spanish song titles. "What links here" reveals that it's an end-of-year chart for Billboard Magazine's Hot Latin Tracks. I'm not sure if we can legitimately republish this list without running afoul of Billboard's intellectual property rights. In any case, I don't believe it belongs here - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Note: PROD removed by anonymous editor without explanation or change to article. FreplySpang 04:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about a self-produced on-line one man awards show for the Transformers community. No sign whatsoever of reliable third-party coverage. I doubt that much can be found outside the transformers community itself which does not exactly control reliable publications. Of course Googling for "Trannies" is useless, unless... ahem, unless your looking for a different kind of tranny. Here's the result of a more specific search. [11] Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedied as nonsense, bad joke, etc. -- Fang Aili talk 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
An "upcoming movie" with no evidence outside this article that it is in fact coming up. Which is a bit odd, given the number of big name actors that are apparently slated to appear in it. You'd think someone would have mentioned it, at least enough to get a note on IMDB. I suspect that this is a daydream, a hoax, and/or something made up in school one day.. (Note: PROD removed without addressing the sourcing issue) FreplySpang 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Wafulz marked this as speedy! (rightfully so Delete) SkierRMH 05:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, but some relevant references in a quick search on google, so might not quite be a CSD. Delete. Kesac 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, as far as I can tell. Less than 180 Ghits, and oddly enough, this is the only edition of this pageant which happens to be mentioned anywhere here, which makes me think that perhaps the page was made for vanity purposes by the winner. It's also plenty of NPOV and embellishment (Tawes Theatre is anything but prestigious.....). fuzzy510 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Unreleased and unfinished film. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all that. Delete. MikeWazowski 04:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
wikipedia is NOT a random collection of information. delete as listcruft Cornell Rockey 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G5 (MascotGuy). Nishkid 64 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
wikipedia is NOT a indiscriminate collection of information. delete as listcruft. Article does not source, nor will it ever be likely to cite a source. As with most indiscriminate lists the article will either be massively incomplete or impossible to keep accurately. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. ST47 Talk 11:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This is the 2nd time that a WALL-E or W.A.L.-E. related page has been created in short weeks. Consensus last time was to delete the page and wait until more information about the film has been released before adding it to Wikipedia SpikeJones 05:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Cartoon Boy 3:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The result was Keep. I think notability was clearly established by Wafulz and no other reason was given for deletion. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:WEB — Ashley Y 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Barely notable band that just passes WP:BAND requirements. I don't feel that a band who's entire discography consists of two albums should have an article devoted to thier discography, as well as articles on each album. For right now I think the discography should be merged and deleted back into Young Love (band) until there is more content. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Can't see where this article asserts notability. The only thing separating this from my delete button is my not-expertness. theProject 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedied as spam. -- Fang Aili talk 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
112 Google hits for a major company is not impressive. Article reads like an ad, which is not grounds for deletion by itself but suggests a possible conflict of interest that might explain the inflated statements. I say not notable; delete. N Shar 06:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Article of MIT course, too specific for WP CrashingWave 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
[Check Google hits] Non-notable film director. Fails WP:BIO.
Also listing the following related article for deletion as the non-notable film he produced:
Looking at the IMDB profile for this person
[18], it was created by the user "Bdonovan24", the same username that created both of these articles. I suspect the movie's IMDB entry
[19] was likewise created by him (though it doesn't say), so this appears to be nothing more than a
self-promo campaign. --
AbsolutDan
(talk)
06:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Google shows 11 pages with the title and the artist, and all of them are some kind of copies of the wikipage Lajbi Holla @ me 08:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Odinic Rite. As Kubigula correctly mentions, all the content was merged prior to the close of this AfD; however, if someone feel some was missed, feel free to pluck it out of the history behind the redirect. Daniel.Bryant 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
subject doesn't meet WP:BIO, article doesn't meet WP:V. Tunnels of Set 08:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Suspected Hoax, about some fishermen from Jersey. No relevant Google hits. Also related is Mullacdin H'Sarmque and Tales Of The Riverside. Chris 08:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Zoe as nonsense. BryanG (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Neologism, advertising campaign, notability, advocacy Young Skywalker 09:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Guinnog per WP:CSD#A7. BryanG (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
A message board. This does not seem notable enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia Jvhertum 09:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep at correct spelling. Eluchil404 08:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I prodded this article yesterday but there was an objection, so to open up the debate I thought I'd nominate. I couldn't find anything from searching the web that lived up to the WP:N "that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" - all I found were term papers and wikipedia mirror sites. As there were 1600 hits for the name on google this has been disputed (as I obviously couldn't check every one). I still say delete - but open to suggestions Madmedea 10:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Note I moved the article to "Arther Ferrill" which is the spelling shown at Univ. of Washington site, with redirect from "Arthur" -- Kevin Murray 13:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Research Lead http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/perseus/book_detail.jsp?isbn=0813333024 cites the following reviews:
While a bookseller’s quotes of other reviews may not be credible evidence, maybe someone could research these sources. My online search has not found these articles. -- Kevin Murray 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Two more reviews are claimed by the publisher on the book cover of "fall of Rome":
Another unverified article:
The result was delete. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
not notable professor
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete: This article is very shallow and seems to exist just to provide an external link (I've deleted the links). ergo spambait. ergo delete BozMo talk 10:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating as a batch
All of which appear to be shallow spambait articles created with the sole purpose of providing an external link to the same websites. The creator appears to be linked to the website (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Reference_Spam.2C_8_Months_of_S.E.O.) -- BozMo talk 11:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Shallow spambait article -- BozMo talk 10:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Shallow spambait article existing only to hang an external link on -- BozMo talk 10:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was MERGE into List of minor characters on South Park Herostratus 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
A one time character / tv show in South Park. Cruft. DietLimeCola 11:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. - Docg 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Spam; written by site's webmaster (Daniel Maldonado as User:Virtualchicano) for self-promotion – note the use of "we". See also http://www.aztlanelectronicnews.net/content/view/104/2/ – Gloy 11:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I strongly object to the term "self-promotion". I did write the article myself because I worried that the nativists and white supremacists would write the article first and fill the article with half-truths and mis-information. I have seen cases in Wikipedia where articles were written by writers from VDare.com and I was simply trying to avoid an article being written about us by them.
I sent an email to a Wikipedian who writes for the "Chicano" category requesting assistance on writing a successful article but I've yet to receive a reply.
I was informed last night to change the "we" in the article and that is what I came in to do when I read my article was marked for deletion.
The changes have been made.
Please reconsider.
In addition, the link to our news website was removed.
If anything, I am guilty of being clumsy and new to Wikipedia. I certainly meant no disrespect and I appoligise for the badly phrased article.
But my concerns remain valid and I prefer to write the article myself than to read a misleading article written by nativist groups.
Kindest Regards,
Virtualchicano 14:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
ADDED COMMENT:
AztlanElectronicNews.net is a FREE service to our community, readers and anyone who chooses to use it. AztlanElectronicNews.net is included into GOOGLE news feed. AztlanElectronicNews.net is simply a news outlet for our community. The list of writers can be viewd in the "contact Us" page.
Virtualchicano 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
It is highly unlikely you will ever find "verifiable third party coverage" due to the fact that the word "Aztlan" sends people rushing to silence us. Aztlan is a word that people love to hate. Aztlan is never given a chance to be explained for what it really is, the homeland of the Mexica people. Aztlan is most often used along with the words "myth" and "racist" in a deliberate attempt to discredit anyone who believes the Mexica are entitled to a homeland.
Virtualchicano 15:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Other "forums" software powered sites are allowed.
I repeat, this article was written by me on an effort to head off the nativists from portraying us as a bunch of mongrels. This article was not written to promote/market our community. Virtualchicano 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
What interest does anyone have in writing an objective article about us? Surely you can see the catch-22 involved. What about the link to Urban Dictionary, will that not suffice? It is unlikely anyone will ever write "verifiable coverage" because they believe it would be furthering or cause. That's like asking the growers to write about the farm workers.
Virtualchicano 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Please do not imply that I am paranoid. Even if you were a qualified professional to make this statement you still do not know me.
I am not paranoid and no qualified professional has ever made that diagnosis about me. I deeply resent this suggestion. Thank you.
As I previously stated, I've seen at least one article written by a member of VDare.com. This is what prompted me to write the article myself.
The Chicano Movement was fine but our community is more about a modern resurgence with a focus on aiding migrant workers.
Lastly, our community served as the main "hub" during last years migrant right's marches. Activists from from dozens of groups were using our site to keep thousands of people informed on upcoming events, throughout the nation, and they still do. I often post the information myself as a courtesy to academics, professionals and Latino community leaders.
The suggestion statement that no one has written about our site because no one has heard of it is mistaken and false.
Virtualchicano 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I did not say that VDare has written an article about us. I am saying that I was trying to avoid a occurance such as this: Afro-Mexican , please scroll down to "Admixture" and follow the link "1" in brackets. This link takes you to an article written by a writer for VDare. The problem is that there is no shred of physical or DNA proof that Emiliano Zapata was an Afro-Mexican. The writer makes a comment about his hair as proof. I have viewed the original image and his hair is straight. Also, some people claim that because his parents were from a town where there were Afro-Mexicans living that one can deduce that he was Afro-Mexican. That is also circumstantial, however, but the author leaves the reader believing Zapata was Afro-Mexican. He was not. My daughters were born in Los Angeles, CA where there is a large African American community, this does not make my daughters African American. Although there were and are Afro-Mexicans who deserve there rightfully earned place in Mexican history, Emiliano Zapata was an indigenous, Nahua speaking person.
I simply took the initiative to write the article myself before someone else came along to intentionally write an article that isn't accurate.
Also, I would like to add that we are separate from the above Chicano Nationalist article mentioned in that we do not espouse a "ethnocracy". We believe in a multi-cultural, democratic, center-left nation.
The article I wrote was still incomplete as I fully intended to address false notions of "reconquista" and so on.
Virtualchicano 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Herostratus 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Tagged for deletion as WP:CSD#G11, and it is undoubtedly horriibly spammy, but the subject looks as if it might be notable. That may just be because few advertisements actively promote the subject's lack of importance. Please review. Guy ( Help!) 12:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Left message in discussion:~Sb1920alk
Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. No idea if the assertion ios credible, certainly as a private company it is not a shoo-in for WP:CORP. Distinctly promotional in tone and lacks independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 12:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. Looks like advertising to me. Young Skywalker 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep Compares to other mortgage companies entries. Would like to see more small companies with entries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.89.54 ( talk • contribs)
Delete The assertion of notability seems weak. Being comparable to another entry is not a reason to keep or remove this one. Leebo 86 13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Poorly-defined criteria for inclusion; "wizard" is a rather subjective term. ~ Matticus T C 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE and MOVE to List of chess openings named after places (Although the Slav openings don't meet that critera, but life isn't perfect). Based mainly on strength of argument, I think the Delete argument has the upper hand but only by a small amount, thus no real consensus. Herostratus 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I am a bit cautious about nominating this list, because the author is one of our most prolific chess contributors who has made a number of very valuable and highly respectable contributions, yet I fear that the presence of this list is not justified. The list is of "ethnic" chess openings, in the context of the list it means chess openings named after a country or region. Typically chess openings are either descriptive (e.g. Four Knights Game), named after places (e.g. Vienna Game) or players ( Alekhine's Defense). From a chessical point of view, what an opening is named after has no bearing on the qualities of the opening. There is for instance no similarity between the Scotch Game and English Opening even though they're on the same island (the openings differ already on move 1, one is a classical open game the other is more modern flank opening). Some etymological explanation behind each opening name is of course of historic interest, but such information is already covered in the various chess opening articles. In addition, the term "ethnic chess opening" appears to be a neologism, the hits at Google are either to Wikipedia or its mirrors. I'm afraid that this method of categorising the openings appears to run afoul of violating the no original research policy since it "defines new terms". Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. ST47 Talk 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Claimed to be "the oldest continuously operating amateur radio club in the United States." Claim has not been reliably verified, see Talk:South Jersey Radio Association. But even if it were properly verified, and even if that would count as a good claim to notability, actual notability of the organization can only be shown if the organization has been profiled in reliable, unaffiliated sources. Pan Dan 12:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Sources amount to a local BBC piece on Terminal 1, an art space, and a directory listing. ~ trialsanderrors 07:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy deletion as A7 and G11, but not a clear-cut case. What do you think? Guy ( Help!) 12:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, recreation possible once some non-Harvard sources show up. Although not determinative here, I agree that it is at least questionable whether the school newspaper is an independent source when covering a school band. The text is available for a merger if anyone wants to. Sandstein 06:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
( Nominated recently, but closing admin agreed to a renomination, see Talk:Harvard Opportunes.) No evidence of being the subject of multiple non-trivial external sources that show notability and that we could use to write a good encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 12:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Mixup article between Pay per click and Paid inclusion. Pay per ranking does not exist. Old PPC Systems ranked you higher if you bid higher, but you did not pay for the position itself, but if somebody clicked the ad. Paid inclusion on the other hand does not guarantee any ranking. You pay simply for being included in the search index. Pay per ranking would be a hubrid which does not (and did not) exist roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising (G11).-- Kchase T 11:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete as per WP:CORP, and dodgy title (shouldn't "Honda dealer" refer to more than one specific dealership?). Walton monarchist89 13:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Khoi khoi 09:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability to satisfy WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 13:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
seems unnecessary. he's not notable enough for a list like this. if a separate discography got deleted, this should too. Evan Reyes 08:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Patrick who?
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
fails WP:CORP, prod tag removed — Swpb talk contribs 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This is twice in one day that Swpb has marked this page for deletion with a somewhat vague reference to failing WP:CORP. Perhaps someone could elaborate and detail why this page is marked and explain how this page differs from similar pages in the VoIP Companies category ( Voxbone, Free World Dialup, Gizmo5, etc). Modifications were made, but it's somewhat difficult to know what modifications need to be made in order to comply without further guidance. Eneref 23:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Eneref reply
(UTC)
swpm comments fail: Wikipedia:New pages patrol - Sobedai
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable website. No sources, only reviews repeated elsewhere. Nuttah68 11:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Proto:: ► 14:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. No stance Cbrown1023 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep - There seems to be several news articles about this thing, whatever the hell it is. .V. ( talk) 14:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The earlier opinions to delete could not have taken the intermittent cleanup into account. Sandstein 06:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The argument made by the advocate for deletion is on the discussion page to the article (it's not here, obviously)... quote by IP 220.255.26.145 : I was searching for the wiki entry to 'incunabula' when I came across this puff piece. Wikipedia is not a tool for self-promotion. Clearly the inclusion of intimate personal details of what the author did in the 70s and 80s (traveling, sending articles to obscure journals) and a veritable CV can only be known by the author himself. Please delete.
-- deletor
quoted by Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I moved this nomination (from the article's talk page) in an attempt (not a very successful one, since DumbBOT still had to finish the job) to be helpful only. I believe that the article is notable. Some assistance was sought from its subject as has happened in some similar cases. As to obscure journals, unless Incunabula itself is the reference, that's the only reference I see offhand, and it has a respectable number of google hits. I say Keep. Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
As per suggestions above, I have deleted the "Traveller" section, added several references, and made the article somewhat more neutral in tone. More could be done, but it's a start. 24.97.18.42 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, as mandated by WP:V for any article with no independent reliable sources. The text is available for recreation once such sources turn up. Sandstein 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a non-notable person who has posted his resumé. Creator has only ever edited this article and its image. JMcC 14:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Closer's rationale:
Apparent failure of WP:BIO, Zero GNews hits, many Ghits but seem to be only selling her marginally popular books - the highest ranked such one on Amazon is ~ 11500 (If she passes WP:BIO, this is where, but I don't think she does). She apparently runs some sort of maternity products webstore, and has written a few books, none of which seem particularly noteworthy. WilyD 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 07:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I found this on PROD as a original research essay. I did a bit of poking around and did find some sources. I removed the essay and replaced it with a sourced stub, but I'm still concerned this is possibly not an appropriate article because it appears to be a neologism coined by M. P. Bhattathiri and many of the mentions appear to be by him or by people text dumping his article into forums. It is possible thought that this is a more widely used term than I'm seeing in the context of the Indian business world. Regardless I figured I'd nominate it for AfD to get a community consensus since I'm not the most knowledgable person on this topic. -- Isotope23 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete vandalism (either egregious vanity or more likely hoax, accompanied by other apparent hoaxing at Pictionary) Guy ( Help!) 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability questioned, this person is simply the winner of a pictionary contest, no further notable info is found Janarius 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry about the lack of info, I'm currently gathering it. Give me one week and it will be perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywholikestoeditstuff ( talk • contribs)
The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7 - author requests deletion Tonywalton | Talk 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The article itself says that it is unofficial and made up by high-school students. I tried {{ nonsense}} but it was contested, so I brought it here John Reaves (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod. Reason for prod was "notability lacking from reliable sources. Created by member of family; a conflict of interest". See talk page for reason for removal of prod. Despite entry on talk page, the first two references are references to subject's own website, and I could not see anything of relevance in the 3rd, but I might have missed something. So I stick with my original contention: non-notable according to reliable sources; only significant editor has a conflict of interest. Akihabara 15:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 20:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not meet notability requirements. ↪ Lakes ( Talk) 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep but Expand This Wrestler has worked/works for four notible Indy promotions (International Wrestling Cartel, Combat Zone Wrestling, Ring of Honor, and IWA Mid-South) and has held titles in two (CZW and IWA Mid-south). He's worked for TNA multiple times through 2003-2004, and now He's also working for another nationally aired promotion in WSX. He seems notible enough to meet WP:NOTE needs greatly expanded, though, as it is now his notablity isn't really shown. Vladamire Steelwolf 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, text and reference given state that subject's claim to fame is "Young Planner of the Year 2004 for the state of New South Wales". Grant65 | Talk 15:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
No source found to alleged meaning. Other weak potential meanings mentioned at Talk:Euler prime. Possibly turn into poorly sourced or unsourced disambiguation page. PrimeHunter 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable mod, fails WP:SOFTWARE. BJ Talk 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Aussie Gamer mag- issue 100.
PC game issue- 150
[22ndCW, IC ArmA]Dell970 16:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Aussie Gamer mag- issue 100 is a mag and you can onlyfind it on a .au site
you idiot. THE PAGE IS FOR THE 21st AAF NOT THE 21st CW! [22ndCW, IC ArmA]Dell970 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The result was redirect. As my nomination was technical, I feel comfortable closing the AFD also. GRBerry 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
PROD on article with prior AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuchel heath. This is a technical nomination, because PROD does not apply to articles with prior AFDs. Prod rationale was "Content is already in Battle of Krojanty, Linkless". GRBerry 15:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is exceedingly short and the only information provided that is not in the title is a 6 word unsourced statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddstone ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 January 2007
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is exceedingly short and the only information provided that is not in the title is a 6 word unsourced statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddstone ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 January 2007
The result was withdrawn, merged and redirected by nominator. Daniel.Bryant 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't feel that these individual articles on cast members of The Class add anything significant to what is already in the main article. In some instances, the cast member article was lifted directly from the main article. I think these individual articles need to be deleted. Dbart 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn, merged and redirected by nominator. Daniel.Bryant 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I am proposing that all the articles for individual cast members of The Class be deleted. These individual articles add nothing significant to what is already in the main article. Dbart 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The accuracy of this article has been disputed. With an ache in my heart and a tear in my eye, I nominate this page for deletion because of the large amount of debate surrounding the article. We should use the List of Darkwave releases page instead, due to the rapidly evolving sound of the bands afiliated with it. Emevas 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This has been deleted before, no references cited - No information on Martin J. Camilleri or his work in darts is available anywhere. Check any of the pages in the templates below showing the history of darts Seedybob2 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Originially PROD'd, subject is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post and has authored a book. I don't feel this is a clear enough WP:BIO failure to just PROD it outright. So I'm bringing it here.-- Isotope23 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as mandated by WP:V, WP:NOT#CBALL and WP:NOR in particular. Sandstein 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is about plot element that has only had vague references in print, but has not actually seen print itself. Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Subjective listcruft, violates WP:OR and WP:POV. Spoiler to who? Moreschi Deletion! 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete trivia. This article, which needs serious cleanup and verification, is crufty trivia that serves little purpose. Wryspy 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, maybe it can be recreated if the claim to notability comes true. ~ trialsanderrors 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actor who clearly fails WP:BIO. An earlier Prod tag was removed. Original author was a sockpuppet account which has been indef blocked Gwernol 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Not a proper article; perhaps merge to the main South Park article. LoganK 17:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus. I find it somewhat interesting those who wished to delete the article were both IPs. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Originally PROD'd with the reason that the subject did not find himself to be notable. I'd prefer if this was decided based on WP:BIO, which he may meet. Bringing to AfD for consensus.-- Isotope23 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This article does not contain anything that the main articles at 1960 Winter Olympics and Bobsleigh at the Winter Olympics don't already say. Note that the navigation box already excludes this year, as per the standard style we have adopted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics. The article is already virtually orphaned. I had hoped to use prod to quickly delete this article, but an admin disagreed, so it's up for AFD now. Andrwsc 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, it appears there will be no consensus for deletion WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. Navou banter 03:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Absurdly excessive detail. The article is unverifiable original research. One Night In Hackney 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
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}} . |
Comment:This has nothing to do with what "we all want"; if the article contains unsourced statements then pressure should be applied to the relevant wikiproject to find and include such sources. I'm just not convinced an AfD is the best way to speed that procedure along. Flakeloaf 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong keep all - It sounds to me like the nominator (not a real word i know) has something against wrestling or else NO knowledge of it and wants to cripple the entire Wrestling Wiki project on a technicality, deleting these articles would be an absurd move and only prove to sow that Wikipedia is more concerned with its own petty technical rules than to actually serves its fuction: To be a comprehensive guide. As someone learning Pro Wrestling these pages re a valuable asset, and I for one would have a difficult time without them, I am sure others are in the same boat as me there. Absolutely Keep keep keep keep keep, over and over again.
-- Cosmic Larva Cosmic Larva 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong keep - Removing all of these articles is ridiculous. Why would you need references for wrestling moves? Are you saying that they don't exist? Makiyu 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep, and revoke proposer's posting privileges for 30 days. This is trolling. -- ChrisP2K5 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong keep due to bad faith nom - The original nominator has admitted on his user page that he despises professional wrestling; it is obvious that he is merely electing them for deletion due to his bias against the subject matter. Fhb3 10:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)fhb3 reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory of song lyrics. Walton monarchist89 17:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Old nom failed for obvious reason. However, I believe this article does not meet our notability guidelines. I have nothing against Recom; I am a member myself. Nevertheless, I cannot find any independent sources to verify the claims made by the article, and most of the Google hits are irrelevant. The Alexa rank is not convincing either. On the balance, considering the article makes unverifiable claims (we don't have independent sources to back them up), and without these claims the article would clearly not be notable, I believe the article should not be included at the moment. (And IIRC, the original nominator was a co-founder of Recom...) Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Edgar181. BryanG (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
this is nonsense Stizz 17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, see also WP:CSD#A3. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod and merge. Prod was contested on merge to Gantt chart grounds. That merge has been contested with the edit comment 'This page was created to keep advertising out of Gantt Chart article. Options are to delete this page or continue to keep them separate'. The page is nothing more than a link farm and having this page to stop people adding links to the Gantt chart page is not a valid reason for it to exist Nuttah68 18:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
There is very little ENCYCLOPEDIC content here, and Wikipedia is quite clear about external advertising links and internal advertising pages (the wikilinks). There's really only one choice. Garrybooker 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an extremely useful page and is clearly not advertising. I don't understand the controversy as there are many lists in Wikipedia of various types of software.
The result was Keep. ST47 Talk 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
non-notable musician, claim of notability was that he was "popular", no discography/biography or anything else that would merit inclusion. Part of the reason for removing the db-bio tag left on my talk pge was "dead Nigerian musicians aren't exactly over-represented in Wikipedia" SkierRMH 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - Clear consensus. Not certain what "Test Case for films not yet completed means", we normally look at each case on it's own merits and the existence (or non existance) of one article does not justify the same for another article. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This film does not yet exist, and can not be evaluated for notability. Promotional materials and prerelease articles can not be deemed sufficiently reliable. Test Case for films not yet completed. zadignose 18:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to East Carolina University as feasible search term. I added the reference links to the ECU talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Unencylopeadic and what Wikipedia is not. Colours should be mentioned on the university's article but the pantone colours, let the official sites cover that. Nuttah68 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, repeatedly reposted. NawlinWiki 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Complete failure of WP:BIO. Walton monarchist89 18:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense by admitted hoaxer (now blocked). NawlinWiki 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax page and recreation of previously speedy deleted material. Google search reveals no returns legitmate results. Delete TheRealFennShysa 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, admitted hoax, user now blocked. NawlinWiki 18:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax page (as admitted by article creator on page) and recreation of previously speedy deleted material. Google search reveals no returns legitmate results. Delete TheRealFennShysa 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. ST47 Talk 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician, no discography, no criteria under WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO included. Vague claims to notability "taken his brand of Fuji music all over the world" not documented or substantiated in the article SkierRMH 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep This artist seems to be a name within the fuji genre and has quite a few google hits, and having conducted a small resarch I feel confident that he is not a hoax and that he is a notable artist ithin his genre and probably wihin Nigeria in general. Webpages visited mention him as " a well known performer in Nigeria" " the hottest thing in fuji right now" and "the king of fuji", and Nigerian news report that Obesere has bought a million dollar home]. In other words i think the 6th criterion of WP:MUSIC is met I also believe that the sources indicate that the "large following" criterion of WP:BIO is met, and the many interviews from independent internet news media certainly attest that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". I don't think a discography is a necessity for a musician being notable particularly not within non-western genres, but the article mentioned linked to on the talk page mentions his recording history (I have tried to incorporate it into the article). Most importantly I think keeeping and expanding this article is a necessity in the fight against the systemic bias - not only western music is notable! I acknowledge that wider set of references would be preferrable but I think that we have to be more lenient on references these kinds of topics - african musicians simply don't get the media coverage that Britney Spears does - even if they are every bit as notable as musicians. And the fact that the article is expandable is in fact an argument for it's being kept. ·Maunus· tlahtōlli 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11. Sandstein 07:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
del promo of a nonnotable self-published book by an unknown author. It sucks, by the way (judging from preview pages at its promo website). `' mikka 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. As one editor below puts it: "underground publications, by definition, do not have formal, static, verifiable sources", which also makes it clear why it can't have a formal, static, verifiable Wikipedia entry. ~ trialsanderrors 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable subject. ZERO Reliable source references that I can find. Appears to be SPAM for the product. BenBurch 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - Non notable Myspace artist who's bio has already been deleted a number of times e.g. here. The Rambling Man 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Back up your accusations with knowledge and use Wikipedia rules and regulations. Please do not turn this institution into the new myspace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Nysted Music can be re-directed to "The Lee Nysted Experience"
Any one of the following can be used for "The Lee Nysted Experience" Band/Ensemble clearly does not "fail"
1.) AMG (World's largest source of music info.) 2.) THE ORCHARD.com Largest digital label in the world signed Lee Nysted...see link. 3.) 99% of all digital sites now carry Nysted Music, including parts of his second album with noted artist Todd Sucherman, drummer for STYX with Wikipedia page. 4.) Retail outlets like BestBuy, and Starbucks are listed as having signed Lee Nysted (See THE ORCHARD.) 5.) Matt Walker, (the drummer) verified musician in Lee Nysted band / ensemble. Same for Todd Sucherman, the drummer.(See Wikipedia.) 6.) Lee Nysted web site verifies all digital sites as does Orchard. 7.) Artistopia verifies the above 8.) Google: Lee Nysted and you will find 15,000 sites that will verify the above. 9.) Several of Lee's songs are played right now on the largest radio stations in the world. (See Orchard) Criteria for inclusion have been met many times over. ("any one of...")
Truly yours,
Lee Nysted
Please note: I did not write the articles. I did not hire anyone to write the articles. I have no pending litigation with Wikipedia, nor do I intend on same. I pray for the vandals that have started this mess.
Thank you, Lee Nysted 1-19-07 8:55 a.m. Chicago time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.148.105 ( talk • contribs).
I am sorry for implying that any of you are "vandals." Someone (or, in the plural) has been vandalizing my sites worldwide; not just here.
I have little time for this, but it is important for my business that an accurate depiction of what and who we are is entered herein.
My employees (At NystedMusic, LLC.)on my (MySpace site) have encountered numerous "kids" with nothing better to do with their time than to deface and destroy my good name.
As you can plainly see, my band/ ensemble which is now underway; in full swing, is inclusive of, and from, very noteworthy individuals. My label is the largest digital and retail outlet available in the world. Go to the links, please.
Lee Nysted...End. 1-19-07 1:30 p.m. Time in: Tierra del Sol, Aruba. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Nysted ( talk • contribs).
COMMENT by Nysted The article written by journalist C.H. should be fine inclusive of the references added since the above arguments were entered. My short experience here has been interesting. My name and this article should be directed to the new article. (Per The Rambling Man's comments.) AMG, is but one of over a dozen sources suggested by Wikipedia for musicians, ensembles, albums, etc.(P.S., I have no puppets. This is no publicity stunt. Just the truth. All criteria have been met, and then some. Thank you, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted. Complete bollocks, and Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- Slowking Man 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Neologism admitted by the author to have been made up at school. No sources, and nothing of real substance Leebo 86 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Autobiography by a wrestler who is not well known enough to have their own wikipedia profile Hiptossrana 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as nonsense. Opabinia regalis 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not qualify under WP:MUSIC; if it were translated, it would read: Mexican group, creator of "Rock Bonito". A genre inspired by immature girls, who live always next to their best friends. -5to Parke- It's a method of forgiving, recording the pain created by the worrying addiction, that produces a perfect woman. More or less nonsense in fact; maybe I should have done a speedy delete. Walton monarchist89 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, clear consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
AfD nominated by DUBJAY04 with reasons: "article is span" (sic) and "It seems rather an attempt to stir up publicity for a new economic venture." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral Tevildo 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Ive been following this article for a little while, the initial speedy request was commented that this article was notable because there was newspaper coverage of the wagon wheel. The creator of the original article claimed that "The players in the story are dead and the businesses closed so it is not a commercial page but rather a page of regional information and a link to the architecture of the 1940s and 1950s." A few days later the Future appeared, which simply seems to be a plea from the investor or the seller concerning the merits and potentials for future economic ventures. I had a scent of that before the future part was added, but left it alone. Now I think this article reeks of someone trying to make money. DUBJAY04 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC) I may have used the wrong forum for this, but I basically wanted to make sure that this didn't become a pitching ground for a sale of this property, which the article initially was, and then was reverted back to after initial changes. Although I was born in California, I have no knowledge of the Wagon Wheel, and have attempted to edit this article to make it the best possible. I believe in the validity of this article, but am not sure how to keep it from regressing into spam. I guess this was an attempt to let Schafphoto, who previously had his username deleted because it was an ad, know that an article should not be used to sell a property, or whatever his motives are. If possible, I would like to remove this article from AfD, but would like to keep an eye on it to be sure it doesn't revert to pure advertising. DUBJAY04 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources given or found on this guy. Googling for "Michael Schachter" + nintendo and Michael + Schachter + nintendo has yielded nothing at all relevant to this individual. Delete as not verifiable and failing WP:BIO. Wickethewok 18:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep by clear consensus. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 03:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Neutral bump up from A7 speedy. Assertion to notability is on talk page. No opinion. Kchase T 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability based on WP:BAND; prod was removed. This is band formed within the last year that doesn't currently have any albums released (with one in the pipeline). Also, one of the criteria based on past members does not apply, since Winter Solstice also appears as non-notable.-- moe.RON Let's talk | done 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
You guys can say that all you want but there are 1000's of bands on here that aren't as notable as Ghost Of A Fallen Age. Yes the album may be in the "pipeline" but on Smartpunk @ this link: [49] you can see that out of all the albums they sell Ghost Of A Fallen Age is ranked #10 because of how many people have bought the album on Pre-Order. They are ranked above bands that have been on here for a while and are considered "more notable" just because this band is newer and you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they aren't notable. The band is nominated for this year's Taste Of Chaos Tour, the band's manager and label are working out details for that right now, because Alesana who are Ghost Of A Fallen Age's label mates have just signed with Fearless Records and the owner of that label runs Warped Tour & Taste Of Chaos. Once again the album will be sold in Bestbuy, Target, Virgin Records, Tower Records, Hot Topic, Amazon, Etc... On Feb 6th when the album is released. Again, some of the bands already on here aren't even sold in a market that large. I think you should do a little more research on a band before you go off and assume they aren't notable.
- Noregret1 06:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree with everything Norgret1 has said, I think this band has just as much information as any other band on WIkipedia. Also I checked out the smartpunk page and Ghost Of A Fallen Age is on the front page of that site also; featured with notable bands such as:
Anberlin,
classic case
Also,
Ghost Of A Fallen Age is ranked #10 out of all signed artists. They are right behind
Fall Out Boy which I'm sure you've heard of.
- Jonnyrebel 07:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The band was followed on tour by The Lynchburg News & Advance and had a front page article written about it. Their new album was also mentioned in
Alternative Press Magazine.
- JoshuaJay 13:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I wrote this when I was a newbie, only concerned with generating articles. Looking at it now, its notability is questionable. Gray Porpoise Your wish is my command! 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete If someone wants to write an article about this, they need to start from scratch anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Listed for PROD and I executed the sentence, but then I noticed this is on the National Register of Historic Places. That being the case, I didn't feel an outright PROD was warrented here. I'm opening this up to an AfD.-- Isotope23 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete (G1)+(A7).-- Hús ö nd 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, offensive article. ck lostsword| queta!| Suggestions? 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and salt. This AfD is a mess, only one person objects to deleting the articles, and he seems to be more interested in shouting admin abuse than sensibly arguing to keep. -- Steel 00:14, 21 January 2007 (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 speedy (after, I believe, three previous speedies) and guaranteed to be a contested PROD, so direct to AfD. Apparently non-notable freeware. Commonness of name makes it difficult to Google, but the related official site garners 111 Ghits, none immediately apparently from reliable sources. Appears to be strong content pushing from those associated with the product. I'm far from expert in the field, and so leave it to fellow editors to determine the product's notability or lack thereof. Robertissimo 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The following comments have been moved from the top of this page and back again there; please note the common sense that when submitting an issue for discussion one needs to provide complete references to the issue before the discussion start. I am afraid that by insisting on hiding the true facts you show that you are not interested in having an unbiased discussion in an issue in which you admitted self not to know much about, you will not win this consensus you are after by playing techniqual edit/delete games (you= the sysop who started this process here).
Monty53
16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
Thirdly concerning personal attacks: I do not buy this "heart breaking" story. To have a personal attack, a name of a person should be subitted on some framing information to who it may be, I never did so, but this person did it himself (above) he also suggested that he was attacked for being belonged to some sort of "anti-open-source conspiracy", very interesting too, I never wrote that either. All I did was quoting few words from his personal page, the explanation for these words was given by him above and NOT me.
Next, I never blanked anyones userpage, this is complete nonesense!
Monty53
23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
1.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application contributors meant that since
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/webapp is redirected to the article about Web_application there was a need to start a new article at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP with a redirect link to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP (please check discussion at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application for more information.
2.) An article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP was added as requested and a sysop made a redirect link to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web-APP too.
3.) Some sysop added a request for instant delete which was changed by another sysop for a request for more contribution as well as editing. After a long discussion and editing the article was accepted and one removed the tags asking for those.
4.) The original article was surviving without any troubles whatever for over a month and was further edited and added text. Presumingly a user by the name "webapp" added some text he copied from the development site at www.web-app.net a text written by him which consisted on one sentence.
5.) A sysop suspected a copyright violation and deleted the entire article (!).
6.) I came into the picture and since I had no backup whatever of the original article, I decided to submit my own (new) article instead and remove these irrelevant tags about spam and requests for delete, since "we have allready been there and allready did that".
7.) One has decided to restart the discussion of having/deleting/editing the article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAPP
8.) One has decided to add a vote for deleting of this article without even considering to edit out the original article or teh new article, an action that goes in contradiction to the original guidance of how and when one should add "delete vote".
My question: what is the point to have a new discussion and vote if we have allready been through this! If you guys decide yes/no and tomorrow one sysop will have a bad day (as it happened in this case) and will decide to delete the entire article because some small editable issue what does this discussion above worth? Can any sysop overrule earlier discussion and turn up side down the entire democratic process in Wikipedia? How many more times will we need to go through this deleting discussions? This makes no sense at all.
Monty53
19:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phpbb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YaBB
meet the criteria for deletion. I don't think they should be candidate for this either. Are there more? Probably, but let's look at this with an open mind and understanding that people are a complicated creature and we must control our inherent emotions for the good of mankind. I'm sure that once a decision is made we can move forward and that's really what everyone wants to do. Now the question is, will the WedAPP article be given the same amount of leaniency as other articles or will the article be deleted which, in itself, make for an interesting article. Tedcambron(UTC)
"If more energy continues to be put into contesting and disrupting the process, I will conclude no sources are forthcoming and add my support for deleting the article" If I read this at face value it states that a decison will be based on a condition that has little to nothing to do with the subject. I don't know how wikipedia works but for a decision to not be contested would be indigent of a dictatorship. Not that there's anything wrong with that type of political system. It's just not widely accepted. To state that anything I may have said as disruptive is debateable. I've only tried to help out a worthy cause. If helping the decision making out by contesting a decision is not acceptable here, then I stand corrected and I appologize for any inconvinience but too conclude "no sources are forthcomming" because of it, is deplorable. It's a completely different subject and should not be deluted to make a point. Let's also take a look at how the article has continued to grow not knowing if it will ever be accepted. That should speak volumes. Most people would have given up. Living in uncertainty is not anything I wish on anybody. Gentlemen, please do unto other as you would have done unto you. Tedcambron
The result was Speedy delete copyvio. Guy ( Help!) 23:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I now know that the text of the GPL is copyrighted and should not be included on Wikipedia. See the article's discussion page for more information. — Remember the dot ( t) 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The associated redirect page, Text of the GPL, should also be deleted. I'm sorry to have put these articles on Wikipedia in the first place. — Remember the dot ( t) 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Flash game. This is not an actual arcade game despite what the article says and is not to be confused with Galactic Warriors. Metrackle 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Created by me in the long long ago. Basically unverifiable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Deletion log states Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington deleted "Concierge medicine" (G11). Navou banter 10:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This could possibly be a valid subject but has been written as advertising for one business and would require considerable clean up to meet Wikipedia standards Random Passer-by 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Is tis actually different from any of the other variations on the theme of a trusted partner who turns out to be bad? The references do not support this. Oh, wait, there are none. So: probable OR as well. Guy ( Help!) 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Renaming the article can be discussed on the talk page and not here—the deletion question is settled. Philwelch 22:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
This is not notable. KazakhPol 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this under the same reasons a similar porn actress's article ( Anna Marek) was deleted last month, i.e. no reliable source of information exists, except an "official page" which points users to where they can buy her movies.. Static Universe 00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
For a particularly amusing example of how unreliable the purported biographies in these advertisements are, consider this advertisement, equally as (un)reliable as the web site that the article cites (since it is simply yet another "official" advertisement), where the subject of this article is stated to be male. There is no fact checking going on here, and this example alone should convince you that truth and accuracy is not the intent of these web pages. The pornography industry not only has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy, it has entirely the opposite reputation for making false biographies up. These are not reliable sources. They are advertisements and most likely complete fiction. Uncle G 03:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply