The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 01:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]
Recurring Characters in W.I.T.C.H. has been superseded by List of W.I.T.C.H. Characters (TV Show). This page is now superfluous to requirements and should be deleted in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of information.
perfectblue 13:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to Break (music). Agent 86 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tried to redirected to Break (music); page was moved back; propose merge or deletion John Reaves 00:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original editor of this page posted this on the article talk, I've left them a note about this page being the best place to discuss this right now - pasting in what they had to say below: (Perel 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Please notice and read this clarification of my assertion
The article on Breaks itself makes the point that breakdown and break are distinct. Has anybody read it??? What is missed here by those recommending to move is that hip hop would not have developed from breaks alone: they are simply too short to use for the purpose intended in hip hop music. Only an extremely skilled DJ cutting at lightning speed could use breaks and not breakdown sections! It had to be the breakdown sections which were used, else the hip hop era could not feasibly have begun until after the era of digital audio, capiche??If this is accepted, then Breakdown Section becomes the parent concept of hip hop musical culture and must have unique placement to avoid screwing up the whole lineage. Also, I can elaborate on breakdown sections and I'm only one user of the Wiki. (see the artist Lime page for some further ideas which can be placed in breakdown section, there are far more I assure you, such as dance records without noticable breakdown sections, breakdown sections which themselves became SONGS (Ride on Time by Black Box and Rapper's Delight come to mind right off the cuff). I am frustrated because the people who want to mess with this language simply don't understand it and yet are voting for deletion less than a day after i posted this, in fact someone wanted to delete it right away! C'mon people, how about we all LEARN something from the WIKI! I am sorry for the tone but this is my first editing dispute and I am incredibly frustrated by the lack of advocates and the haste of my opponents. I thank you all for your consideration and for Wiki-ing in the first place.--Tednor 18:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to French phonology. El_C 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
French phonology and French orthography cover the same ground (and then some) much more thoroughly and accurately. Article is also poorly formed and completely unreferenced. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This doesn't belong here. Mackensen (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created to parallel list of common phrases in various languages, which has been nominated for deletion twice. After the most recent nomination, that page's scope has changed to linguistic (genetic) comparison (although this is a dubious venture in itself) since Wikipedia is not a place for instruction manuals or user and travel guides. Constructed languages cannot be meaningfully compared in the same way since they have no natural genetic history. The page also lacks cited sources, making the page a mix of unverified material and/or original research. Introductory guides to the constructed languages presented is better suited in their respective articles not in a list of 10-15 "phrases" (most of which are actually just words). Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (info has now been re-added into the [arent article, so nothing will be lost). Proto::► 10:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary list. There's already a category of the same name, and none of the people on this list have articles, which makes me question if those people are truly "notable" as the article contends. fuzzy510 01:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The software does not appear to be notable, and the article is unsourced. MSN addons are made all the time, and the article doesn't say why this one is special. JDtalk 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. El_C 11:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been transwikied to Wiktionary James084 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::► 10:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Bio Gretnagod 01:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. El_C 11:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been nominated and deleted before. This article has been transwikid to Wiktionary. James084 01:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied, nonsense Opabinia regalis 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of nonsense about Texas having nuclear weapons. -- Scott eiπ 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Possible conflict of interest, see my talk page for details. Contested prod. MER-C 02:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, self-published. all page author contribs are links in other articles to this book. Akriasas 03:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, aside from the false-positive of being the father of someone else with an article (that article being up for deletion as well). I didn't CSD this, since his son's article has attracted a defender and I felt it would be mean to just whack a db-bio on this one. That said, Google's never heard of him in Latin script, and I don't have any great hope that someone who can search in Cyrillic or anything else will bring up much more. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a consulting firm. A Google search brings up no independent non-trivial sources- everything is either a press release from them or it is written by their business partners ("Winterberry Group is a consulting firm affiliated with us..." ) or a trivial mention where they are quoted once. Google news brings up one trivial hit. Nothing on Lexisnexis, and Find Articles brings up a press release and something about a shrub. Anyway, I believe it doesn't meet WP:CORP or verifiability seeing as it hasn't been the subject of multiple, non-trivial independent publishings. Wafulz 03:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a hoax. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was history merge. Chick Bowen 17:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination for an anon. "This is an unnecessary article, and not a real disambiguation page 132.205.93.32 03:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)" --Wafulz 03:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::► 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. El_C 12:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is comprised entirely of unencyclopedic fiction. John254 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography of a musician, WP:BIO and WP:Music both refer. (aeropagitica) 05:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines for notability -Nv8200p talk 04:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven [1] John254 04:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article concerns a distinctly non-notable person; the only assertions of notability are unreferenced, and apparently original research. John254 04:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per by himself per the guidelines in WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 05:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded a long while back. No indication of notability via WP:WEB or otherwise. Kchase T 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. No prejudice about articles being created when reliably sourced information about who is actually bidding is available, which, as bids are approved by the appropriate nation up to 15 years before the date of the games, which will probably be some time around next winter for the 2022 Winter Games, and around 2009 for the 2024 Summer one. Proto::► 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found speedy-tagged, but somehow this was already afd'd and kept with no consensus here in April, partly on the basis that the 2024 article was kept here in March. Honestly, this is all terrible crystal-balling and both articles contain almost nothing but unsourced speculation (every single sentence in the 2022 article has a ((fact)) tag!). Recreate these in 5-10 years, not needed now. Opabinia regalis 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable radio personality - see the two ghits. The article has not changed at all besides a cleanup and a linkless tag being added since its creation. Fails WP:BIO. His only claim to fame is that he's been around for 36 years, but I don't think that's as important as WP:BIO. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no mention of the code having been adopted by anyone, and the official site's members page has no entries. Likewise, a Google search doesn't turn up much. The article is well-written, but I don't think its subject is notable enough yet for Wikipedia. I tagged with ((importance)), which later got removed (see article's talk). Electrolite 06:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, self-admitted protologism. Speedied once already; prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 06:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This looked fairly non-notable to me, but I don't know anything about soccer clubs in Ireland, so I thought I'd put it up for deletion to get some more expert opinions. Thus my vote is abstain, leaning towards delete. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 05:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable. This is like the ping-pong game Busch canceled 6 months ago, without the press coverage. Furthermore, it is unverified material. I say delete. Diez2 06:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sources presented. May be derived from a game Edison 06:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2nd nomination: (previous nomination can be found here) This is about 2 lifeboats named after Charles Hargrave. 0 notability. That's flatly it. Diez2 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, does not assert notability per WP:BAND. NawlinWiki 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band; fails the music notability criteria. Article lacks sources. Probably runs afoul of the conflict of interest guidelines, too. Article was tagged with prod, which was removed by Mikemaciss. --Slowking Man 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable 1980s street gang or possible hoax. Prod Contested and tag removed by User:Catchpole. This article was created by single purpose account Howmanylads. The article is incoherent, and the subject scores a total of 9 Ghits in Google archives, none of which relevant. 13 unique Ghits, none of the sources appear reliable. Ohconfucius 06:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus but how about adding this information to the article instead of just the AfD? W.marsh 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability is presented in the sub-stub article. It should be expanded and referenced or deleted. Edison 07:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 05:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online game: fails the Web notability criteria. The article is original research and unsourced. Looks like a conflict of interest as well, judging by the Talk page. I deleted the article, as it seemed to me to meet CSD A7, but it was recreated and contested by the author, so I think an AfD discussion would be the best course of action. --Slowking Man 07:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The given reason is: It is an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
The reason of entry is not apart of any of the entries above. I will say that that the closest to the the entry is a website. however, I said it was hosted on RGuardians.com, and I do include a link to find this game. If you read on it is about the story, hints and tricks, and reviews for the game. I am sure more information about the game will be given.
In addition, if you think RGuardians.com is just Realm of Guardians you are very wrong. RGuardians.com is a website/portal for Realm of Guardians AND Galactic Guardians (another game only mentioned in the history of Realm of Guardians. If you like we will take away the development history. Which we think is what gives it the questionable view.
As for the other points, we are not a blog, webcomic, or podcasts. We have an online forum but again we do not mention it. All the information I felt that was related to the entry that we put in.
~~Kyle~~
I agree with the game creator. I will give my history with the game and then I will tell you what I think as well. First, my account name is Furlings and I have been playing for about 3 years. (Right when they changed domain names.) I have been an off and on player, and I have enjoyed this game along with other text based games. I do not know Brinn (Brinn is Kyle but I have a hard time refering to him as such) in real life. But I do talk to him on AIM quite a bit. I tell you this so you know where I am coming from.
However, I am going to add a few edits in a few moments however, I think as long as this post doesn't start promoting the site it should be kept. I read last night about what Brinn wrote. I know Kyle posted a few of the things he has already posted on his website to fill up content of the site. I am sure it will be changed later.
I believe that this posting will grow. I believe the players of this game will post more than Brinn because he tends to disappear every 2 months only to reappear promoting Realm of Guardians strong. I think he believes that with this the people who use the site will go and learn more about the game, the concepts, how to play, and such. I plan I adding my two sence of how the game was create and my insight.
I am not going to beg you to keep this up. I know Brinn will do that enough for everyone on the site.
~~Eric "Furlings"~~
PS. I am not trying to spam. I just don't think Brinn knew how to do this.
The result was speedy keep, as nomination is withdrawn. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del dicdef. no references. Could not find any reputable myself. Only various phobia and trivia lists. `'mikkanarxi 07:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advice. Before voting, please take a look into -phob-#Phobia lists. `'mikkanarxi 08:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No independent, reliable evidence of notability. The site is now a Wiki, therefor hurting reliability of the little information it has. I searched through several random pages and via Google, and can find nothing stating that edits have to be under the GFDL or a similar free license, and no images I found had any sort of licensing. Many pages contain copyvio full recreation of song lyrics. Forums have just over 400 users. Alexa rank 997,149. Also delete the template used to link various kids show articles to pages on the site, but don't forget to remove it from all pages it is used on. Drat (Talk) 04:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Proto::► 00:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is completely unreferenced and appears to be composed of original research regarding wrestling fans on the internet. Additionally, the article does not assert the notability of this internet community. —ptk✰fgs 08:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see four sources in this article so that discredits the "original research" issue. Plus as someone pointed out, a google search provides numerous hits, and also there are much less notable articles that survive here that no one pays attention to or puts some sort of "this article needs fixing" tag on it. It would be better to do that than try to arbitrarily delete it. Arthur Fonzarelli 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. Prod was removed with the comment "WP:not does not include recipes. recipes are encyclopedic", which is false—recipes are specifically mentioned as an example in WP:NOT. It seems highly unlikely that this article could ever be expanded beyond a recipe. Quale 08:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. --Coredesat 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be advertisement. Rainwarrior 10:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy A7 delete. Punkmorten 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical page created about a Non-Notable person Flakeloaf 10:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Winning national junior titles does not constitute the notability required by WP:BIO. Punkmorten 11:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a list of weapons from Final Fantasy X: gameguidish information explaining each weapon and how to obtain them. Does not belong on Wikipedia. — Deckiller 11:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to parent article, so closed. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional vehicle so minor it doesn't even have an actual name. SeizureDog 11:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted ViridaeTalk 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some assertion of notability, nominated for speedy but IMO not quite speedyable, no personal opinion Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy and unsourced article on a fictional topic; the Necromongers definitely feature as the principal villains in The Chronicles of Riddick, but the vast amount of detail which constitutes most of this article looks like fanfic, and I cannot find any reliable sources to back any of it up. If verifiable, reliable sources cannot be supplied for this, it should be deleted as per WP:V, or replaced by a stub. -- The Anome 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BishopTutu 07:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable primary school, no assertion of notability made. Came up in CAT:CSD tagged as ((db-nonsense)) which obviously is not applicable, but given the argument surrounding the deletion of school articles and the potential to be accused of bias if I deleted it as ((db-bio)) I am listing it here. ViridaeTalk 11:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to local municipality, delete. Consequentially 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Femto. MER-C 12:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nominee but there is a claim of notability. no personal opinion Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep but suggested standardizing reference style, see WP:CITE. W.marsh 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nominee but some claim of notability; no personal opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm the user who initiated the page. As a novice editor, I'd appreciate your advice in fashioning this article to merit inclusion. As one with an interest in (a) the artist mentioned and (b) contributing further articles, I'd be most grateful.--Hrazer 12:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessary to have an entire article to make one point, which is already made in other JW pages BenC7 11:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: Speedily deleted - unverifiable, no claim of notability, possible hoax. - Mike Rosoft 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy candidate but some claim to notability, no personal opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nom, not speedyable, no personal opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/withdrawn. W.marsh 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been tagged as unlinked since July 2006 - not even linked to or from Toronto. The content is not as described in the title (something about the centennial celebrations in 1934 might have made an interesting article). This is simply a list of committees and their members, the vast majority of which are red links. The whole appears to be a directory copied from some book or other. Emeraude 12:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One-man conlang, but that's not a speedy category IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a mess. Spare us another trip to deletion review, having separate sections and a combined section creates confusion for admins to whether to delete, keep, etc. Please organise some prior discussion first, and consider nominating the articles separately for deletion instead. It is noted that some articles have been merged, and this might just ressolve the issue. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A blanket deletion nomination for all of the articles in Category:Cosmic Era vehicles (except Missile truck, listed seperately). Please review each article individually and place comments under them. Basic reason for nomination is that the articles are too trivial, more detailed discussion on a similar nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series.
(UTC)
"Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article."
Transwiki: These information may serve a more specific purpose if transferred to a seperate wikicity (in this case, I suggest Gundam Wikia). My rationale is the fact that these articles are relevant to details in Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, but are generally not-so-notable outside that circle. Seen that way, they are much more appropriate to appear in a dedicated site than here. The rest should be merged into a list IMO. --Blackhawk charlie2003 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am only listing these to support the exsistence of some articles, not all of them. MythSearchertalk 05:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't seem to have much on the other page, but this one seems to be a lot easier. Other than Skygrasper, all the others are pretty much keep the first 2 and merge(or delete) the others. Can anyone confirm the situation just so that we can move on to actually merging them? I will go and change the Skygrasper page now to modify it I have modified the Skygrasper page to show more real world impact and hope that by tomorrow we can get rid of most of the other pages. MythSearchertalk 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nominee but imo not speedyable - no opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 12:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted ViridaeTalk 06:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This village football team from the Republic of Ireland seems non-notable. No hard and fast rules exist for notability of clubs in Ireland by the level they play at but this club doesn't seem equivalent to a "levels 1-10 in England" club
The result was speedily deleted by Gurch. MER-C 03:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Filipino actor, was speedy candidate, no personal opinion Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy candidate but assertions of notability made Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has been a fixture on the licensed clubs circuit in Australia for decades and apparently in other countries judging from the articles in Google News Archive. Capitalistroadster 02:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable terms. Kovfa 12:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of interesting but lack of notability; no sources to indicate such. CAFFO is very new so maybe in time it will be an interesting article to recreate? Marcus22 13:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to allow this article to continue exist, under perhaps stub labeling?Wavecal22 14:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wavecal22, 'fraid Wiki don't work like that. If the subject of the article is considered insufficiently unencyclopedic - albeit at this point in time - then it will be deleted. If and when CAFFO becomes notable, as proven by independent and reliable sources, then someone can recreate the article. Marcus22 17:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we do create stubs. Should this be a stub? I don't like stubs in this namespace, but if others think it belongs… Will (Talk - contribs) 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even a stub has to refer to a sufficiently notable subject. A stub referring to an insufficiently notable subject would also be AfD'd. And then probably deleted. Marcus22 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I've seen countless articles, both stubs and full articles which establish no notability. yet i think they should still exist. We are creating an encyclopedia, which "is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge" Caffo is a branch of knowledge. just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean no one else has. It is still something in the world that there is knowledge of, so why not include it? I really see no reason to delete this article, other than to save server space, but the amount of space that one small article takes up is insignificant.Wavecal22 19:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:Zocky. -Amarkov blahedits 15:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was tagged for speedy deletion, but tag was removed, so relisting for AFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected by Whpq. Eluchil404 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Report has been included in with results on 2001 PDC World Darts Championship rendering this page as a duplicated page. There are already pages listed as 1994 PDC World Darts Championship right through to 2007 PDC World Darts Championship, therefore its this article which needs deleting Seedybob2 10:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as meeting WP:WEB was not really demonstrated, and is certainly not asserted in the current article. W.marsh 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V and WP:RS has no sources beyond primary source. Quirex 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the sarcastic comment about the number of players, not exactly constructive, sites have to start somewhere and what about your own guidelines here? something about not biting the newcomers?, Markb75 20:20 3 December 2006 (GMT)
Also I think it worth mentioning that "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the criteria" and not necessarily all 3. Slipperking 11:35 4 December 2006 (GMT)
The result was delete per lack of reliable sources. W.marsh 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V and WP:RS has no sources beyond primary source. The page is self sourced and has no reliable sources, no secondary sources and has had a warning regarding source on it for 4 months, has recieved heavy editting yet no sources. Quirex 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Clearly bad faith nomination. `'mikkanarxi 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated by unregistered user, reason not given possibly notability as there was a tag on the article Mallanox 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a hoax. Mindmatrix 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Person does not exist. Keitij 20:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn - see [17]. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopediac, non-notable subject, and to a lesser extent, a POV fork. THe page's topical is basically "Things that Catholic Church Leaders have said about Opus Dei"-- the page consists mostly of extended quotations which are mirrored at Wikiquote. I think the other 20-some Opus Dei subarticles probably are sufficient to cover the relationships between Opus Dei and the Catholic Church. Alecmconroy 09:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected no need to AfD duplicate articles. Eluchil404 09:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of Sheffield Institute Characters in W.I.T.C.H. has since been merged into and superseded by List of W.I.T.C.H. Characters (TV Show). It is now superfluous to requirements.
perfectblue 13:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. It's clear nobody wants this kept as it is; it's either 'get rid of it altogether', or 'merge it into Emily Dickinson. There's not section on this topic in the main article, so it's a valid merge candidate. I'll close this as a merge, and let the Dickinson experts decide how much or how little of this article they wish to retain. Proto::► 10:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV essay. Original text contained great claims of or, such as in this line:
It's clear that this article shouldn't exist, or at least be rewritten without POV or OR. Also, sourceless. -- Chris is me 14:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by anon. Unable to even verify this band's existence. Clearly if, in fact, the band had had a double-platinum hit that was #1 on the Australian charts for weeks, and multiple ARIA awards, it would show up in a search. If the band even exists, it's eminently not Notable, but much of the material is an obvious hoax. A related hoax article on Misha's brother Saul (answers.com mirror here) was previously speedied. -- Fan-1967 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep but please cite some of these sources in the actual article. W.marsh 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Los Angeles Guitar Quartet. non notable musician per WP:BIO. He is not notable outside of the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet. Strothra 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted for this brand-new bank - too new to have done anything notable yet, in fact. Only 52 unique G-hits. wikipediatrix 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No information entered, grammatically incorrect page name (last name uncapitalized) Sdws17 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A radio presenter whose sole claim to fame is a three hour timeslot broadcast only in Queensland is definitely not notable. If this woman deserves an article on Wikipedia, then I deserve an article as well. rob.mck. 15:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She is in no way notable. Even the external link just goes to Hot FM's website, not a profile or anything of her. - King Ivan
15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I mean, come on. - [rts_freak] | 5p34k 2 /\/\3 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed a week ago with promise to supply notability, but none has ever appeared. Looks like attempt to memorialize retired military officer who died 19 November. Based on career highlights and promotion history, apparently a junior officer in WW2 and reservist after. Author of a self-published book that he sold by mail out of his apartment [25]. Fails WP:BIO, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Fan-1967 15:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::► 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged and re-tagged as ((db-bio)) (by User:Theoldanarchist) but it asserts quite a bit of notability. May or may not be authentic. No vote. — CharlotteWebb 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am here after a long time and hence mistaken as vandal!! i am her fan actually. She is one of our singer popularising our art across the globe and she is very actively engaging in not for profit concerts. so i am slowly collecting information. Pls Dont delete! Webmediaconsultant
1) First my name can not be a reason for jumping into a conclusion!lol! It is a childlike arguement!
2. Moreover consider the fact about Google result. She is residing outside the indian subcontinent and she can not have more programs in the western world where she lives. All those google results are simply documenting Carnatic Programs done in India and hence dont get carried away by the number of results. If she would have been living in Chennai then she would have definitly got more programs... more web coverage, more numbers. So kindly consider this simple fact too.
3) Then it is not an ad! Moreover see the last objection by B.Wind. He said that Chithra is mentioned as "exemplary musician" and "renowned musicologist" . But this shows how careless are they!. it is not attributed to her but to her Guru T.V.Gopalakrishnan ... Ask anyone in the carnatic field about T.V.GopalaKrishnan one of the stalwart of carnatic music. I again reproduce here what i have written for all to judge ... " She is currently pursuing her music under the expert tutelage of Shri.T.V.Gopalakrishnan, an exemplary musician and a renowned musicologist.". So please read clearly before pointing fingers. Then if my writing style is mor of an "ad" kindly note that I am a post graduate in Marketing n advertising. help me to change the tone of the article or word usage than jumping from the bench like school boys to VOTE FOR DELETION. Moreover I believe in Kaizen. So this article will be improved and i just requested some time. Dont limit wikipedia only to elite and experienced wikipedians. Even new ppl can contribue and improve slowly .. otherwise the whole concept of WP is meaningless.. Hope you (we) are not in a hurry n partison manner.
4) also note What Bruno has told as comments to Mr Wind.. and in the articles talk page... I am reproducing the same here ...
Webmediaconsultant 04:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete by user request, let's not have an argument, shall we? Guy (Help!) 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taged for speedy deletion as a website with no assertion of notability, but seems to me to assert notability. On the other hand, it doesn't look as if it passes WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as a directory entry, but that's not a speedy criterion. It is, however, a perfectly valid criticism of this article. It makes no attempt to establish the significance of the subject beyond mere existence. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Outsider is another mundane forum on the internet. It violates WP's Web Notability Policy - as there are several other NSider Forums spin-offs out there. ShadowJester07 16:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Howard E. Scott. Agent 86 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many tags does this have? I had to AfD it; maybe BJAODN can use this better. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 16:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete A7. Mindmatrix 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged as a speedy with the comment pointless and unencyclopedic but those aren't valid CSD criteria. I agree that it violates wikipedia's guidelines on notability and as such it should be deleted through AfD. Eluchil404 16:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has won many national awards from various camping associations (including those not affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America). It is very well known in general in Florida and of course within Scouting circles. There are over 60,000 Boy Scouts in Florida who utilize this camp. Prior to being a BSA camp it was a hunting lodge for the Roosevelt family. This article should be kept!
Contested prod. Non notable camp Nuttah68 16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable voldemortuet 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially an in-depth look at the first 10 minutes of the film GoldenEye (or the first 3 missions of the game GoldenEye 007. There's nothing to be said other than a recap of the plot, (which is already summarised on the main film page) so there's little which can be verified. WP:FICTION says "It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own", and this takes it a step further by being only a very small part of the plot. Trebor 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy, non notable company Nuttah68 16:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::► 00:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
apparent fork of Sunni Islam ("sunni" literally means 'tradition', 'traditionalism' and 'Sunnism' are if anything used as synonyms only). no notable sources asserting its distinction from Sunni Islam (or its sub-distinction within Sunni Islam). seems to be a platform for advocacy that a certain brand is the proper claimant to Sunnism. Delete as needless POV-fork. ITAQALLAH 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedy-deleted as CSD G11 spam. A DRV consensus overturned. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration, in particular concerning WP:V requirements. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Original research. It's essentially an essay that would make a cool blog post or whatever, but doesn't belong here. The separate timelines that form the basis of the article are entirely a supposition of the author. Dtcdthingy 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete but open to reconsidering if anyone has new evidence. W.marsh 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable defunct zine. The website doesn't even exist anymore. Reads like advertising. IrishGuy talk 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete or expand. If there is some relevant information besides that he was son of so or so or who his children were I'll change my vote to keep Alf photoman 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, changed vote as per above Alf photoman 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::► 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as advertising, also does not assert notability. The creator of the page objects, so I have restored it and listed it here. – Gurch 17:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First I would like to provide some statistics for the site:
1. Searching Google ("Doodlebug") returns a number 2 result as seen here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Doodlebug
2. Searching Yahoo ("Doodlebug") returns a number 1 result as seen here: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Doodlebug&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
3. Searching Ask ("Doodlebug") returns a number 4 result as seen here: http://www.ask.com/web?q=Doodlebug&qsrc=0&o=333&l=dir&sugreqs=4
4. Users can be found in almost every continent across the globe as seen here: http://doodlebug.desktopcreatures.com/stuff/map/
5. Alexa traffic Rankings can be found here (Alexa lists doodle bug with a ranking of 86,407): http://doodlebug.desktopcreatures.com/photos/images/eckitis-06720bfe90a765f6cb2d652157affd70.jpg
6. The website can appear to plain if you do not have an account, here is a screenshot to show the website: http://doodlebug.desktopcreatures.com/photos/images/eckitis-28f3ffec26fb2da68d9c59f0e7661a11.jpg
7. There are 459 members that have been active in the past 30 days (from today's date 12/1/2006), of those 459 members 122 of them were active in the past 24 hours and 271 have been active in the past week. This information can be found here: http://doodlebug.desktopcreatures.com/members/index.asp?online=30&s=&submit=submit
8. The websites created by the owner of this site has been featured in the following:
• plime.com • FARK.com • RealTechNews.com • Metafilter.com • DailyCandy.com • Times Newspaper • Bliss Magazine • FHM UK 3/2006 • Revolution Magazine • G4TV (attack of the show "Gems of the Internet")
9. Stats of the site in the passed 24 hours are as follows: Doodles added: 25, Votes cast: 2,072, Messages posted: 902
10. Samples of the artwork created can be found here: http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2006-12%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=doodlebug+_doodles
I think the number one question most of our members have is that Wikipedia has several websites listed in its database that are very similar to ours, for example:
Even though they are similar in the "creation of art" Doodlebug is very much one of a kind, I have yet to locate a site that mimics it. If you could clarify how our entry differs from the relevence of the other entries we would be glad to make any nessecary changes.
Sincerely, Eckitis Sabrina
* Keep - Per meeting WP:WEB in references noted above. Delete - Per below. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yahoo The Nine: http://9.yahoo.com/2006/07/24 2. Plime: http://www.plime.com/search.p?pid=29&tag=Doodlebug Eckitis - Sabrina
The result was speedied, author request Opabinia regalis 00:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Localized "holiday". Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Really wish I could speedy this. -- Merope 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears insufficiently notable -- and it appears (although it's not conclusively showable) that someone affiliated with the site has been spamming other articles. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either a hoax page or original research. Eron 18:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WP:DICDEF. El_C 11:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is dictdef that has already been transwikid to Wiktionary. James084 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable spyware..? JDtalk 12:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 09:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article for a film that has never been announced. It isn't encyclopedia just to have internet chatter about the possibility of this happening many years in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. IrishGuy talk 19:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 02:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was a disputed PROD that was speedy deleted out-of-process, as confirmed by a DRV consensus. This matter is brought to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Relisting generated no opposition, the article has had significant expansion since its original nomination, and reasons given by two "keep" comments make it clear that this article should survive to be improved upon. Agent 86 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A play; no evidence of notability. Redirect to Mehmet Murat İldan, its author, or delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-25 19:38Z
The result was Redirect to Nasir al-Din Nasir Hunzai. El_C 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article survived an AfD here with no concensus. Aylahs, for reasons given on this talk page, is determined that the article should not be merged. Once you dig into the Ghits here and eliminate the WP sourced entries and those relating to other people there is little left. We need to determine the future of the article. BlueValour 18:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To ensure that the complete the discussion leading to this second nomintaion is contextualized, I have copied it here. -- Aylahs (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from Talk:Izhar Hunzai:
The result was delete. W.marsh 02:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks any sources and is a highly suspected hoax. No google results for such rank to exist in Britain. Nixer 20:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the title of Napolionic rank has been mixed together with a similar English/British one. It should be cleaned-up; the historical and current power of the rank should be checked (e.g. would it at any time ordered soldiers around in the Kings name); and would it be a rank that could be used in certain situation (e.g. if the UK leads a large multi-nasional force and one of it's general is appointeded Surpreme Commander of Allied Forces; could that person then be given this rank to "promote" him compared to other generals of the same rank (others ranked as Field Marshal or General of the Army) and to emphesize that he wielded the whole of the Queen's power over the British military). --Koppe 22:15, 1 December 2006 (CET)
The result was belated Speedy Delete.--Húsönd 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is short in context and violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms policy. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply a generic mall in anywhere, U.S.A. I don't think it is even of particularly WP:LOCAL interest (and notably no mention of it is made at Bay City, Michigan, suggesting those who created the Sites of Interest & Business District sections didn't feel it warrented inclusion). There simply is nothing to suggest this is a notable mall locally or in a more general sense. Delete or at best merge a small mention to Bay City, Michigan.-- Isotope23 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. But if sourcing isn't improved to show this is a list of publications experts in the field consider important, not just a list Wikipedians consider important, a second AfD probably won't get such a generous close. W.marsh 15:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del POV-ridden, nonmaintainable unreferenced for such an extremely broad topic as computer science. If something or someone is really important, there must be a wikipedia article. `'mikkanarxi 20:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Quite a few entries strike me as ridiculous. For example, a number of textbooks. However popular they are, certainly they are not groungdbreaking. Further, "Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty process" labelled as breakthru. Huh? What did it break? If it was a real breakthrough, there should be a wikipedia article no matter what someone wrote above. And so on. `'mikkanarxi 23:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable organization (note: most Ghits are for a band of the same name) Frater Xyzzy 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Criteria A7, Non-Notable. DDG 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization that had 12 members at its peak? This article fails to establish any external notability of this organization. DDG 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable business; no claim of notability in article; prod removed. Brianyoumans 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article does not meet WP:BIO. There are ZERO Ghits for "Aaron Glass"+Crescendo. He's the "Director of Professional Services", not even the president of the company. Contested speedy. ... discospinster talk 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and possibly autobiography. Not every officeholder is notable, let alone ever losing candidate. Being the Democratic sacrificial lamb in a Republican stronghold is less of a claim to notability. The article reads like an extract from a campaign bio. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO has a threshold of being a state provincial representative unless there are multiple non-trivial press mentions. Just 2 Ghits here, Wikipedia and his Council. Delete. TerriersFan 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del one huge self-promo of a neo-occultism based on self-published sources. HUGE problems with verifiability. What is more, I suspect a walled garden of the whole category:Chaos magic `'mikkanarxi 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, rather than move this elsewhere, here I will respond. I state that the map region Chaos Magic exists regardless, and wiki should reflect this fact. This will apply to a sub-terrain of factual information regarding organizations, and prominent practitioners, including those who exemplify the various arch. There will always exist variations on the meme-space vis a vis each of our maps; wiki functioning as the meta, leading to disagreements, and then along to thoughtful editing. Here our fact-maps merge, on this we will all agree. Tone down the bad faith nominations, they do not play well with others. Gift some work on content and style. Someone should mention humour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.130.75 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete, OR. Proto::► 10:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self admitted original research: "The following material is not official to any storyline concerning Games Workshop fiction." As such, delete --Pak21 21:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::► 10:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable and Orphaned. Previously nominated for speedy delete but rescued by User:NawlinWiki giving the reason "lots of family name articles on Wikipedia". But Wikipedia is not a directory or list of surnames. Everybody's surname has a history. Note that the article was created by User:Imadanat, ie. possible COI. It has also been previously tagged as not notable but this has been removed as well. The only article linking to this one is a redirect page created by User:NawlinWiki on the same day that he/she removed the speedy delete. Jezzerk 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete W.marsh 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. If the article is kept it'll need cleanup, too. – Gurch 21:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm not sure how this all works, but I wrote this submission for a class I am taking in library science and our professor is requiring us to post our papers. If it is a matter of format, please let me know how I am supposed to do it and I can fix it. If it's a matter of content, please let me know what I can do to change it to fit your guidelines. This is the first time I have put anything up here, and I have no idea what I'm doing.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this article lasted so long. It appears to be some sort of joke. There are no Google hits for ""Omega Psi Kappa"+camping except for Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Tubezone prodded it but it was contested. ... discospinster talk 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/keep I have added the merge suggestion templates, interested editors can move forward with a merge. W.marsh 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A definition of a non-notable fictional organisation. Unlikely to become notable. Salad Days 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::► 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely hoax that has no reliable sources (the IMDB entry is a fan-submitted hoax too) so unverifiable. This has been speedied twice already and is being recreated by sockpuppet accounts. I want this to go through a formal AfD so we can either verify its existence and keep it, or delete it properly and give grounds for future use of WP:CSD:G4 speedy deletion on the grounds of recreation of deleted material Gwernol 21:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirecting is harmless. W.marsh 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A highly in-universe article about a fictional character.
The character is also written about on Cosmic Era list of characters with more than enough information. As such, I vote to delete, or at least redirect. TheEmulatorGuy 22:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Those who opine 'keep' have not addressed any of the concerns raised. WP:NOR trumps WP:ILIKEIT. Proto::► 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Computerjoe's talk 22:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article doens't assert notability, is not NPOV, and is written very unencyclopedically (even with first person references). NauticaShades 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was I'm closing this as a keep. After discounting one newbie I get 13 keep to 6 delete votes. I'm further discounting several delete votes. One admits it needs a rewrite, but vote to delete anyway (articles that can be fixed with a rewrite aren't deleted). Another claims that being a CEO at three companies is not notable without explaining why that would be (there's several valid articles about people who are CEO of just one company). The article may using some questionable press release-based sources now, but reliable sources are available as several keep voters have pointed out. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable--fails WP:BIO and is an example of WP:COI. Web references are either brief articles by the subject himself or interviews about the companies he's worked for. He does have a spiral-bound book available from Amazon.com--but it has a sales rank of 1,864,077. Probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. Was prodded back in October, but the notice was removed without comment. Dallben 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Dallben has made about half of his edits on this topic. Stanlys212 21:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person: Brandenburg in Forbes Magazine - Scientific Visualization
Renderosity interview with Brandenburg
Brandenburg's company support for education
Brandenburg in DCCCafe Interview - Scientific Visualization
Brandenburg in Digital Media Designer - Virtual 3D Heart Model Story
China Medical Device Industry Article
Digital Media Designer News Story
Spanish News Article on 3D Heart
Chinese virtual reality article
Hong Kong Webexpert marketing article
Creative Mac Interview / Bryce
Corporate Media News 3D Female Anatomy
Bryan Brandenburg's profile at MobyGames
- The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
CEO of three major companies:
Sculptured Software Engineering Animation, Inc. Zygote Media Group
Alternative test - Google 555 hits - Compared to most video game programmers, 10-15x. A number of the game programmers listed in this category look like they worked for one of Brandenburg's companys.
I'm a newbie like User:Dallben, but Bryan Brandenburg is one of the grandfathers of the Utah game industry so I thought I would cast my vote. Linux_monster
Spanish site reprint of Brandenburg interview on Bryce
Chinese story on Zygote heart with quote from Brandenburg
AdNews that Zygote signs Brandenburg
Spanish press release on 3dscience with quote from Brandenburg
German version of heart press release with quote from Brandenburg
Animation Artist article (Guy Wright) with quote from Brandenburg
French press release with quote from Brandenburg about Open Source project
Yahoo Spanish Financial News - heart press release. Quote from Brandenburg
China business news - Press release on launch of 3dscience.com
Another version of press release on Spanish business news site
Spanish medical site - Story on Female Anatomy - Quote from Brandenburg
Chinese coverage of heart with quote from Brandenburg
Open Source Article (Guy Wright) with quote from Brandenburg
DCCCafe story on Turbo Squid partnership
I knew Brandenburg at Sculptured which grew to almost 100 people, a very large group of indies. Avalanche Software were former programmers and sold to Disney. Sculptured was bought by Acclaim. Saffire was another company spawned out of Sculptured http://www.saffire.com/.
EAI Interactive was a pretty big deal. They did games for Disney, Hasbro, Mattel, Hannah Barbarra. Brandenburg was the top guy for the interactive division. He also did some outdoors thing with Karl Malone. Don't know much about that but published some books.
I don't know anything about scientific visualization and 3D but looks like he made his mark there too as an executive with http://daz3d.com/ and http://zygote.com/ / http://3dscience.com/ His articles are not my cup of tea, but they look widely syndicated.
Not sure what he's up to now, but I'm sure it will be big. His personal art gallery is pretty cool :) http://bryanbrandenburg.blog.com/. Looks like a competitor to Zygote and maybe that's what this is about ;)
I almost never get involved with stuff like this, but Bryan Brandenburg gave me my start. I'll always remember him for that.
Stanlys212 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Stanlys212 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Doc Tropics 16:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endless blue (talk • contribs)
- The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:
- Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.
- Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.
Comment: I have given my vote above. At this point, I wish to note that the article presently consists of roughly a half-dozen sentences and laundry lists of games the man has worked on, links to Wikipedia articles that do not exist, and a lot of external links of which roughly half seem only tangentially related to the man. So regardless of if the man is notable, the article needs a serious re-write. Recent activity by Stanlys212 has been entirely adding links, which is not what the article needs at this point. Michaelbusch 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No notability asserted, nothing that makes it stand out from all those other Franciscan Brothers groups. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this one with a prod a few months ago, but it was removed with the comment "rm prod. afd this", which would imply that the person who removed the prod agreed that deletion was warranted. The article has had no substantive edits since July. The 3000ish google hits that "Winged Self" receives are mostly Wikipedia mirrors or copies of a poem mentioned in the article. Sources for "The Winged Self" are almost entirely Wikipedia-generated. The sources cited in the article are two devotional pages telling you how to worship the winged self. Whatever the "winged self" is (I'm still not sure from reading the article), if it were an important symbol, it would be mentioned more than just a few places. BigDT 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This "botanical garden" is a commercial "botanical garden" (read "nursery") and not a notable one. It's not even named Greenfield Herb Garden any longer. MrHarman 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]