This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Treat as a copyvio (i.e. only delete the versions that contain the violating material. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm just fixing an incorrectly formatted AfD nomination. No vote. -- Metropolitan90 00:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge to Etch-A-Sketch Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Unnotable, discontinued product with little or no historic or encyclopedic value. Received less than 100 google hits (how unnotable is that?).
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted at 00:27, 24 September 2005 by User:Starblind. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like a really thought out case of vanity. Job E 6 00:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable neologism. A few hits on Google [1], but related to some unknown music band, not to the term. No online references to the sense assigned by the article. Shauri 00:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, orphan - Nameneko 00:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Information doesnot relate to the article, Sandbox should be used for testing. .::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality talk 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable, possible promotion WCFrancis 00:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
requested verification 3 days ago, non placed. Cannot find on google (although bank is real) - possible hoax WCFrancis 00:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 19:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Another List that if it stays it probaly going to expand until there is no expanison left. And it is also a weak page.EX: click Orange Avenue and it take u to orange (fruit). and also Miami Avenue is not a major street in Miami Delete -- Aranda56 01:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus to keep or merge -> Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Dictionary entry. Move to Wiktionary and cover the subect in the article insect. DanMS 01:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. On the raw numbers, it's 7d, 3k (surprisingly small WPian turnout here) with the struck-through comments discounted. I have, however, read the debate and clearly the deleters are not persuaded by the keepers, and the restatement of the arguments does not appear to have changed anyone's mind. I'm satisfied that there is a consensus to delete here among those who did not edit blatantly in response to the messages on websites. And to those who mentioned the point: Wikipedia is not a democracy. - Splash talk 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Due to links posted on both of the artist's websites, this Article for Deletion debate has been rendered rather confusing. For concise arguments from both sides of the debate, please see the section below entitled: RESTATING THE ARGUMENTS. (added by -- Tedzsee 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)) reply
Nomination: Totally non notable webcomic, have a look at it's website here and its forums here here. This is a very very minor webcomic, with hardly any readers. A quick glance at the Alexa rank will tell you this. Too many webcomics are being allowed to onto wikipedia without anyone challenging them, due to overly lax guidelines on WP:COMIC, if anyone has time, have a look through List of webcomics, I'm sure many do no warrant an article. - Hahnchen 01:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
P.S. In my opinion, the fact that it caused this much debate alone means the article is worth keeping! It's so much easier just to leave it on! -- Hijamiefans
As the above debate has skewed this Articles for Deletion page, the following arguments should be considered when voting. Please do not add to this section unless entirely relevant (this section created by -- Tedzsee 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a stick figure webcomic, see here. The website itself is none notable, OMGJeremy.com would never qualify for an article and would probably be speedied, yet this webcomic wasn't speedied. With an alexa rank of 750,000+, it really ought to be thrown out, fast, and onto electrified train lines. - Hahnchen 01:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently, this is about an event in the Descent: Freespace game, although the article never bothers to mention this fact. Also reads like a copyvio from the manual; anyone have a copy to check? Either way, Delete. Owen× ☎ 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
-=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 03:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
OK, dude, you crossed the line. there are no copyrights to Freespace: The Great War, Silent Threat, or Freespace 2. the companies no longer hold the right to them. ALSO, i did not have to say that it's for Descent: Freespace, SINCE IT IS LOCATED IN THE DESCENT: FREESPACE SECTION. Furthermore, this did NOT come out of ANY manual WHATSOEVER. -Cobra (71.110.89.194)
OK, i've moved this article to another page. Delete it now. :) -Cobra
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Sigh, yet another webcomic article. What does no alexa data mean? Has the site purposely not allowed alexa to post stats, or is it so infinitely tiny that alexa overlooks it? - Hahnchen 01:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality talk 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef, maybe neologism. - guety is talking english bad 02:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
What's a dicdef?
Ah. thanks. --Eric Boutilier
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
borderline nonsense. Poorly written. Not encyclopedic. Jwissick 02:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
More Descent: Freespace gamecruft (presumably, the article doesn't give a hint). Owen× ☎ 02:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied, again. android 79 05:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
NN individual. Being married to someone who is notable does not make her notable herself.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus, Keep. Rx StrangeLove 18:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It is an opinion, may not be the worst for others. .::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 03:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Jwissick 03:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep and move. Rx StrangeLove 19:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary .::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 03:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, Keep. Rx StrangeLove 19:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
promotional WCFrancis 03:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was boldly changed by author to redirect. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. The title of this stub is misspelled and the bio of the subject is provided in Lev Vygotsky. This article provides nothing additional. DanMS 03:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. There's a 70% majority for deletion but the keep votes make reasonable arguments. — JIP | Talk 06:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef WCFrancis 04:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione 1980 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
decdif WCFrancis 04:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete
bizarre sexual fantasy/practice; either nn or hoax. Non-encyclopedic. WCFrancis 04:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I'd say this was original research, except it appears to claim more to be original prophecy. Either way, it's a WP:NOR violation. The Literate Engineer 04:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Just an character from a commercial not really a classic and memorable mascot like what it says in the article also badly written ,reads like a commercial because it was a commercial and of course POV also. Delete -- Aranda56 04:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
lots of reasons. Non-encyclopdedic tops the list. WCFrancis 04:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Certainly a nice fellow, but this article is largely autobiographical. I'm surprised it has not been nominated before. As a matter of form, I support the notion that substantially autobiographical articles need community consensus to remain. Xoloz 04:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 19:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn editor of a nn magazine (googling The Liberal gives alot of google results, but most of them are democratic action groups), 360 google for "Ben Ramm" - GregAsche (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 19:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not found on any music site lists. Not notable. Jwissick (t) (c) 05:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Consists entirely of POV parroting of a self-help book. Jasonuhl 05:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 19:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
See also the entries for Destiny Bond and Ember
PokeCruft and if completed its going to be too long There are more than 200 of them attacks out there and the way those 2 nn attacks are written in that article if those 200+ attacks go there its going to be a long long nearly useless article Delete while u still can -- Aranda56 05:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete; hoax, joke, whatever. No Google mentions of such a person or film, and description makes it clear it's a joke, and a sophomoric one at that. MCB 05:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
You're right, there isn't anything about McKenzie on Wikipedia, movies or not... Wow. He's quite big in New Zealand, but not a "media celebrity" ... The profile is certainly 'blown out of proportion', but not a complete hoax.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 06:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Either nonsense or an extremely non-notable video game character, or both Paul 05:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
New user's attempt to share something, possibly original research, still not coherent, recommend to userfy WCFrancis 06:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Dear People at Wikipedia,
“Social Technology” is my first article at Wikipedia. I am new to this world of web publishing. Please pardon me for any errors that I have made and may make due to my ignorance of the norms and rules of the Wikipedia community.
This summer some good ideas occurred to me and I put them down in this article. In the article, I defined the term “Social Technology” and some basic areas to think and work upon.
Then I heard about Wikipedia where any one can contribute and enhance an article. I felt that this was a great place for ideas. I thought that many more ideas would come in and the article would be enhanced.
I posted it from my web log http://neeray.blogspot.com to this site. Unfortunately I forgot to post the copy right notice and a very vigilant member noticed the same article on my web log and marked it for copyright violation. I am very happy that people here are very vigilant. I have now posted the copy right message under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 on the “Social Technology temporary page” and in the article on my web log too.
Then I worked a little on the temporary page and find that now this is marked for deletion for “Rambling”. These are tiny seedlings of ideas. Please do not delete them even before they are seen and flower into something better. Please advise me as to what should I do to improve this article.
I have great faith in the collective wisdom of the people. That is what this article is about. Please do whatever is right according to the rules and norms of the community.
Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor
neeray 03:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Dear people at Wikipedia, reply
“Social Technology” is my first article at Wikipedia. I am new to this world of web publishing. Please pardon me for any errors that I have made and may make due to my ignorance of the norms and rules of the Wikipedia community.
This summer some good ideas occurred to me and I put them down in this article. In the article, I defined the term “Social Technology” and some basic areas to think and work upon.
Then I heard about Wikipedia where any one can contribute and enhance an article. I felt that this was a great place for ideas. I thought that many more ideas would come in and the article would be enhanced.
I posted it from my web log http://neeray.blogspot.com to this site. Unfortunately I forgot to post the copy right notice and a very vigilant member noticed the same article on my web log and marked it for copyright violation. I am very happy that people here are very vigilant. I have now posted the copy right message under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 on the “Social Technology temporary page” and in the article on my web log too.
Then I worked a little on the temporary page and find that now this is marked for deletion for “Rambling”. These are tiny seedlings of ideas. Please do not delete them even before they are seen and flower into something better. Please advise me as to what should I do to improve this article.
I have great faith in the collective wisdom of the people. That is what this article is about. Please do whatever is right according to the rules and norms of the community.
I tried posting this at the Articles for Deletion page but it is not showing there. Please tell me what to do.
Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor
neeray 13:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (Killing it with the main Social Technology article, why have a temp if the page above it was killed (besides copyvios). R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
notes for article in subpage, no useful content yet, userfy WCFrancis 06:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Dear People at Wikipedia,
“Social Technology” is my first article at Wikipedia. I am new to this world of web publishing. Please pardon me for any errors that I have made and may make due to my ignorance of the norms and rules of the Wikipedia community.
This summer some good ideas occurred to me and I put them down in this article. In the article, I defined the term “Social Technology” and some basic areas to think and work upon.
Then I heard about Wikipedia where any one can contribute and enhance an article. I felt that this was a great place for ideas. I thought that many more ideas would come in and the article would be enhanced.
I posted it from my web log http://neeray.blogspot.com to this site. Unfortunately I forgot to post the copy right notice and a very vigilant member noticed the same article on my web log and marked it for copyright violation. I am very happy that people here are very vigilant. I have now posted the copy right message under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 on the “Social Technology temporary page” and in the article on my web log too.
Then I worked a little on the temporary page and find that now this is marked for deletion for “Rambling”. These are tiny seedlings of ideas. Please do not delete them even before they are seen and flower into something better. Please advise me as to what should I do to improve this article.
I have great faith in the collective wisdom of the people. That is what this article is about. Please do whatever is right according to the rules and norms of the community.
Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor
neeray 03:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. This really reads like a copyvio, but I couldn't find it anywhere online. User:Zoe| (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be needed, no indication of the source of the data. No support to keep in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Vegaswikian 06:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be needed. Appears too difficult to keep updated (even to build the inital data). No indication of the source of the data. No support to keep in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Vegaswikian 06:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be needed. Appears too difficult to keep updated (even to build the inital data). No indication of the source of the data. No support to keep in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Vegaswikian 06:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn cocktail. Only 25 Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Don't delete: This is the most inspirational piece of writing I have ever read. Keep it or history will show you as morons.
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Listcruft, unencyclopedic, impossible to maintain, not much use WCFrancis 06:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
*Delete topic could be an article but a booklist is unnecessary.
Dlyons493 07:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
"Merge to Age disparity in sexual relationships since that exists Dlyons493 10:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
nn. Spam. not encyclopedic. Jwissick (t) (c) 06:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Almost by definition, a film company started in 2005 September cannot be notable. -- RHaworth 06:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus, will redirect Lance Romance to the one with the accented n.
R
e
dwolf24 (
talk) 20:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
Sorry, my bad, Giantrats voted twice. Delete is the final. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn musician, no entries on artistdirect or allmusic (though lots of Google hits). This really reads like a copyvio, too. And the allegation that he was responsible for "We Are the World" at teh age of six are ludicrous. User:Zoe| (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Two people seem to have submitted entries for the same artist, one of them a gag. The first Lance Romance page is nonsense and should be deleted. The other page, Lance Romañce, is not nonsense at all and is a legitimate, original entry which I wrote myself. Unfortunately, because it has a special character in the URL, I am unable to link directly to the article so that other people may discus it.
The artist in question is popular in underground circles in several scenes and cities, and has made an impact on these scenes. Hence the Google entries, but not the AllMusic. Keeping the second article, which should justify itself, is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantrats ( talk • contribs)
--User:Giantrats 11:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Basing this mostly on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I live in Raleigh, and Capital Blvd is a heavily travelled road, but it's no different than any other heavily-travelled road in any other part of the country. Short of obviously famous roads like Broadway or Hollywood Boulevard, specific roads probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia. -- PacknCanes 07:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
More Transmutalism/ Ceriz gobbledygook. User:Zoe| (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus to where to redirect. I'll be bold and redirect to autistic culture. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neoligism. Even if it isn't neoligism its a dicdef. REDIRECT to autistic culture where its put in proper context. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus (3 to 4) so I shall redirect to autistic culture. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neoligism. Even if it isn't neoligism its a dicdef. REDIRECT to autistic culture where it can be put in proper context. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neoligism. All the extra discussion on the page is completely unneccesary as pro vs anti cure stuff is discussed much better and in a more NPOV tone on other autism-related pages. Delete or Redirect to autistic culture Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is devoted to a minor character in one of William Shakespeare's plays -- so minor that he doesn't even have a name. Brandon39 08:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
How many sins can one small article commit? Non-notability. Political POV. Vanity. Failure to even explain which Oakwood School we're talking about (it turns out to be the one in North Hollywood, California). Non-notable music teacher. A Google for "Oakwood School" "Ivan Johnson" returns four hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic... especialy since it is only used by the developer. Jwissick (t) (c) 08:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to No Shame Theatre. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encylopedic. Provides no information. Wiki is not a link collection. Jwissick (t) (c) 08:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be made up. I searched for "northern dragon king" and "Pyro Yasha", but was unable to verify any of it. There is a message board posting that suggests a Northern sea dragon king may exist. -- Kjkolb 09:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic. Unknown band. Jwissick (t) (c) 09:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Irrelevant context, not worthy of an article, also doesn't make much sense. Wackymacs 09:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous VfD. Does not appear to be notable. Having an "anti-cure perspective" does not make one notable. Writing an essay that is " widely distributed over the Internet" might make one notable - the problem is that the only references to it I found are on activist websites... which makes sense, since, well... he's an activist :). Around 650 google hits. [10] At worst maybe this article is finally cleaned up a bit. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete and redirect. HappyCamper 20:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not an encyclopedic article, but an advertisement. Jeff Q (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, its two weeks on WP:PNT are up. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 11:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Polish. Listed on WP:PNT since 28 August. The text has been copied to pl:Dyskusja:Chudów. Physchim62 11:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
The result of the debate was No consensus. I'm replacing it with PANONIAN's proposed stub.-- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 11:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hungarian (but with Serbian title), about a town in Vojvodina. Has been on WP:PNT since 28 August. Transwikied to hu:Dunabökény. Physchim62 11:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. since youve moved it across no reason for it to be here in the english version Astrokey44 11:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete. If article is not translated into English, then it should be replaced with following stub:
The result of the debate was No consensus. I'm replacing it with PANONIAN's proposed stub. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 11:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hungarian (but with a Serbian title), about a town in Vojvodina. Has been on WP:PNT since 28 August. Transwikied to hu:Boróc. Physchim62 11:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete. If article is not translated into English, then it should be replaced with following stub:
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Chinese. Has been on WP:PNT since 1 September. Physchim62 11:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Republic of China Red Cross's predecessor is called "the Shanghai International Red Cross committee", in clear Guangxu 30 (in 1904) on May 29, was creates the northeast area harm in accordance to the Russo-Japanese War to be serious, by Shanghai's bureaucratic business-people gentry hoped saved the populace to establish to the water and fire. Clear Guangxu 33 (in 1907) the Shanghai International Red Cross committee changed name the Qing Dynasty Red Cross; After the clear Xuantong Period three years (in 1911) 1911 Revolution successfully changes name the Red Cross Society of China.
Republic of China first year (in 1912) the Red Cross Society of China attained the Red Cross international board to acknowledge that, turned round (in 1919) joins the Red Cross and the Red Crescent league of nations in the Republic of China eight years. 1,933 (in 1933) the government for the coordinate military need, promulgated Republic of China Red Cross act of administration rules of procedure, changed name Republic of China Red Cross. (In 1949 moved to 1,949) along with Republic of China government, up to now had surpasses hundred year glorious history. Hereafter has been through repeatedly overthrows the Qing Dynasty government, division of the country among warlords, makes an expedition to the east the Northern Expedition, the Sino-Japanese War and Kuomintang and Communist Parties joins battle and so on the eventful time, the beacon-fire successive years, in addition the nature and man-made disaster is unceasing, urgently awaits the reliever, nearly does not have when there is no place not in, therefore Republic of China Red Cross since had been established, one after another war and huge rescue relief demand, under limited resources limit, an its degree of difficulty obviously spot.
In 1949 was detained the mainland Red Cross colleague, along with People's Republic of China establishing a government, reorganized to People's Republic of China capital Beijing to be established, still famous "Red Cross Society of China"; The People's Republic of China government and concluded in 1949 in 1956 the Geneva Convention (the general term Red Cross joint pledge, this first international joint pledge which concluded after People's Republic of China founding of the nation), caused to be located Beijing the Red Cross Society of China to conform to the national Red Cross condition which international Red Cross recognized (international Red Cross to acknowledge the national Red Cross, its government had for the Geneva Convention signatory state), to become represents the entire Chinese the Red Cross to organize. Broadcasts along with the government moves to Taiwan's Republic of China Red Cross, from now on will lose international Red Cross the membership, also will be unable to exercise right of and the duty the member Red Cross; Only still maintained certain intercourses with the international Red Cross movement member.
Republic of China Red Cross had for been established until now hundred years to have -odd, from end of the Qing the beginning of people war rescue and relief service; 60's impetuses disease prevention and health care; The 70's cooperate take the humanity concern as both banks exchange interaction to lay the foundation; The 80's impel each training work; The 90's promote the service work which each respect life, the society shows loving care for and so on, silently pay by way of many wills labor, by the universal love, the humanity and the service spirit, energetically put into practice the good conduct which the rescue reliefs.
In the 21st century, Republic of China Red Cross has stepped into for hundred years, the new century, the new start, the history is we best testimony, is altogether innovates You's turning point.
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary. -- Mysidia ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Spanish. Has been on WP:PNT since 3 September. Transwikied to es:Maferefun Shango. Physchim62 12:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
The result of the debate was Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 11:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Croatian biography. Has been on WP:PNT since 4 September. Text has been transwikied to hr:Ban Milosavljević. Physchim62 12:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a pub in Langley Mill (a town in England). It serves ales. There is no evidence of notability. Delete. Sliggy 12:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be nothing more than elaborate link spam. Only edits so far have been by two anon users who were also involved in DoYouDo (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoYouDo). RoySmith 12:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising page for non-notable software package. — Cleared as filed. 12:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Norwegian, about a primary school. Has been on WP:PNT since 9 September. Physchim62 12:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm relisting this in the hope that more opinions will be expressed. Thryduulf 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page for non-notable computer user's group. — Cleared as filed. 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Another page from WP:PNT, more recnt this one. Opinion is that it is not worth tranlating. Physchim62 13:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The actual site is notable and the entry is a combination of vanity and but mainly an advert for ICQ. CambridgeBayWeather 13:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be pretty much unencylopedic. I should think it comes under WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Travel Guide. Kel- nage 14:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad. -- fvw * 14:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Very clearly original research, personal essay &c. No more needs to be said. [[Sam Korn]] 14:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm the auther, and new to wikipedia; it would be helpful if someone could expain to me why the entry is up for deletion- as a newbie I don't understand what the problem is?
OK, I've done some looking in the FAQs and now understand that Wiki doesn't host original stuff- UToR is original so I guess you should delete it. Anyone know of a similar kind of thing to wikipedia that does host such stuff? Apologies for posting something innapropriate. As a bit of constructive feedback, it may be worth your while making it clearer that you don't want original work; I did check several of the intro FAQs prior to posting, and didn't pick up on that.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Article about a community in a Scottish town, Glenrothes. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is on communites like this, but it looks non notable to me. JoanneB 14:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Hey I think its alright that you have added an article on a scottish town - and it's really great that maybe more people from that area could learn more information - but if you Really want to keep it up - then please add some more information on the place - what does the after schoolclubs do - what other sghts can you see in Collydean - etc. Then maybe you can save the article.
The result of the debate was merged with LazyTown by Aleph4. H e rmione 1980 19:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Better merge with
LazyTown (which, btw, claims that he is the voice of Stingy, not Ziggy.
Aleph4 14:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus, will redirect. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Unlike such roads as Brick Lane, Oxford Circus or the London Orbital, this road has little to speak for itself beyond its existence. Roads that do not have cultural or historic significance are best dealt with in an article such as Transport infrastructure of $TOWN; people would consult an atlas to find their way through a town, and breaking down the transport infrastructure of a town into single articles on each artery is somewhat counterproductive. Besides, Burdett Road and its northern extension Globe Road are not very major. Pilatus 15:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to keep the article.
Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Shauri 15:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This isn't nonsense; it's scarcely-connected ramblings about esoteric physics, and the title of the page doesn't seem related at all. DS 15:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. DS 15:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax involving testicular injury. DS 16:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione 1980 19:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
created by a known vandal, has no substance. there is no reason this page should exist.-- Alhutch 16:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione 1980 19:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Please keep-this should be in such a resourceful tool-and is a reason the wikipedia is beyond thunderdome! sincerly bots
The result of the debate was Move to Lady Death. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I think this should be deleted. Xpendersx 17:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by someone else. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 06:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be complete gibberish. The sentence structure vaguely resembles an academic article but the content has no meaning and forms no coherent argument or point of debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorzar ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is comletely irrelevant. should be merged, deleted or renamed. Starfox 23:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete Patent Nonsense. In fact, the nonsense/non-sequiturs are the source of any humor. oh, and non-encyclopedic, unverifiable etc. WCFrancis 04:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
delete, this page is not based on any form of fact whatsoever. 195.93.21.99 07:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione 1980 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 17:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsensical, commercial advertising 67.85.52.123 16:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band which according to the article itself cannot meet WP:MUSIC as "They are in there first stage as a band were they still have to complete the lineup" Tonywalton | Talk 17:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently a local politician, but the article does not explain what office he was a candidate for. One Google hit for "Purie Howanitz", zero Yahoo hits. Zero hits on either Yahoo or Google for "Puriegton Howanitz". User:Zoe| (talk) 20:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
edited to reflect that he was the incumbent mayor
it is verifiable through the monroe library and keysnews.com has a section called this day in history which recalled the election on 9-12-2005
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a howto on how to program a graphical calculator. I don't think it's appropriate material for an encyclopedia, in particular it violates
Wikipedia is not an instruction manual
chowells 17:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
:Repairing mis-shapen AfD entry. No Vote
Tonywalton
|
Talk 01:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Delta Air Lines. Rx StrangeLove 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
an article about a singel commercial airplane, whose only claim to fame is that it has a name and was the firwst of its type owned by a particular airline. Doesn't seem notable to me. Delete DES (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable design firm. Their website shows no large clients, a Google search with "BrainMagnet" turns up 41 unique hits, and "Brain Magnet" + design gives ~100. Icelight 17:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete- Appears to be a vanity page by User:LQY for a work self-published only on the Internet MakeRocketGoNow 17:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. No page on allmusic.com KeithD (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
An article about a website. There's no Alexa ranking, and a google search on "Naimoli Networks" gets 1730 hits--of which only three are displayed, the rest being very similar to the three already given. The site doesn't appear notable or encyclopedic. Meelar (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn rapper. No allmusic, no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC TM (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep it says just recetely signed. so wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:82.9.25.251 ( talk • contribs)
He is featured on YAHOO list of rappers! HE IS Recognised BY yahoo AND ALSO HAS an article about him on the rappers wikipedia page of MASE that they are in some fued which is relevent to the fued that he stays there. many have heard him on radio stations and on the internet.
professional website, also i have heard myran on numerous major radio stations and also on the internet.
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn blogger. 131 unique Google hits, see also Impeach Bush Coalition created by the same anon. TM (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. 203.118.124.97 18:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn blogcruft. WCFrancis 04:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep -- JAranda | yeah 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A professor, and no doubt a worthy one. But I see little notability here. Not quite a speedy delete, the presidency of an academic society is a claim of notability, but iMO a mild one. Alos, much of the text is said to be exerpte from the subject's course notes which makes that section a probable copyvio. Delete.
DES
(talk) 17:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Move to Chris Floyd. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a vanity page, or at least one cut and pasted from his press clippings by a fan. tregoweth 18:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Apparently the concerns about the quality of the article (hence the "rewrite" votes) have been addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement, near meaningless gibberish -- Blackcap | talk 22:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Reads like advertising. Al 23:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no input apart from the nomination. I will therefore relist this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawaloca (2nd nomination). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a web directory. Although this weblog claims to be famous, looking at the number of comments on articles on the front page (single digits), I don't think this can be the case. Alexa rank 1.3million+ — brighterorange ( talk) 18:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
band vanity. from the article: "small, undeground" ... "not currently signed" .. case closed! — brighterorange ( talk) 18:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rather ambiguous. I count three "deletes" and 2 "merges", which have been given without any reasoning so its borderline. A concern here has been verifiability and another has been notability. This one is a tough one to close, and I know extremely little about the subject, and my attempt at merging will probably be dreadful. Therefore I will simply make this page into a redirect to Autocephaly and leave the history in tact so that anyone may merge it later if appropriate. If the redirect is inappropriate it can be brought to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, (nearly) only present on Wikipedia and mirrors. Please compare:
This is one several articles in Category:Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy which gives severe doubts about verifiability. See also:
Pjacobi 18:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE 3/1 [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 06:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Neologism, only present on Wikipedia and mirrors and the website(s) of this church. Please compare:
This is one several articles in Category:Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy which gives severe doubts about verifiability. See also:
Pjacobi 18:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, 3/0 [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Ad for nn web site. Delete. Owen× ☎ 19:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE 5/0 [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
NN band. Vanity. TheMadBaron 19:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP, 3/3 [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Non noteable RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 19:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE - game found to already exist, votes went 6/0. [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
a game somebody made up, based on six degrees of separation/kevin bacon. could possibly be moved out of the mainspace, but too idiosyncratic/neologistic to be an article. Nateji77 19:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, 3/0. [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Not notable, doesn't make much sense. Wackymacs 20:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, with a vote count of 9 delete and one BJAODN. [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Do these films even exist (difficult to Google)? Minimal content, unencyclopedaic. Dlyons493 20:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Marginally no consensus at worst, not redirecting or merging as no consensus so keep. HappyCamper 20:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article should be deleted because it is "original research" with no verifiable sources. Is it a crackpot pseudo-scientific article. 63.24.48.221 21:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
True or not these allegations do not belong to WP. We are an encyclopedia. feydey 21:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD. Disputed AfU close by Jtkiefer. Borderline opinion count. Undeleted by Jtkiefer prior to normal AfU close due to apparent consensus for undeletion. I am now relisting it on AfU per usual procedure. I am not voting myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
My personal history was given to explain why I userfied the content (in a later comment). My self-admitted soapbox comment (also separate) was given, as I said, to address the "hate site" issue raised by others, which I found specious and offensive. I do not "soapbox" often, but I will do so when I feel justified grounds for personal offense. Others should be careful what they call a hate site." Xoloz 08:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. HappyCamper 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD-discussion can be found
here. The reason for the previous nomination seems to have been only the frustration experienced by
user:Gadugi concerning his relations to other Wikipedia editors. That the article is about a term in
Cherokee which seems to have no relevance in Engolish seems to have been completely overlooked in the last nomination and, well,
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If this is a central concept of
Cherokee culture, then merge the relevant information. Other than that it's an obvious delete.
Peter
Isotalo 21:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality talk 22:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
already mentioned in other articles, self promotion/ vanity, unnesscary page Ryan Moore 01:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Not enough information to even check notability. Possibly qualifies as Speedy under {{nn-bio}}, but for now Delete. Owen× ☎ 21:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. New band. No recordings released. No assertion of notability. DanMS 22:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep -- JAranda | yeah 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a well-intentioned article, but clearly original research of the worst sort. Superm401 | Talk 22:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this page. Its content is almost entirely false. As the comments below note, it is absolutely ridiculous. I would just like to add that this article was not created by Brandon; it was written by someone else in an effort to make him look like and idiot -- so don't be too down on the kid!
Delete - Blatant vanity page Kulindar 22:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - Worthless dead weight dragging on the already slow servers optyx8 15:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy Deletion - Agree with above. Uninformative and useless postings with no purpose but inflating some kid's ego have no place here. climberjc 16:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Super Speedy Deletion - Dittos from all of the above. I was wondering how long this trite article was going to be allowed to stand! Valu8tion 00:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
"An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." - Wiki policy....any questions?
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, major consensus to delete. IP votes discounted Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
User:JimmyCrackedCorn, a particularly uncivil editor, has created this article as a way to circumvent consensus-building on Ray Nagin, which has been protected over his insistence upon inserting this same inadequately sourced and biased information into the Ray Nagin article. Several editors are currently working toward a consensus on how best to include information on the flooded school buses and criticism of Nagin inside the Ray Nagin article itself. Instead, JimmyCrackedCorn has created this fork without notifying anybody as a way to circumvent Wikipedia's policies in general and the discussion on Talk:Ray Nagin (in particular see Talk:Ray Nagin#Forks). Delete so discussions can focus on the talk page at Ray Nagin. · Katefan0 (scribble) 22:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not at all. I am supporting consensus building at the Ray Nagin article as anyone can see by looking at the Ray Nagin discussion page. Your personal attack against me as "uncivil" has een noted as reported. No one has even tried to explain what is POV about the article on the article's discussion page. The fact that this article is factual and does not repress inconvenient fact is understandably irksome to those with a proNagin POV. However, as anyone can see this article is well balanced with Nagin's responsibilities, the event, Nagin's POV as well as the POV of both defenders and critics of Nagin. To delete this article would be a clear attempt to repress fact for no other reason than fact does not comport with an admitted "libertine's" POV. -- JimmyCrackedCorn 23:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I challenge you, as I challenged Katefan0, to point out the POV content in this article so we can edit it out together. I would appreciate making such an edit as I support Wikipedia's policy against POV edits above all others. -- 12.74.187.165 00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Amazing how every person who says delete appears to have a left wing POV. Most even admit this on their user pages. Examples:
Guettarda Politics Economic Left/Right: -4.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54. [1].
Peter: Bias Leftist social democrat
Katefan0: Libertine
Wikipedia will never see articles with NPOV if they allow such one sided contributors drive their content. I was told this place was a cesspool of leftism but did not believe it. I am becoming more and more convinced with each passing day I should have. -- JimmyCrackedCorn 06:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a recipe book. — brighterorange ( talk) 22:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page on a non notable band. Shauri 23:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was originally created by an anonymous contributor with an IP of 68.4.247.187
[22]. I placed a speedy tag on it because it was about a non-notable middle school student. After the tag was applied, the same IP address edited the page to say that Shelby Yoshida was in fact a mildly-notable 20-year-old artist
[23].
Google turns up around ten hits for "Shelby Yoshida", none of which discuss artistic ability (they all reference swimming and dance competitions). One of the articles about swimming is from 2003 and Shelby Yoshida is given as being in the 9-10 age range. In addition, googling for "National Artists Convention", "Young Artists of California", and "Grislto" turn up no results.
Even if Ms. Yoshida is an artist, I don't think receiving two artistic awards (from two invisible organizations) merits inclusion in Wikipedia.
Quicksandish 23:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Treat as a copyvio (i.e. only delete the versions that contain the violating material. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm just fixing an incorrectly formatted AfD nomination. No vote. -- Metropolitan90 00:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge to Etch-A-Sketch Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Unnotable, discontinued product with little or no historic or encyclopedic value. Received less than 100 google hits (how unnotable is that?).
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted at 00:27, 24 September 2005 by User:Starblind. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like a really thought out case of vanity. Job E 6 00:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable neologism. A few hits on Google [1], but related to some unknown music band, not to the term. No online references to the sense assigned by the article. Shauri 00:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, orphan - Nameneko 00:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Information doesnot relate to the article, Sandbox should be used for testing. .::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality talk 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable, possible promotion WCFrancis 00:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
requested verification 3 days ago, non placed. Cannot find on google (although bank is real) - possible hoax WCFrancis 00:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 19:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Another List that if it stays it probaly going to expand until there is no expanison left. And it is also a weak page.EX: click Orange Avenue and it take u to orange (fruit). and also Miami Avenue is not a major street in Miami Delete -- Aranda56 01:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus to keep or merge -> Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Dictionary entry. Move to Wiktionary and cover the subect in the article insect. DanMS 01:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. On the raw numbers, it's 7d, 3k (surprisingly small WPian turnout here) with the struck-through comments discounted. I have, however, read the debate and clearly the deleters are not persuaded by the keepers, and the restatement of the arguments does not appear to have changed anyone's mind. I'm satisfied that there is a consensus to delete here among those who did not edit blatantly in response to the messages on websites. And to those who mentioned the point: Wikipedia is not a democracy. - Splash talk 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Due to links posted on both of the artist's websites, this Article for Deletion debate has been rendered rather confusing. For concise arguments from both sides of the debate, please see the section below entitled: RESTATING THE ARGUMENTS. (added by -- Tedzsee 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)) reply
Nomination: Totally non notable webcomic, have a look at it's website here and its forums here here. This is a very very minor webcomic, with hardly any readers. A quick glance at the Alexa rank will tell you this. Too many webcomics are being allowed to onto wikipedia without anyone challenging them, due to overly lax guidelines on WP:COMIC, if anyone has time, have a look through List of webcomics, I'm sure many do no warrant an article. - Hahnchen 01:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
P.S. In my opinion, the fact that it caused this much debate alone means the article is worth keeping! It's so much easier just to leave it on! -- Hijamiefans
As the above debate has skewed this Articles for Deletion page, the following arguments should be considered when voting. Please do not add to this section unless entirely relevant (this section created by -- Tedzsee 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a stick figure webcomic, see here. The website itself is none notable, OMGJeremy.com would never qualify for an article and would probably be speedied, yet this webcomic wasn't speedied. With an alexa rank of 750,000+, it really ought to be thrown out, fast, and onto electrified train lines. - Hahnchen 01:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently, this is about an event in the Descent: Freespace game, although the article never bothers to mention this fact. Also reads like a copyvio from the manual; anyone have a copy to check? Either way, Delete. Owen× ☎ 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
-=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 03:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
OK, dude, you crossed the line. there are no copyrights to Freespace: The Great War, Silent Threat, or Freespace 2. the companies no longer hold the right to them. ALSO, i did not have to say that it's for Descent: Freespace, SINCE IT IS LOCATED IN THE DESCENT: FREESPACE SECTION. Furthermore, this did NOT come out of ANY manual WHATSOEVER. -Cobra (71.110.89.194)
OK, i've moved this article to another page. Delete it now. :) -Cobra
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Sigh, yet another webcomic article. What does no alexa data mean? Has the site purposely not allowed alexa to post stats, or is it so infinitely tiny that alexa overlooks it? - Hahnchen 01:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality talk 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef, maybe neologism. - guety is talking english bad 02:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
What's a dicdef?
Ah. thanks. --Eric Boutilier
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
borderline nonsense. Poorly written. Not encyclopedic. Jwissick 02:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
More Descent: Freespace gamecruft (presumably, the article doesn't give a hint). Owen× ☎ 02:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied, again. android 79 05:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
NN individual. Being married to someone who is notable does not make her notable herself.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus, Keep. Rx StrangeLove 18:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It is an opinion, may not be the worst for others. .::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 03:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Jwissick 03:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep and move. Rx StrangeLove 19:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary .::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 03:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus, Keep. Rx StrangeLove 19:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
promotional WCFrancis 03:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was boldly changed by author to redirect. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. The title of this stub is misspelled and the bio of the subject is provided in Lev Vygotsky. This article provides nothing additional. DanMS 03:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. There's a 70% majority for deletion but the keep votes make reasonable arguments. — JIP | Talk 06:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef WCFrancis 04:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione 1980 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
decdif WCFrancis 04:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete
bizarre sexual fantasy/practice; either nn or hoax. Non-encyclopedic. WCFrancis 04:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I'd say this was original research, except it appears to claim more to be original prophecy. Either way, it's a WP:NOR violation. The Literate Engineer 04:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Just an character from a commercial not really a classic and memorable mascot like what it says in the article also badly written ,reads like a commercial because it was a commercial and of course POV also. Delete -- Aranda56 04:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
lots of reasons. Non-encyclopdedic tops the list. WCFrancis 04:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Certainly a nice fellow, but this article is largely autobiographical. I'm surprised it has not been nominated before. As a matter of form, I support the notion that substantially autobiographical articles need community consensus to remain. Xoloz 04:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 19:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn editor of a nn magazine (googling The Liberal gives alot of google results, but most of them are democratic action groups), 360 google for "Ben Ramm" - GregAsche (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 19:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not found on any music site lists. Not notable. Jwissick (t) (c) 05:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Consists entirely of POV parroting of a self-help book. Jasonuhl 05:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 19:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
See also the entries for Destiny Bond and Ember
PokeCruft and if completed its going to be too long There are more than 200 of them attacks out there and the way those 2 nn attacks are written in that article if those 200+ attacks go there its going to be a long long nearly useless article Delete while u still can -- Aranda56 05:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete; hoax, joke, whatever. No Google mentions of such a person or film, and description makes it clear it's a joke, and a sophomoric one at that. MCB 05:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
You're right, there isn't anything about McKenzie on Wikipedia, movies or not... Wow. He's quite big in New Zealand, but not a "media celebrity" ... The profile is certainly 'blown out of proportion', but not a complete hoax.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 06:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Either nonsense or an extremely non-notable video game character, or both Paul 05:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
New user's attempt to share something, possibly original research, still not coherent, recommend to userfy WCFrancis 06:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Dear People at Wikipedia,
“Social Technology” is my first article at Wikipedia. I am new to this world of web publishing. Please pardon me for any errors that I have made and may make due to my ignorance of the norms and rules of the Wikipedia community.
This summer some good ideas occurred to me and I put them down in this article. In the article, I defined the term “Social Technology” and some basic areas to think and work upon.
Then I heard about Wikipedia where any one can contribute and enhance an article. I felt that this was a great place for ideas. I thought that many more ideas would come in and the article would be enhanced.
I posted it from my web log http://neeray.blogspot.com to this site. Unfortunately I forgot to post the copy right notice and a very vigilant member noticed the same article on my web log and marked it for copyright violation. I am very happy that people here are very vigilant. I have now posted the copy right message under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 on the “Social Technology temporary page” and in the article on my web log too.
Then I worked a little on the temporary page and find that now this is marked for deletion for “Rambling”. These are tiny seedlings of ideas. Please do not delete them even before they are seen and flower into something better. Please advise me as to what should I do to improve this article.
I have great faith in the collective wisdom of the people. That is what this article is about. Please do whatever is right according to the rules and norms of the community.
Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor
neeray 03:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Dear people at Wikipedia, reply
“Social Technology” is my first article at Wikipedia. I am new to this world of web publishing. Please pardon me for any errors that I have made and may make due to my ignorance of the norms and rules of the Wikipedia community.
This summer some good ideas occurred to me and I put them down in this article. In the article, I defined the term “Social Technology” and some basic areas to think and work upon.
Then I heard about Wikipedia where any one can contribute and enhance an article. I felt that this was a great place for ideas. I thought that many more ideas would come in and the article would be enhanced.
I posted it from my web log http://neeray.blogspot.com to this site. Unfortunately I forgot to post the copy right notice and a very vigilant member noticed the same article on my web log and marked it for copyright violation. I am very happy that people here are very vigilant. I have now posted the copy right message under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 on the “Social Technology temporary page” and in the article on my web log too.
Then I worked a little on the temporary page and find that now this is marked for deletion for “Rambling”. These are tiny seedlings of ideas. Please do not delete them even before they are seen and flower into something better. Please advise me as to what should I do to improve this article.
I have great faith in the collective wisdom of the people. That is what this article is about. Please do whatever is right according to the rules and norms of the community.
I tried posting this at the Articles for Deletion page but it is not showing there. Please tell me what to do.
Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor
neeray 13:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (Killing it with the main Social Technology article, why have a temp if the page above it was killed (besides copyvios). R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
notes for article in subpage, no useful content yet, userfy WCFrancis 06:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Dear People at Wikipedia,
“Social Technology” is my first article at Wikipedia. I am new to this world of web publishing. Please pardon me for any errors that I have made and may make due to my ignorance of the norms and rules of the Wikipedia community.
This summer some good ideas occurred to me and I put them down in this article. In the article, I defined the term “Social Technology” and some basic areas to think and work upon.
Then I heard about Wikipedia where any one can contribute and enhance an article. I felt that this was a great place for ideas. I thought that many more ideas would come in and the article would be enhanced.
I posted it from my web log http://neeray.blogspot.com to this site. Unfortunately I forgot to post the copy right notice and a very vigilant member noticed the same article on my web log and marked it for copyright violation. I am very happy that people here are very vigilant. I have now posted the copy right message under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 on the “Social Technology temporary page” and in the article on my web log too.
Then I worked a little on the temporary page and find that now this is marked for deletion for “Rambling”. These are tiny seedlings of ideas. Please do not delete them even before they are seen and flower into something better. Please advise me as to what should I do to improve this article.
I have great faith in the collective wisdom of the people. That is what this article is about. Please do whatever is right according to the rules and norms of the community.
Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor
neeray 03:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. This really reads like a copyvio, but I couldn't find it anywhere online. User:Zoe| (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be needed, no indication of the source of the data. No support to keep in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Vegaswikian 06:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be needed. Appears too difficult to keep updated (even to build the inital data). No indication of the source of the data. No support to keep in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Vegaswikian 06:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be needed. Appears too difficult to keep updated (even to build the inital data). No indication of the source of the data. No support to keep in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Vegaswikian 06:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn cocktail. Only 25 Google hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Don't delete: This is the most inspirational piece of writing I have ever read. Keep it or history will show you as morons.
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Listcruft, unencyclopedic, impossible to maintain, not much use WCFrancis 06:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
*Delete topic could be an article but a booklist is unnecessary.
Dlyons493 07:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
"Merge to Age disparity in sexual relationships since that exists Dlyons493 10:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
nn. Spam. not encyclopedic. Jwissick (t) (c) 06:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Almost by definition, a film company started in 2005 September cannot be notable. -- RHaworth 06:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus, will redirect Lance Romance to the one with the accented n.
R
e
dwolf24 (
talk) 20:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
Sorry, my bad, Giantrats voted twice. Delete is the final. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn musician, no entries on artistdirect or allmusic (though lots of Google hits). This really reads like a copyvio, too. And the allegation that he was responsible for "We Are the World" at teh age of six are ludicrous. User:Zoe| (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Two people seem to have submitted entries for the same artist, one of them a gag. The first Lance Romance page is nonsense and should be deleted. The other page, Lance Romañce, is not nonsense at all and is a legitimate, original entry which I wrote myself. Unfortunately, because it has a special character in the URL, I am unable to link directly to the article so that other people may discus it.
The artist in question is popular in underground circles in several scenes and cities, and has made an impact on these scenes. Hence the Google entries, but not the AllMusic. Keeping the second article, which should justify itself, is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantrats ( talk • contribs)
--User:Giantrats 11:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Basing this mostly on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I live in Raleigh, and Capital Blvd is a heavily travelled road, but it's no different than any other heavily-travelled road in any other part of the country. Short of obviously famous roads like Broadway or Hollywood Boulevard, specific roads probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia. -- PacknCanes 07:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
More Transmutalism/ Ceriz gobbledygook. User:Zoe| (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus to where to redirect. I'll be bold and redirect to autistic culture. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neoligism. Even if it isn't neoligism its a dicdef. REDIRECT to autistic culture where its put in proper context. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus (3 to 4) so I shall redirect to autistic culture. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neoligism. Even if it isn't neoligism its a dicdef. REDIRECT to autistic culture where it can be put in proper context. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neoligism. All the extra discussion on the page is completely unneccesary as pro vs anti cure stuff is discussed much better and in a more NPOV tone on other autism-related pages. Delete or Redirect to autistic culture Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is devoted to a minor character in one of William Shakespeare's plays -- so minor that he doesn't even have a name. Brandon39 08:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
How many sins can one small article commit? Non-notability. Political POV. Vanity. Failure to even explain which Oakwood School we're talking about (it turns out to be the one in North Hollywood, California). Non-notable music teacher. A Google for "Oakwood School" "Ivan Johnson" returns four hits. User:Zoe| (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic... especialy since it is only used by the developer. Jwissick (t) (c) 08:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to No Shame Theatre. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encylopedic. Provides no information. Wiki is not a link collection. Jwissick (t) (c) 08:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be made up. I searched for "northern dragon king" and "Pyro Yasha", but was unable to verify any of it. There is a message board posting that suggests a Northern sea dragon king may exist. -- Kjkolb 09:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic. Unknown band. Jwissick (t) (c) 09:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Irrelevant context, not worthy of an article, also doesn't make much sense. Wackymacs 09:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous VfD. Does not appear to be notable. Having an "anti-cure perspective" does not make one notable. Writing an essay that is " widely distributed over the Internet" might make one notable - the problem is that the only references to it I found are on activist websites... which makes sense, since, well... he's an activist :). Around 650 google hits. [10] At worst maybe this article is finally cleaned up a bit. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete and redirect. HappyCamper 20:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not an encyclopedic article, but an advertisement. Jeff Q (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete, its two weeks on WP:PNT are up. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 11:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Polish. Listed on WP:PNT since 28 August. The text has been copied to pl:Dyskusja:Chudów. Physchim62 11:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
The result of the debate was No consensus. I'm replacing it with PANONIAN's proposed stub.-- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 11:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hungarian (but with Serbian title), about a town in Vojvodina. Has been on WP:PNT since 28 August. Transwikied to hu:Dunabökény. Physchim62 11:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. since youve moved it across no reason for it to be here in the english version Astrokey44 11:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete. If article is not translated into English, then it should be replaced with following stub:
The result of the debate was No consensus. I'm replacing it with PANONIAN's proposed stub. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 11:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hungarian (but with a Serbian title), about a town in Vojvodina. Has been on WP:PNT since 28 August. Transwikied to hu:Boróc. Physchim62 11:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Do not delete. If article is not translated into English, then it should be replaced with following stub:
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Chinese. Has been on WP:PNT since 1 September. Physchim62 11:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Republic of China Red Cross's predecessor is called "the Shanghai International Red Cross committee", in clear Guangxu 30 (in 1904) on May 29, was creates the northeast area harm in accordance to the Russo-Japanese War to be serious, by Shanghai's bureaucratic business-people gentry hoped saved the populace to establish to the water and fire. Clear Guangxu 33 (in 1907) the Shanghai International Red Cross committee changed name the Qing Dynasty Red Cross; After the clear Xuantong Period three years (in 1911) 1911 Revolution successfully changes name the Red Cross Society of China.
Republic of China first year (in 1912) the Red Cross Society of China attained the Red Cross international board to acknowledge that, turned round (in 1919) joins the Red Cross and the Red Crescent league of nations in the Republic of China eight years. 1,933 (in 1933) the government for the coordinate military need, promulgated Republic of China Red Cross act of administration rules of procedure, changed name Republic of China Red Cross. (In 1949 moved to 1,949) along with Republic of China government, up to now had surpasses hundred year glorious history. Hereafter has been through repeatedly overthrows the Qing Dynasty government, division of the country among warlords, makes an expedition to the east the Northern Expedition, the Sino-Japanese War and Kuomintang and Communist Parties joins battle and so on the eventful time, the beacon-fire successive years, in addition the nature and man-made disaster is unceasing, urgently awaits the reliever, nearly does not have when there is no place not in, therefore Republic of China Red Cross since had been established, one after another war and huge rescue relief demand, under limited resources limit, an its degree of difficulty obviously spot.
In 1949 was detained the mainland Red Cross colleague, along with People's Republic of China establishing a government, reorganized to People's Republic of China capital Beijing to be established, still famous "Red Cross Society of China"; The People's Republic of China government and concluded in 1949 in 1956 the Geneva Convention (the general term Red Cross joint pledge, this first international joint pledge which concluded after People's Republic of China founding of the nation), caused to be located Beijing the Red Cross Society of China to conform to the national Red Cross condition which international Red Cross recognized (international Red Cross to acknowledge the national Red Cross, its government had for the Geneva Convention signatory state), to become represents the entire Chinese the Red Cross to organize. Broadcasts along with the government moves to Taiwan's Republic of China Red Cross, from now on will lose international Red Cross the membership, also will be unable to exercise right of and the duty the member Red Cross; Only still maintained certain intercourses with the international Red Cross movement member.
Republic of China Red Cross had for been established until now hundred years to have -odd, from end of the Qing the beginning of people war rescue and relief service; 60's impetuses disease prevention and health care; The 70's cooperate take the humanity concern as both banks exchange interaction to lay the foundation; The 80's impel each training work; The 90's promote the service work which each respect life, the society shows loving care for and so on, silently pay by way of many wills labor, by the universal love, the humanity and the service spirit, energetically put into practice the good conduct which the rescue reliefs.
In the 21st century, Republic of China Red Cross has stepped into for hundred years, the new century, the new start, the history is we best testimony, is altogether innovates You's turning point.
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary. -- Mysidia ( talk) 12:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Spanish. Has been on WP:PNT since 3 September. Transwikied to es:Maferefun Shango. Physchim62 12:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
The result of the debate was Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 11:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Croatian biography. Has been on WP:PNT since 4 September. Text has been transwikied to hr:Ban Milosavljević. Physchim62 12:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a pub in Langley Mill (a town in England). It serves ales. There is no evidence of notability. Delete. Sliggy 12:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be nothing more than elaborate link spam. Only edits so far have been by two anon users who were also involved in DoYouDo (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoYouDo). RoySmith 12:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising page for non-notable software package. — Cleared as filed. 12:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Norwegian, about a primary school. Has been on WP:PNT since 9 September. Physchim62 12:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm relisting this in the hope that more opinions will be expressed. Thryduulf 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page for non-notable computer user's group. — Cleared as filed. 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 21:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Another page from WP:PNT, more recnt this one. Opinion is that it is not worth tranlating. Physchim62 13:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The actual site is notable and the entry is a combination of vanity and but mainly an advert for ICQ. CambridgeBayWeather 13:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be pretty much unencylopedic. I should think it comes under WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Travel Guide. Kel- nage 14:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Ad. -- fvw * 14:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Very clearly original research, personal essay &c. No more needs to be said. [[Sam Korn]] 14:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm the auther, and new to wikipedia; it would be helpful if someone could expain to me why the entry is up for deletion- as a newbie I don't understand what the problem is?
OK, I've done some looking in the FAQs and now understand that Wiki doesn't host original stuff- UToR is original so I guess you should delete it. Anyone know of a similar kind of thing to wikipedia that does host such stuff? Apologies for posting something innapropriate. As a bit of constructive feedback, it may be worth your while making it clearer that you don't want original work; I did check several of the intro FAQs prior to posting, and didn't pick up on that.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Article about a community in a Scottish town, Glenrothes. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is on communites like this, but it looks non notable to me. JoanneB 14:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Hey I think its alright that you have added an article on a scottish town - and it's really great that maybe more people from that area could learn more information - but if you Really want to keep it up - then please add some more information on the place - what does the after schoolclubs do - what other sghts can you see in Collydean - etc. Then maybe you can save the article.
The result of the debate was merged with LazyTown by Aleph4. H e rmione 1980 19:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Better merge with
LazyTown (which, btw, claims that he is the voice of Stingy, not Ziggy.
Aleph4 14:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was No Consensus, will redirect. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Unlike such roads as Brick Lane, Oxford Circus or the London Orbital, this road has little to speak for itself beyond its existence. Roads that do not have cultural or historic significance are best dealt with in an article such as Transport infrastructure of $TOWN; people would consult an atlas to find their way through a town, and breaking down the transport infrastructure of a town into single articles on each artery is somewhat counterproductive. Besides, Burdett Road and its northern extension Globe Road are not very major. Pilatus 15:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to keep the article.
Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Shauri 15:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This isn't nonsense; it's scarcely-connected ramblings about esoteric physics, and the title of the page doesn't seem related at all. DS 15:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. DS 15:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax involving testicular injury. DS 16:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione 1980 19:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
created by a known vandal, has no substance. there is no reason this page should exist.-- Alhutch 16:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione 1980 19:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Please keep-this should be in such a resourceful tool-and is a reason the wikipedia is beyond thunderdome! sincerly bots
The result of the debate was Move to Lady Death. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I think this should be deleted. Xpendersx 17:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by someone else. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 06:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be complete gibberish. The sentence structure vaguely resembles an academic article but the content has no meaning and forms no coherent argument or point of debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorzar ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is comletely irrelevant. should be merged, deleted or renamed. Starfox 23:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete Patent Nonsense. In fact, the nonsense/non-sequiturs are the source of any humor. oh, and non-encyclopedic, unverifiable etc. WCFrancis 04:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
delete, this page is not based on any form of fact whatsoever. 195.93.21.99 07:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione 1980 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. — Cryptic (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 17:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsensical, commercial advertising 67.85.52.123 16:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band which according to the article itself cannot meet WP:MUSIC as "They are in there first stage as a band were they still have to complete the lineup" Tonywalton | Talk 17:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently a local politician, but the article does not explain what office he was a candidate for. One Google hit for "Purie Howanitz", zero Yahoo hits. Zero hits on either Yahoo or Google for "Puriegton Howanitz". User:Zoe| (talk) 20:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
edited to reflect that he was the incumbent mayor
it is verifiable through the monroe library and keysnews.com has a section called this day in history which recalled the election on 9-12-2005
The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a howto on how to program a graphical calculator. I don't think it's appropriate material for an encyclopedia, in particular it violates
Wikipedia is not an instruction manual
chowells 17:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
:Repairing mis-shapen AfD entry. No Vote
Tonywalton
|
Talk 01:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to Delta Air Lines. Rx StrangeLove 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
an article about a singel commercial airplane, whose only claim to fame is that it has a name and was the firwst of its type owned by a particular airline. Doesn't seem notable to me. Delete DES (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Non-notable design firm. Their website shows no large clients, a Google search with "BrainMagnet" turns up 41 unique hits, and "Brain Magnet" + design gives ~100. Icelight 17:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete- Appears to be a vanity page by User:LQY for a work self-published only on the Internet MakeRocketGoNow 17:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. No page on allmusic.com KeithD (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
An article about a website. There's no Alexa ranking, and a google search on "Naimoli Networks" gets 1730 hits--of which only three are displayed, the rest being very similar to the three already given. The site doesn't appear notable or encyclopedic. Meelar (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn rapper. No allmusic, no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC TM (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep it says just recetely signed. so wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:82.9.25.251 ( talk • contribs)
He is featured on YAHOO list of rappers! HE IS Recognised BY yahoo AND ALSO HAS an article about him on the rappers wikipedia page of MASE that they are in some fued which is relevent to the fued that he stays there. many have heard him on radio stations and on the internet.
professional website, also i have heard myran on numerous major radio stations and also on the internet.
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn blogger. 131 unique Google hits, see also Impeach Bush Coalition created by the same anon. TM (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. 203.118.124.97 18:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn blogcruft. WCFrancis 04:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep -- JAranda | yeah 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
A professor, and no doubt a worthy one. But I see little notability here. Not quite a speedy delete, the presidency of an academic society is a claim of notability, but iMO a mild one. Alos, much of the text is said to be exerpte from the subject's course notes which makes that section a probable copyvio. Delete.
DES
(talk) 17:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Move to Chris Floyd. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 04:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a vanity page, or at least one cut and pasted from his press clippings by a fan. tregoweth 18:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Apparently the concerns about the quality of the article (hence the "rewrite" votes) have been addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement, near meaningless gibberish -- Blackcap | talk 22:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Reads like advertising. Al 23:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no input apart from the nomination. I will therefore relist this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawaloca (2nd nomination). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a web directory. Although this weblog claims to be famous, looking at the number of comments on articles on the front page (single digits), I don't think this can be the case. Alexa rank 1.3million+ — brighterorange ( talk) 18:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
band vanity. from the article: "small, undeground" ... "not currently signed" .. case closed! — brighterorange ( talk) 18:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rather ambiguous. I count three "deletes" and 2 "merges", which have been given without any reasoning so its borderline. A concern here has been verifiability and another has been notability. This one is a tough one to close, and I know extremely little about the subject, and my attempt at merging will probably be dreadful. Therefore I will simply make this page into a redirect to Autocephaly and leave the history in tact so that anyone may merge it later if appropriate. If the redirect is inappropriate it can be brought to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, (nearly) only present on Wikipedia and mirrors. Please compare:
This is one several articles in Category:Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy which gives severe doubts about verifiability. See also:
Pjacobi 18:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE 3/1 [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 06:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Neologism, only present on Wikipedia and mirrors and the website(s) of this church. Please compare:
This is one several articles in Category:Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy which gives severe doubts about verifiability. See also:
Pjacobi 18:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, 3/0 [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Ad for nn web site. Delete. Owen× ☎ 19:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE 5/0 [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
NN band. Vanity. TheMadBaron 19:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP, 3/3 [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Non noteable RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 19:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE - game found to already exist, votes went 6/0. [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
a game somebody made up, based on six degrees of separation/kevin bacon. could possibly be moved out of the mainspace, but too idiosyncratic/neologistic to be an article. Nateji77 19:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, 3/0. [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Not notable, doesn't make much sense. Wackymacs 20:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE, with a vote count of 9 delete and one BJAODN. [[User:Premeditated Chaos| User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Do these films even exist (difficult to Google)? Minimal content, unencyclopedaic. Dlyons493 20:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Marginally no consensus at worst, not redirecting or merging as no consensus so keep. HappyCamper 20:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article should be deleted because it is "original research" with no verifiable sources. Is it a crackpot pseudo-scientific article. 63.24.48.221 21:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
True or not these allegations do not belong to WP. We are an encyclopedia. feydey 21:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD. Disputed AfU close by Jtkiefer. Borderline opinion count. Undeleted by Jtkiefer prior to normal AfU close due to apparent consensus for undeletion. I am now relisting it on AfU per usual procedure. I am not voting myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
My personal history was given to explain why I userfied the content (in a later comment). My self-admitted soapbox comment (also separate) was given, as I said, to address the "hate site" issue raised by others, which I found specious and offensive. I do not "soapbox" often, but I will do so when I feel justified grounds for personal offense. Others should be careful what they call a hate site." Xoloz 08:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep. HappyCamper 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD-discussion can be found
here. The reason for the previous nomination seems to have been only the frustration experienced by
user:Gadugi concerning his relations to other Wikipedia editors. That the article is about a term in
Cherokee which seems to have no relevance in Engolish seems to have been completely overlooked in the last nomination and, well,
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If this is a central concept of
Cherokee culture, then merge the relevant information. Other than that it's an obvious delete.
Peter
Isotalo 21:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality talk 22:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
already mentioned in other articles, self promotion/ vanity, unnesscary page Ryan Moore 01:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Not enough information to even check notability. Possibly qualifies as Speedy under {{nn-bio}}, but for now Delete. Owen× ☎ 21:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. New band. No recordings released. No assertion of notability. DanMS 22:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep -- JAranda | yeah 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a well-intentioned article, but clearly original research of the worst sort. Superm401 | Talk 22:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this page. Its content is almost entirely false. As the comments below note, it is absolutely ridiculous. I would just like to add that this article was not created by Brandon; it was written by someone else in an effort to make him look like and idiot -- so don't be too down on the kid!
Delete - Blatant vanity page Kulindar 22:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete - Worthless dead weight dragging on the already slow servers optyx8 15:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy Deletion - Agree with above. Uninformative and useless postings with no purpose but inflating some kid's ego have no place here. climberjc 16:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Super Speedy Deletion - Dittos from all of the above. I was wondering how long this trite article was going to be allowed to stand! Valu8tion 00:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
"An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." - Wiki policy....any questions?
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, major consensus to delete. IP votes discounted Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
User:JimmyCrackedCorn, a particularly uncivil editor, has created this article as a way to circumvent consensus-building on Ray Nagin, which has been protected over his insistence upon inserting this same inadequately sourced and biased information into the Ray Nagin article. Several editors are currently working toward a consensus on how best to include information on the flooded school buses and criticism of Nagin inside the Ray Nagin article itself. Instead, JimmyCrackedCorn has created this fork without notifying anybody as a way to circumvent Wikipedia's policies in general and the discussion on Talk:Ray Nagin (in particular see Talk:Ray Nagin#Forks). Delete so discussions can focus on the talk page at Ray Nagin. · Katefan0 (scribble) 22:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not at all. I am supporting consensus building at the Ray Nagin article as anyone can see by looking at the Ray Nagin discussion page. Your personal attack against me as "uncivil" has een noted as reported. No one has even tried to explain what is POV about the article on the article's discussion page. The fact that this article is factual and does not repress inconvenient fact is understandably irksome to those with a proNagin POV. However, as anyone can see this article is well balanced with Nagin's responsibilities, the event, Nagin's POV as well as the POV of both defenders and critics of Nagin. To delete this article would be a clear attempt to repress fact for no other reason than fact does not comport with an admitted "libertine's" POV. -- JimmyCrackedCorn 23:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I challenge you, as I challenged Katefan0, to point out the POV content in this article so we can edit it out together. I would appreciate making such an edit as I support Wikipedia's policy against POV edits above all others. -- 12.74.187.165 00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Amazing how every person who says delete appears to have a left wing POV. Most even admit this on their user pages. Examples:
Guettarda Politics Economic Left/Right: -4.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54. [1].
Peter: Bias Leftist social democrat
Katefan0: Libertine
Wikipedia will never see articles with NPOV if they allow such one sided contributors drive their content. I was told this place was a cesspool of leftism but did not believe it. I am becoming more and more convinced with each passing day I should have. -- JimmyCrackedCorn 06:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a recipe book. — brighterorange ( talk) 22:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page on a non notable band. Shauri 23:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was originally created by an anonymous contributor with an IP of 68.4.247.187
[22]. I placed a speedy tag on it because it was about a non-notable middle school student. After the tag was applied, the same IP address edited the page to say that Shelby Yoshida was in fact a mildly-notable 20-year-old artist
[23].
Google turns up around ten hits for "Shelby Yoshida", none of which discuss artistic ability (they all reference swimming and dance competitions). One of the articles about swimming is from 2003 and Shelby Yoshida is given as being in the 9-10 age range. In addition, googling for "National Artists Convention", "Young Artists of California", and "Grislto" turn up no results.
Even if Ms. Yoshida is an artist, I don't think receiving two artistic awards (from two invisible organizations) merits inclusion in Wikipedia.
Quicksandish 23:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply