The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Previously tagged for speedy deletion by Spellcast as blatant advertising (G11) and speedy-deleted by myself. I restored the article after a user contested it, and now I'm listing it here to see if we can come to some consensus on this article. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 16:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 06:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The subject does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. They have not finished their debut ep Nv8200p talk 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 06:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This isn't in common use, no citations asserting importance. superβεεcat 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Donald Trump has withdrawn his name, and it does not appear likely that the tower will be built.( "Trump pulls out of plans for high-rise in Tampa". Orlando Sentinel. May 31, 2007) If something is built on the site, it will be under a different name, and an article can be started for that building, if it is sufficiently notable and sourced. Donald Albury 23:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Peacent 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fetish magazine. No reliable sources to verify any notability. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, didn't catch previous afd at alternative name. -- Eyrian 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, nonnotable sexual clique that's been deleted several times before. -- Eyrian 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
List is too broad to be helpful. This list can never be satisfied. This article contains no references, no reliable sources, and therefore cannot be verified. This is entirely original research. the_undertow talk 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was prodded on the grounds that it fails WP:PROF. I, too, believe it fails PROF, but think that its a close enough call that we should discuss it here. semper fictilis 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The Vandahaal is an Age of Mythology fansite that isn't by any means notable, but is notorious for spamming links to their pages on AoM:TT and Age of Mythology. This movie is also completely non notable, and thus does not deserve an article. Giggy U C P 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted by user:Shell Kinney (G11). Non-admin close. Flyguy649 talk contribs 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non notable invention. Looks like it got a little attention in a local newspaper and radio show, but otherwise nothing. Sort as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability notability tag has been up since Oct. 06 Daniel J. Leivick 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep (maybe): I think that this page could be kept, if we found more information than is currently in the article. -- Onceonthisisland 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bit actor. Only source in article was IMDb page, and a search of Google and Yahoo turned up no reliable sources. Blueboy 96 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A stub about the CEO of a hospital in Singapore. Does not assert notability beyond things one would expect of someone in his position. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Crimewatch. Jaranda wat's sup 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Simply not noteable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Dalejenkins 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A local first-aid group; the article fails to establish notability and reads, in parts, like an advertisement. Kwekubo 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 06:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A local first-aid group for children; the article fails to establish notability. Kwekubo 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Test Card F. But what of Test Card J? 8-O Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The sources are not about the clown, but the card. The clown is not notable in itself, possibly?- Bubulina8888 20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NN. Non-notable NASCAR driver. Kevinwong913 Speak out loud! 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe this is or may be a neologism. Fastfinge 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was created by one of Amorrow's socks, I looked for independent sources but found it hard to find any at all. The few Google hits for isobel and "knowledge management" include a goodly number of unrelated items and I did not see any decent independent sources in there. Guy ( Help!) 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTE. The subject is not notable outside The Apprentice (UK),a reality television show. She has been featured in the press, but so do all reality tv stars. Apart from the content on the show, the article just contains tabloid rubbish. Anything noteworthy should be merged with The Apprentice. Legalbeaver 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, CSD A7. -- Deskana (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about a fanfic which does not meet notability guidelines or WP:FICT. -- Farix ( Talk) 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Not a notable place. Biased. Malan89 16:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. Nandesuka 11:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
At the very least this page should be redirected to the Union page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
*Keep notablity established and referenced. More than just a branch official. On further examination of sources it appears that some of them reference only the union and others only the march -- moreover, none establish that he is the organiser of the march (which attracted just 300 participants) - delete.
Bigdaddy1981 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book written by an apparent non-notable author. Article was prodded; prodding was immediately removed by creator. A few days later, no new changes. - WarthogDemon 16:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus as the AfD has been superseded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BulletBall 2. -- DarkFalls talk 00:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC) reply
It even has its own website! http://www.bulletballgames.com/
Why do you feel the need to delete articles? It's not hurting anybody, it's not clogging up the main page or search. -- N3k74r42
The result was No Consensus. CitiCat ♫ 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NOT#PLOT, an article full of trivial and unsourced infomation. Dalejenkins 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - this is a directory of loosely associated topics. The things on this list have nothing in common with one another past using the same piece of music. The bare list of uses tells us nothing about the music, the composer, the instances from which the list items are drawn, how those things relate to each other or the real world. Because the information is of no more value in the main article for the piece, strongly oppose the inevitable suggestion that any of this be merged anywhere. Note that this AFD has nothing to do with whether or not the 1812 Overture is itself notable; it clearly is. The AFD addresses whether the list of every use of the Overture in a movie or TV show is suitable for Wikipedia. Otto4711 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Hopeless list of "longest names of monarch" without any references. In miserable state since created in 2006. I don't think it is useful or encyclopedic. Renata 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Sam Blacketer 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Only refers to three things, not very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubulina8888 ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Consensus and improvement Peacent 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - article survived previous AFD only because the Keepers insisted that the article would be cleaned up and made something other than a plot summary. In the intervening month there has been nothing done and the article remains a plot summary in violation of WP:PLOT. Otto4711 15:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
(Upgrading contested speedy delete). Fails to assert notability. The B'Nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham is notable; but the identity of the caretaker of a small-town place of worship doesn't seem separately notable. Gordonofcartoon 14:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
There's more info, but I feel the above more than backs up the validity and notablility of the article. Thanks. Bhaktivinode
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A doujinshi - thus not published by an actual Japanese publisher, WP:NOTE. Snarfies 14:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep all. Sandstein 06:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - article was kept at the first AFD based on the argument that no one had been given the opportunity to perform cleanup and tagged that cleanup was required. In the intervening month there has been no work done on the article. It and its two sister articles remain excessive plot summaries in clear violation of WP:PLOT. Otto4711 14:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, again may and could doesn't cut it, same with ome mention in a newspapers, there is no harm in recreating the article with mutiple reliable sources. Jaranda wat's sup 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Subject of the article fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in independent, reliable publications. No major awards. Nothing noted that is new or significant about his works and they are not part of any permanent collections. Nv8200p talk 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Only editor removed seconded {{
prod}}
without addressing concern: entirely
unsourced
neologism that's barely disguised
promotion. —
Coren
(talk) 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was The result of the debate was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. -- SunStar Net talk 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesnt really serve any useful purpose.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubulina8888 ( talk • contribs).
The result was delete. this article is crap isn't a valid reason for delete btw Jaranda wat's sup 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Orphaned stub which is not notable and fails the Google test. Not to be confused with Boolean Programming Method (uppercase), which I am also nominating.
I'm not sure exactly what this article is talking about: using a lot of if statements? A lot of nested ifs? If anyone knows what the article means, perhaps this can be merged to an appropriate article. Tualha ( Talk) 14:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 06:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, very small stub which is not notable and fails the Google test. Not to be confused with Boolean programming method (lowercase), which I am also nominating. Tualha ( Talk) 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
no evidence of notability Deb 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This page was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds of non-notability. Feeling that this was a little harsh, I replaced it with the notability tag, which the author of the article removed without making any significant changes to content. I have requested expansion and references, but there has been no response. It seems like a case of self-promotion. Deb 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary list. NawlinWiki 12:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Reliable sources found and no consensus to delete JodyB yak, yak, yak 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
There are no independent sources that make this organization pass WP:ORG. Expert review request did not turn up any sources or possible merge targets. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merged and redirected after adding a sentence to the subject's father's article. Sr 13 06:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article does not assert why exactly the individual is notable. Also, sources cannot be verified. A google search 1 did not yield any encyclopedia information about him. xC | ☎ 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Jaranda wat's sup 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This along with four other pages are just lists, not needed. Darrenhusted 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all just lists like the page above:
*Delete I can't even tell what any of them even contribute to anything. It looks more like something fitting for a plaque on a wall than in an encyclopedia.
NobutoraTakeda 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user is banned for disruption and sockpuppetry, and his vote has been stricken.
[41]
reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Disians are humanoid characters in the Draim universe. A Google search for Disian Draim comes up with no sources at all outside Wikipedia and its mirrors so severe problems with verifiability Capitalistroadster 09:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Sr 13 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
There is no out-of-universe context for these fictional items; simply not an important subject for an article. We certainly shouldn't be listing in-game statistics ( WP:NOT a game guide.) Marašmusïne Talk 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparent vanispamcruftisement. In any case, club appears to be on the lowest tier of the Aussie rules football ladder--fails WP:N per precedent. Blueboy 96 10:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn and all delete !votes reversed. Nice job on the rewrite. ɑʀк ʏɑɴ 14:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
* Delete The "article" on
Slut Night is really nothing more than an advertisement.
Tovojolo 09:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
*Delete Not enough independent sources, via a check on Yahoo or Google.
Blueboy
96 10:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
*Delete The article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". Not notable and unencyclopedic (a "social gathering"). --
Malcolmxl5 10:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
*Delete unless this can be Keep as rewrite has shown this to be a general term for butch-femme nights rather than a term used by a single organisation.
Bigdaddy1981 03:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
::I didn't think it was. I've certainly never heard it used by any lesbian friends of mine.
Bigdaddy1981 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable nightclub. Can't find reliable sources written about this place, so it fails to meet the notability guideline for businesses. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 09:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This (so far) short list article is problematic because neither "controversial" nor "inventors" are defined. Since I would argue that they can never be satisfactorily defined, I am suggesting deletion for this list. CIreland 08:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 12:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
See [44], I moved the page from Bugsy siegel(rapper) while another user was nominating it for deletion.
Original nominator states: Article gives no mention of why he is notable, but he may well be. Benefit of doubt = AfD instead of CSD, so here it is! pablo :: ... hablo ... 08:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is not a biography but concerns only a single event in this person's otherwise non-notable life that received a small amount of press coverage. CIreland 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, nomination and other delete opinions withdrawn due to article revision GRBerry 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Perhaps if WP:INTERESTING were a notability criteria, but no. The article itself claims no notability (and started off as an advert), furthermore I can't seem to find any reference to it anywhere except for unreliable websites, and no media coverage whatsoever. I also couldn't find any notability criteria that applies specifically to medication or OTC meds, so apologies in advance if somehow this does deserve to stay and I just haven't seen the related policy.. Spazure 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was boldly redirected to List of passengers on the Mayflower. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual, article is fairly unencyclopedic. I can't imagine that anybody would have heard of him or be interested in hearing of him. Rambutan ( talk) 07:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and close early. As with Almodad (cited by John Vandenberg below), merging the single citation of Lebonah into a topical list might be useful. However, consensus seems to be that, because of the intense scholarship that has been done on the Hebrew Bible, all names and places mentioned in the Bible are inherently notable and easily referenced. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a word-for-word copy from a dictionary, but its content is completely unsourced. It's orphaned, uncategorised, and doesn't need to be here. I'd also say that it's non-notable. Rambutan ( talk) 07:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep by means of consensus, and no real justification for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, unencyclopedic, not particularly well-written. Was prodded; prod removed by an IP who removed all prods I made yesterday. Rambutan ( talk) 07:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sr 13 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Contains no genuine content whatsoever, just a table of info copied from the reference. The cleanup/orphaned/uncategorised/expert tags take up more space than the material altogether! From the fact that it doesn't have a single sentence in it, I would suggest that it's not notable. Rambutan ( talk) 07:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT - we're not a dictionary, and the article doesn't really add anything to Wikipedia (I mean, "Talk like a Pirate Day" as a source?!). Rambutan ( talk) 07:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Completely unclear subject matter, says practically nothing. Was prodded yesterday; prod was removed without a clear explanation. Rambutan ( talk) 07:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete the only info known about this group is a hostage rescue, other than that the article isn't unverifiable, and policy is key here. Jaranda wat's sup 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This organization doesn't seem to be very notable [46], and may not fit notability standards. -- HAL2008 TK C T 06:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Sr 13 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This does not appear to be a notable topic. A google search [47] returned only 317 entries. most were to the phrase in a non-philosophical context. The few real entries derived from the Wikipedia article. A quick look through the Pan and Penguin dictionaries of Philosophy found no corresponding entry. No entry in the Shorter Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Banno 05:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Askari Mark sent this article to WP:COIN, noting that the original author's name is identical to the article title - suggesting a conflict of interest. The content of the article is uninspiring at best, and of the 1400 Google hits, the first 10 do not provide adequate evidence of notability. Shalom Hello 05:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep without prejudice to renomination, nominator sockuppet of indefblocked user SirFozzie 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I was going through wiki as I normally do and I saw that there were a lot of pages connected together that had no sources besides a primary source and contained information that was all in-universe and seemed not to exist beyond in-universe. I had to create a name to go through the deletion process, so I don't really know if I am doing it right and its really confusing. NobutoraTakeda 04:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be subsets of the first page, lack third party sources, written from an in-universe and biased source, and are not encyclopedic: h: Night_Lords ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) reply
-- Falcorian (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Just a quick note to say that it is possile that User:NobutoraTakeda is a sockpuppet for indefinetly blocked User:SanchiTachi ( Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 07:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep everything. To be blunt i've read all of the above and am wondering why on earth someone who clearly knows little about the warhammer world is so vehemently interested in denying such a valauable resource to those who do want to use it. I'm pretty annoyed as someone has already deleted some infomration on a site i used to look at and now they are trying again. The rationale given above should be more than suficient for you to remove the deletion request and move on - if nothing else the majority (i.e. the keepers) should outweight the minority (i.e. deleters) in this case. Hence a democratic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.51.84 ( talk • contribs)
*Speedy keep ahahaha, if the guy was really me, I would have never put up a deletion for the pages. Each are obviously important on their own as they are variants with even their own miniatures produced. Thousand Sons, Plague Marines, Noise Marines, and Khorne Beserkers show that at least four of the variants are notable as part of the production line. The Black Legion was notable for having Abaddon the Despoiler who lead the Eye of Terror campaign. Others have been the complete focus of a book. Clearly, they are all individually notable. This is precious and hillarious though. Speedy keep, because everyone says its me and I say speedy keep. Case closed!
SanchiTachiAdmitted sock
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) Oyster guitarist 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Given all the List of song about nominations, it's reasonable to nominate this as it certainly fits the bill. Despite all the "ILIKEIT" and "ITSFUNNY" reasonings that pushed this into no consensus twice, I think a solid fourth review is needed. Bulldog123 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
...come to think, what the hell is it about?
Kripto 10:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
relist from 4th July
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
As indicated by this entry: "In the movie Deep Impact, one of the astronauts on the mission to destroy the comet describes a wake-initiated lucid dream," this in popular culture article is WP:TRIVIA and a vio of WP:NOT#IINFO. Next stop Dreaming in popular culture. Bulldog123 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as hoax, joke, or just plain silliness. No such word. ● DanMS • Talk 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax definition. Google only turns it up as a misspelling for "required". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
• ::: *Comment LOL giving my age a way again. Still looking it up the old fashion way. ShoesssS Talk 04:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Redundant. Everything here has its own article and/or a summary in Pokémon. This adds nothing to the original summaries except some bits and pieces of irrelevant stuff that's already covered in the individual articles. Also, the therm "other" is confusing... Here, "other" means "other than the video games" but that's not automatically evident. Not perfect choice for an article title. The Raven's Apprentice ( PokéNav| Trainer Card) 03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable software. Also almost every edit to the article is by the one editor ( User:Pollin Fritic), who only makes edits relating to XYplorer. Please see WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. AlistairMcMillan 02:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. the number of google hits isn't a reason to keep an article and Corpx, out of all people should know that Jaranda wat's sup 21:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm trying to remember why I tagged this as speedy A7...anyway, thanks to Scientizzle for pointing out the mistake. What bothered me was an apparent COI by the author, who's other article (now deleted, I presume) dealt with a similar topic. Whether that's grounds for deletion, I am no longer certain. Shalom Hello 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep, quit wasting our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
We need an actual consensus on this. We can't give these fools so much attention. They are evil people who want only to troll and attack Wikipedia's users. They even reveal personal information about their vandals and report them to the FBI, which never works, since the FBI have better things to do than deal with this. We should help attack this piece of crap asmuch as possible, and hoepfully remove all rferences and links to the site, including this article. I propose we even blacklist the name "conservapedia", in order that this crap not get a high google ranking.
Don't mistake mme for an Encyclopedia Dramatica troll making a WP:POINT nomination; as my talk page comment proves, I believe ED is an annoying site that raids other sites. The reason I am making this nomination is to save WP from the evils of the most piece of trash I have ever seen. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
"Comment we can come to a compromise, the article is kept, but I get to found a club here and advertise it wherever I want. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep by means of consensus and withdrawn nominaton. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article reads like a self-serving promotion for his practice and company. Notability must be established in other areas than the author’s own mind. ShoesssS Talk 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Starting a mailing list or developing some specification no one uses does not make you notable. also, primary contributor is the person who the article is about - User:Petervandijck Misterdiscreet 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - duplicate of Bugsy Siegel (rapper). -- RHaworth 14:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article gives no mention of why he is notable, but he may well be. Benefit of doubt = AfD instead of CSD, so here it is! Giggy U C P 06:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - no notability (self-confessed unsigned rapper) , created by single-purpose user with the same name. pablo :: ... hablo ... 06:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Now, I could be completely wrong here, but there are too many inconsistencies with this article. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of actors could investigate further. My concerns are as follows: Firstly, this article was created by User:Isoparm on 5 July 2006; this user has made no other contributions. Secondly, in the Wikipedia articles on the films she is claimed to have starred in - Derailed and Hulk (film) - make no mention of her. Thirdly, her entry at IMDb was written by.....Jenn Gotzon. I have no experience of IMDb, but it appears to me that it is freely editable, and therefore unreliable. Fourthly, using IMDb to follow up some of the films she appears to have been in shows a marked difference with the Wikipedia entries (e.g. Derailed stated to be directed and written by Albert Pedraza whereas Wikipedia says Mikael Håfström and Stuart Beattie . All of this leads me to think that both IMDb and Wikipedia are being used to promote the 'career' of a minor or non-existant actor. Emeraude 10:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete discounting all the WP:SPA accounts. Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Product/organization lacks notability per WP:CORP. Citations from voip-info.org are self edited wiki entries. Calltech 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Further comment: This project was originally named OpenPBX.org and recently renamed CallWeaver. OpenPBX.org was nominated for deletion and subsequently removed through its own AfD back in December, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX.org. Project was also a significant part of the discussion here as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX by Voicetronix. Calltech 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
comprehensive technology sites, which focus on free software, to have said more about it. Tualha ( Talk) 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This section, between the lines, is all one posting (not by me). Tualha ( Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This section, between the lines, is all one posting (by me). Tualha ( Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Let's examine these sources:
If these are the best you can do for sources, you prove my point. Offhand mentions of the project do not make it notable. Tualha ( Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Neologism, original research, no external sources, and admitted conflict of interest on talk page by editor who coined the term. ZimZalaBim ( talk) 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This could well be original research, or unsubstantiated. Redundant with British regional slurs, although not a speedy deletion candidate. SunStar Net talk 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Consensus was reached to delete List of Google Bombs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Google Bombs), so it stands to reason that this list should also be removed. . ZimZalaBim ( talk) 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual. This is all this article is. A recreation of the rules of the game, the title really says it all.
WP:ILIKEIT are not valid reasons for keeping this article. If this article is ever meant to be no more than a simple copy of the rules please edit it accordingly, otherwise it has no place on wikipedia. Also keep in mind its a debate not a vote.
Crossmr 15:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
Keep This is a topic that is covered extensively in other encyclopedias and this article does not appear to be the spot to invoke a wikipedia policy that has flaws. -- Stormbay 03:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
*Keep As stated above, the only reason this is its own article is because the FA
chess is already far too long. The articles on the various chess variants such as
xiangqi and
shogi all give the same basic information on how to play the game. This article is an important base by which to understand the other 2000+ articles about chess on Wikipedia. In short, if there's an unencyclopedic article on chess in this project, this one certainly isn't it.
UOSSReiska 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
COMMENT Remember that some of us (well, I am) are making the point that the rules of chess are encyclopedic in and of themselves. The spirit of WP:NOT seems to be against rule books being inserted for every game willy nilly, not keeping out articles about games and sports of which general knowledge is assumed to be benificial to a large group of people who do not participate in said sport or game. XinJeisan 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Two questions:
youngvalter 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
comment My reading of WP:ILIKEIT seems to exclude any chess article from this argument, because chess is (as stated time and again) notable. Countless reliable sources could be found writing about chess, and people who have no interest in playing chess know what it is and its best players up until the year 2000 or so were household names in the US, and probably in Russia they still are, though I have no source of that. However, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also not a valid reason for deletion, and even if I agreed with Crossmr that the rules by themselves are not encyclopedic, he himself says that the article has potential to be more than a rule book, so, beyond I don't like rules in wikipedia and policy agrees with me (in spite of a seeming consensus of other editors who disagree) what argument do you have? XinJeisan 04:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:NOT_-_Gameguides. Bubba73 (talk), 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. ➥the Epopt 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, or any other kind of game guide. There is nothing here other than informally written strategy for a game. This is more appropriate to a place like wikibooks. WP:ILIKEIT are not valid reasons for keeping this article. Crossmr 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. ➥the Epopt 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a game guide. At the very most I could see this article being turned in to a "list of chess tactics" which simply references the rest of them since many have their own articles (which I haven't read, but I hope they're more than simple descriptions and actually include history, etc of the particular concept). Crossmr 15:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Not very encyclopaedic (8 entries in google)
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Both this article, and the Skanke article, consists of pure fiction. Such a noble family has never existed. Luvente 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
See also Talk:Skanke Family Association#Hoax
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Was prodded and deleted before with the reason "The edits to the power levels on this article are seemingly random, with absolutely no evidence to back them up. Also, as most levels are not stated, the vast majority of this article is simply speculation." However, it has since been recreated by pretty much the same content. Since I feel the previous reason for prodding it still applies, I'm listing it here. - Bobet 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Previously tagged for speedy deletion by Spellcast as blatant advertising (G11) and speedy-deleted by myself. I restored the article after a user contested it, and now I'm listing it here to see if we can come to some consensus on this article. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 16:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 06:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The subject does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. They have not finished their debut ep Nv8200p talk 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 06:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This isn't in common use, no citations asserting importance. superβεεcat 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Donald Trump has withdrawn his name, and it does not appear likely that the tower will be built.( "Trump pulls out of plans for high-rise in Tampa". Orlando Sentinel. May 31, 2007) If something is built on the site, it will be under a different name, and an article can be started for that building, if it is sufficiently notable and sourced. Donald Albury 23:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Peacent 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fetish magazine. No reliable sources to verify any notability. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, didn't catch previous afd at alternative name. -- Eyrian 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, nonnotable sexual clique that's been deleted several times before. -- Eyrian 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
List is too broad to be helpful. This list can never be satisfied. This article contains no references, no reliable sources, and therefore cannot be verified. This is entirely original research. the_undertow talk 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was prodded on the grounds that it fails WP:PROF. I, too, believe it fails PROF, but think that its a close enough call that we should discuss it here. semper fictilis 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The Vandahaal is an Age of Mythology fansite that isn't by any means notable, but is notorious for spamming links to their pages on AoM:TT and Age of Mythology. This movie is also completely non notable, and thus does not deserve an article. Giggy U C P 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted by user:Shell Kinney (G11). Non-admin close. Flyguy649 talk contribs 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non notable invention. Looks like it got a little attention in a local newspaper and radio show, but otherwise nothing. Sort as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability notability tag has been up since Oct. 06 Daniel J. Leivick 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep (maybe): I think that this page could be kept, if we found more information than is currently in the article. -- Onceonthisisland 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bit actor. Only source in article was IMDb page, and a search of Google and Yahoo turned up no reliable sources. Blueboy 96 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A stub about the CEO of a hospital in Singapore. Does not assert notability beyond things one would expect of someone in his position. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Crimewatch. Jaranda wat's sup 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Simply not noteable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Dalejenkins 21:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A local first-aid group; the article fails to establish notability and reads, in parts, like an advertisement. Kwekubo 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 06:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A local first-aid group for children; the article fails to establish notability. Kwekubo 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Test Card F. But what of Test Card J? 8-O Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The sources are not about the clown, but the card. The clown is not notable in itself, possibly?- Bubulina8888 20:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NN. Non-notable NASCAR driver. Kevinwong913 Speak out loud! 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I believe this is or may be a neologism. Fastfinge 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was created by one of Amorrow's socks, I looked for independent sources but found it hard to find any at all. The few Google hits for isobel and "knowledge management" include a goodly number of unrelated items and I did not see any decent independent sources in there. Guy ( Help!) 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTE. The subject is not notable outside The Apprentice (UK),a reality television show. She has been featured in the press, but so do all reality tv stars. Apart from the content on the show, the article just contains tabloid rubbish. Anything noteworthy should be merged with The Apprentice. Legalbeaver 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, CSD A7. -- Deskana (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about a fanfic which does not meet notability guidelines or WP:FICT. -- Farix ( Talk) 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Not a notable place. Biased. Malan89 16:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. Nandesuka 11:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
At the very least this page should be redirected to the Union page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
*Keep notablity established and referenced. More than just a branch official. On further examination of sources it appears that some of them reference only the union and others only the march -- moreover, none establish that he is the organiser of the march (which attracted just 300 participants) - delete.
Bigdaddy1981 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book written by an apparent non-notable author. Article was prodded; prodding was immediately removed by creator. A few days later, no new changes. - WarthogDemon 16:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus as the AfD has been superseded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BulletBall 2. -- DarkFalls talk 00:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC) reply
It even has its own website! http://www.bulletballgames.com/
Why do you feel the need to delete articles? It's not hurting anybody, it's not clogging up the main page or search. -- N3k74r42
The result was No Consensus. CitiCat ♫ 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NOT#PLOT, an article full of trivial and unsourced infomation. Dalejenkins 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - this is a directory of loosely associated topics. The things on this list have nothing in common with one another past using the same piece of music. The bare list of uses tells us nothing about the music, the composer, the instances from which the list items are drawn, how those things relate to each other or the real world. Because the information is of no more value in the main article for the piece, strongly oppose the inevitable suggestion that any of this be merged anywhere. Note that this AFD has nothing to do with whether or not the 1812 Overture is itself notable; it clearly is. The AFD addresses whether the list of every use of the Overture in a movie or TV show is suitable for Wikipedia. Otto4711 16:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Hopeless list of "longest names of monarch" without any references. In miserable state since created in 2006. I don't think it is useful or encyclopedic. Renata 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Sam Blacketer 16:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Only refers to three things, not very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubulina8888 ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Consensus and improvement Peacent 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - article survived previous AFD only because the Keepers insisted that the article would be cleaned up and made something other than a plot summary. In the intervening month there has been nothing done and the article remains a plot summary in violation of WP:PLOT. Otto4711 15:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
(Upgrading contested speedy delete). Fails to assert notability. The B'Nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham is notable; but the identity of the caretaker of a small-town place of worship doesn't seem separately notable. Gordonofcartoon 14:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
There's more info, but I feel the above more than backs up the validity and notablility of the article. Thanks. Bhaktivinode
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A doujinshi - thus not published by an actual Japanese publisher, WP:NOTE. Snarfies 14:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep all. Sandstein 06:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - article was kept at the first AFD based on the argument that no one had been given the opportunity to perform cleanup and tagged that cleanup was required. In the intervening month there has been no work done on the article. It and its two sister articles remain excessive plot summaries in clear violation of WP:PLOT. Otto4711 14:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, again may and could doesn't cut it, same with ome mention in a newspapers, there is no harm in recreating the article with mutiple reliable sources. Jaranda wat's sup 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Subject of the article fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in independent, reliable publications. No major awards. Nothing noted that is new or significant about his works and they are not part of any permanent collections. Nv8200p talk 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Only editor removed seconded {{
prod}}
without addressing concern: entirely
unsourced
neologism that's barely disguised
promotion. —
Coren
(talk) 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was The result of the debate was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. -- SunStar Net talk 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesnt really serve any useful purpose.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubulina8888 ( talk • contribs).
The result was delete. this article is crap isn't a valid reason for delete btw Jaranda wat's sup 20:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Orphaned stub which is not notable and fails the Google test. Not to be confused with Boolean Programming Method (uppercase), which I am also nominating.
I'm not sure exactly what this article is talking about: using a lot of if statements? A lot of nested ifs? If anyone knows what the article means, perhaps this can be merged to an appropriate article. Tualha ( Talk) 14:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 06:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Orphaned, very small stub which is not notable and fails the Google test. Not to be confused with Boolean programming method (lowercase), which I am also nominating. Tualha ( Talk) 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
no evidence of notability Deb 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This page was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds of non-notability. Feeling that this was a little harsh, I replaced it with the notability tag, which the author of the article removed without making any significant changes to content. I have requested expansion and references, but there has been no response. It seems like a case of self-promotion. Deb 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary list. NawlinWiki 12:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Reliable sources found and no consensus to delete JodyB yak, yak, yak 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
There are no independent sources that make this organization pass WP:ORG. Expert review request did not turn up any sources or possible merge targets. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merged and redirected after adding a sentence to the subject's father's article. Sr 13 06:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article does not assert why exactly the individual is notable. Also, sources cannot be verified. A google search 1 did not yield any encyclopedia information about him. xC | ☎ 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Jaranda wat's sup 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This along with four other pages are just lists, not needed. Darrenhusted 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all just lists like the page above:
*Delete I can't even tell what any of them even contribute to anything. It looks more like something fitting for a plaque on a wall than in an encyclopedia.
NobutoraTakeda 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user is banned for disruption and sockpuppetry, and his vote has been stricken.
[41]
reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Disians are humanoid characters in the Draim universe. A Google search for Disian Draim comes up with no sources at all outside Wikipedia and its mirrors so severe problems with verifiability Capitalistroadster 09:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Sr 13 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
There is no out-of-universe context for these fictional items; simply not an important subject for an article. We certainly shouldn't be listing in-game statistics ( WP:NOT a game guide.) Marašmusïne Talk 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparent vanispamcruftisement. In any case, club appears to be on the lowest tier of the Aussie rules football ladder--fails WP:N per precedent. Blueboy 96 10:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn and all delete !votes reversed. Nice job on the rewrite. ɑʀк ʏɑɴ 14:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
* Delete The "article" on
Slut Night is really nothing more than an advertisement.
Tovojolo 09:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
*Delete Not enough independent sources, via a check on Yahoo or Google.
Blueboy
96 10:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
*Delete The article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". Not notable and unencyclopedic (a "social gathering"). --
Malcolmxl5 10:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
*Delete unless this can be Keep as rewrite has shown this to be a general term for butch-femme nights rather than a term used by a single organisation.
Bigdaddy1981 03:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
::I didn't think it was. I've certainly never heard it used by any lesbian friends of mine.
Bigdaddy1981 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable nightclub. Can't find reliable sources written about this place, so it fails to meet the notability guideline for businesses. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 09:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This (so far) short list article is problematic because neither "controversial" nor "inventors" are defined. Since I would argue that they can never be satisfactorily defined, I am suggesting deletion for this list. CIreland 08:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 12:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
See [44], I moved the page from Bugsy siegel(rapper) while another user was nominating it for deletion.
Original nominator states: Article gives no mention of why he is notable, but he may well be. Benefit of doubt = AfD instead of CSD, so here it is! pablo :: ... hablo ... 08:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is not a biography but concerns only a single event in this person's otherwise non-notable life that received a small amount of press coverage. CIreland 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, nomination and other delete opinions withdrawn due to article revision GRBerry 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Perhaps if WP:INTERESTING were a notability criteria, but no. The article itself claims no notability (and started off as an advert), furthermore I can't seem to find any reference to it anywhere except for unreliable websites, and no media coverage whatsoever. I also couldn't find any notability criteria that applies specifically to medication or OTC meds, so apologies in advance if somehow this does deserve to stay and I just haven't seen the related policy.. Spazure 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was boldly redirected to List of passengers on the Mayflower. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual, article is fairly unencyclopedic. I can't imagine that anybody would have heard of him or be interested in hearing of him. Rambutan ( talk) 07:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and close early. As with Almodad (cited by John Vandenberg below), merging the single citation of Lebonah into a topical list might be useful. However, consensus seems to be that, because of the intense scholarship that has been done on the Hebrew Bible, all names and places mentioned in the Bible are inherently notable and easily referenced. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a word-for-word copy from a dictionary, but its content is completely unsourced. It's orphaned, uncategorised, and doesn't need to be here. I'd also say that it's non-notable. Rambutan ( talk) 07:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep by means of consensus, and no real justification for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, unencyclopedic, not particularly well-written. Was prodded; prod removed by an IP who removed all prods I made yesterday. Rambutan ( talk) 07:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sr 13 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Contains no genuine content whatsoever, just a table of info copied from the reference. The cleanup/orphaned/uncategorised/expert tags take up more space than the material altogether! From the fact that it doesn't have a single sentence in it, I would suggest that it's not notable. Rambutan ( talk) 07:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT - we're not a dictionary, and the article doesn't really add anything to Wikipedia (I mean, "Talk like a Pirate Day" as a source?!). Rambutan ( talk) 07:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Completely unclear subject matter, says practically nothing. Was prodded yesterday; prod was removed without a clear explanation. Rambutan ( talk) 07:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete the only info known about this group is a hostage rescue, other than that the article isn't unverifiable, and policy is key here. Jaranda wat's sup 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This organization doesn't seem to be very notable [46], and may not fit notability standards. -- HAL2008 TK C T 06:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Sr 13 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This does not appear to be a notable topic. A google search [47] returned only 317 entries. most were to the phrase in a non-philosophical context. The few real entries derived from the Wikipedia article. A quick look through the Pan and Penguin dictionaries of Philosophy found no corresponding entry. No entry in the Shorter Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Banno 05:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
User:Askari Mark sent this article to WP:COIN, noting that the original author's name is identical to the article title - suggesting a conflict of interest. The content of the article is uninspiring at best, and of the 1400 Google hits, the first 10 do not provide adequate evidence of notability. Shalom Hello 05:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep without prejudice to renomination, nominator sockuppet of indefblocked user SirFozzie 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I was going through wiki as I normally do and I saw that there were a lot of pages connected together that had no sources besides a primary source and contained information that was all in-universe and seemed not to exist beyond in-universe. I had to create a name to go through the deletion process, so I don't really know if I am doing it right and its really confusing. NobutoraTakeda 04:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be subsets of the first page, lack third party sources, written from an in-universe and biased source, and are not encyclopedic: h: Night_Lords ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) reply
-- Falcorian (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Just a quick note to say that it is possile that User:NobutoraTakeda is a sockpuppet for indefinetly blocked User:SanchiTachi ( Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 07:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep everything. To be blunt i've read all of the above and am wondering why on earth someone who clearly knows little about the warhammer world is so vehemently interested in denying such a valauable resource to those who do want to use it. I'm pretty annoyed as someone has already deleted some infomration on a site i used to look at and now they are trying again. The rationale given above should be more than suficient for you to remove the deletion request and move on - if nothing else the majority (i.e. the keepers) should outweight the minority (i.e. deleters) in this case. Hence a democratic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.51.84 ( talk • contribs)
*Speedy keep ahahaha, if the guy was really me, I would have never put up a deletion for the pages. Each are obviously important on their own as they are variants with even their own miniatures produced. Thousand Sons, Plague Marines, Noise Marines, and Khorne Beserkers show that at least four of the variants are notable as part of the production line. The Black Legion was notable for having Abaddon the Despoiler who lead the Eye of Terror campaign. Others have been the complete focus of a book. Clearly, they are all individually notable. This is precious and hillarious though. Speedy keep, because everyone says its me and I say speedy keep. Case closed!
SanchiTachiAdmitted sock
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) Oyster guitarist 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Given all the List of song about nominations, it's reasonable to nominate this as it certainly fits the bill. Despite all the "ILIKEIT" and "ITSFUNNY" reasonings that pushed this into no consensus twice, I think a solid fourth review is needed. Bulldog123 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply
...come to think, what the hell is it about?
Kripto 10:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
relist from 4th July
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
As indicated by this entry: "In the movie Deep Impact, one of the astronauts on the mission to destroy the comet describes a wake-initiated lucid dream," this in popular culture article is WP:TRIVIA and a vio of WP:NOT#IINFO. Next stop Dreaming in popular culture. Bulldog123 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as hoax, joke, or just plain silliness. No such word. ● DanMS • Talk 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax definition. Google only turns it up as a misspelling for "required". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
• ::: *Comment LOL giving my age a way again. Still looking it up the old fashion way. ShoesssS Talk 04:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Redundant. Everything here has its own article and/or a summary in Pokémon. This adds nothing to the original summaries except some bits and pieces of irrelevant stuff that's already covered in the individual articles. Also, the therm "other" is confusing... Here, "other" means "other than the video games" but that's not automatically evident. Not perfect choice for an article title. The Raven's Apprentice ( PokéNav| Trainer Card) 03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable software. Also almost every edit to the article is by the one editor ( User:Pollin Fritic), who only makes edits relating to XYplorer. Please see WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. AlistairMcMillan 02:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. the number of google hits isn't a reason to keep an article and Corpx, out of all people should know that Jaranda wat's sup 21:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm trying to remember why I tagged this as speedy A7...anyway, thanks to Scientizzle for pointing out the mistake. What bothered me was an apparent COI by the author, who's other article (now deleted, I presume) dealt with a similar topic. Whether that's grounds for deletion, I am no longer certain. Shalom Hello 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep, quit wasting our time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
We need an actual consensus on this. We can't give these fools so much attention. They are evil people who want only to troll and attack Wikipedia's users. They even reveal personal information about their vandals and report them to the FBI, which never works, since the FBI have better things to do than deal with this. We should help attack this piece of crap asmuch as possible, and hoepfully remove all rferences and links to the site, including this article. I propose we even blacklist the name "conservapedia", in order that this crap not get a high google ranking.
Don't mistake mme for an Encyclopedia Dramatica troll making a WP:POINT nomination; as my talk page comment proves, I believe ED is an annoying site that raids other sites. The reason I am making this nomination is to save WP from the evils of the most piece of trash I have ever seen. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
"Comment we can come to a compromise, the article is kept, but I get to found a club here and advertise it wherever I want. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 02:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep by means of consensus and withdrawn nominaton. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article reads like a self-serving promotion for his practice and company. Notability must be established in other areas than the author’s own mind. ShoesssS Talk 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Ten Pound Hammer • ((( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Starting a mailing list or developing some specification no one uses does not make you notable. also, primary contributor is the person who the article is about - User:Petervandijck Misterdiscreet 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - duplicate of Bugsy Siegel (rapper). -- RHaworth 14:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article gives no mention of why he is notable, but he may well be. Benefit of doubt = AfD instead of CSD, so here it is! Giggy U C P 06:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - no notability (self-confessed unsigned rapper) , created by single-purpose user with the same name. pablo :: ... hablo ... 06:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Now, I could be completely wrong here, but there are too many inconsistencies with this article. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of actors could investigate further. My concerns are as follows: Firstly, this article was created by User:Isoparm on 5 July 2006; this user has made no other contributions. Secondly, in the Wikipedia articles on the films she is claimed to have starred in - Derailed and Hulk (film) - make no mention of her. Thirdly, her entry at IMDb was written by.....Jenn Gotzon. I have no experience of IMDb, but it appears to me that it is freely editable, and therefore unreliable. Fourthly, using IMDb to follow up some of the films she appears to have been in shows a marked difference with the Wikipedia entries (e.g. Derailed stated to be directed and written by Albert Pedraza whereas Wikipedia says Mikael Håfström and Stuart Beattie . All of this leads me to think that both IMDb and Wikipedia are being used to promote the 'career' of a minor or non-existant actor. Emeraude 10:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete discounting all the WP:SPA accounts. Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Product/organization lacks notability per WP:CORP. Citations from voip-info.org are self edited wiki entries. Calltech 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Further comment: This project was originally named OpenPBX.org and recently renamed CallWeaver. OpenPBX.org was nominated for deletion and subsequently removed through its own AfD back in December, 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX.org. Project was also a significant part of the discussion here as well Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX by Voicetronix. Calltech 12:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
comprehensive technology sites, which focus on free software, to have said more about it. Tualha ( Talk) 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This section, between the lines, is all one posting (not by me). Tualha ( Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This section, between the lines, is all one posting (by me). Tualha ( Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Let's examine these sources:
If these are the best you can do for sources, you prove my point. Offhand mentions of the project do not make it notable. Tualha ( Talk) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Neologism, original research, no external sources, and admitted conflict of interest on talk page by editor who coined the term. ZimZalaBim ( talk) 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This could well be original research, or unsubstantiated. Redundant with British regional slurs, although not a speedy deletion candidate. SunStar Net talk 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Consensus was reached to delete List of Google Bombs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Google Bombs), so it stands to reason that this list should also be removed. . ZimZalaBim ( talk) 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual. This is all this article is. A recreation of the rules of the game, the title really says it all.
WP:ILIKEIT are not valid reasons for keeping this article. If this article is ever meant to be no more than a simple copy of the rules please edit it accordingly, otherwise it has no place on wikipedia. Also keep in mind its a debate not a vote.
Crossmr 15:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
Keep This is a topic that is covered extensively in other encyclopedias and this article does not appear to be the spot to invoke a wikipedia policy that has flaws. -- Stormbay 03:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
*Keep As stated above, the only reason this is its own article is because the FA
chess is already far too long. The articles on the various chess variants such as
xiangqi and
shogi all give the same basic information on how to play the game. This article is an important base by which to understand the other 2000+ articles about chess on Wikipedia. In short, if there's an unencyclopedic article on chess in this project, this one certainly isn't it.
UOSSReiska 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
COMMENT Remember that some of us (well, I am) are making the point that the rules of chess are encyclopedic in and of themselves. The spirit of WP:NOT seems to be against rule books being inserted for every game willy nilly, not keeping out articles about games and sports of which general knowledge is assumed to be benificial to a large group of people who do not participate in said sport or game. XinJeisan 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Two questions:
youngvalter 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
comment My reading of WP:ILIKEIT seems to exclude any chess article from this argument, because chess is (as stated time and again) notable. Countless reliable sources could be found writing about chess, and people who have no interest in playing chess know what it is and its best players up until the year 2000 or so were household names in the US, and probably in Russia they still are, though I have no source of that. However, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also not a valid reason for deletion, and even if I agreed with Crossmr that the rules by themselves are not encyclopedic, he himself says that the article has potential to be more than a rule book, so, beyond I don't like rules in wikipedia and policy agrees with me (in spite of a seeming consensus of other editors who disagree) what argument do you have? XinJeisan 04:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:NOT_-_Gameguides. Bubba73 (talk), 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. ➥the Epopt 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, or any other kind of game guide. There is nothing here other than informally written strategy for a game. This is more appropriate to a place like wikibooks. WP:ILIKEIT are not valid reasons for keeping this article. Crossmr 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. ➥the Epopt 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a game guide. At the very most I could see this article being turned in to a "list of chess tactics" which simply references the rest of them since many have their own articles (which I haven't read, but I hope they're more than simple descriptions and actually include history, etc of the particular concept). Crossmr 15:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Not very encyclopaedic (8 entries in google)
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Both this article, and the Skanke article, consists of pure fiction. Such a noble family has never existed. Luvente 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply
See also Talk:Skanke Family Association#Hoax
The result was delete. Sr 13 03:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Was prodded and deleted before with the reason "The edits to the power levels on this article are seemingly random, with absolutely no evidence to back them up. Also, as most levels are not stated, the vast majority of this article is simply speculation." However, it has since been recreated by pretty much the same content. Since I feel the previous reason for prodding it still applies, I'm listing it here. - Bobet 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply