The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Article is an advert. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not an advert .. it carries names and links of many competing websites namely: Network Solutions, Tucows, and GoDaddy - amit (talk)
For non-notable issue Kindly search popular misspell apkadomain along with aapkadomain on google . there is no dearth of articles - Regards amit (talk)
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious hoax; no supporting evidence for the asserted noteability of the subject is offered or can be found; the only contributions outside of this article this new user has made is blatant vandalism to the Jesuit High School (New Orleans) article ElKevbo 22:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this be deleted?
Bossetta has raised money by speaking controversially. Few other 18 year olds have done what Bossetta has done, athetically or for the community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrAnthonyMcGinnBaby (talk • contribs) 17:55, July 14, 2006
Hoax? Google Michael Bossetta properly and you will find references.
And if you want I can find many other people who would support this article, not just one minor vandal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrAnthonyMcGinnBaby (talk • contribs) 17:59, July 14, 2006
Well the New Orleans area is being run by unsung heroes. There is a service group headed by Bossetta called YRNO (Youth Rebuilding New Orleans). There have been several articles in the Times Picayune about this. YRNO has spread to other catholic schools other than Jesuit. How do you do citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.250.189 (talk • contribs) 18:11, July 14, 2006
I thought the point of Wikipedia was to be the source if none other were available. Bossetta exists, YRNO exists, and peolpe who know Bossetta are the ones who will spread the word about him. If you are supicious because the article is humorous in some ways, then that can be toned down. But everything in it is true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.149.242 (talk • contribs) 23:25, July 14, 2006 (UTC)
Get a life, elkevbo.
Everything in this article is true. -Fr Anthony McGinn '66 Jesuit High School
I pray that you also see it this way. Bossetta is one of our best students. Cum laude does not begin to describe him.
AMDG
By and Large, God takes no prisoners. -Fr Richard HERMES, SJ 68.227.149.242 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete for being a straight word-for-word copy-and-paste of a copyrighted ("Copyright © 2005 Khalsa Press") web page. Editors are reminded not to violate copyright. Uncle G 17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I nominate this article for deletion because of its almost complete copyright violation from [1] and WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE. This Fire Burns Always 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person; this article is probably autobiographical – author also created Kelkoo article. -- MightyWarrior 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. fails music and bio criteria. --Madchester 21:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15 google hits on this name, none of which seem to correspond to this person. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, or anything else Xyzzyplugh 23:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Fails notability criteria. --Madchester 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable artist. Nothing relevant can be found from Google that isn't a mirror site of Wikipedia. ... discospinster talk 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. nn corp. --Madchester 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article originally tagged with ((prod)) with reason, NN company per WP:CORP. Only 6 ghits for term "Scout/Light Line Distributors, Inc." Prod tag removed without any reason given and without any real revision to article to show how it complies with WP:CORP. Agent 86 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Anyone who wishes to transwiki it - just axe me! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gamecruft and game-guide. This article is unverified and unverifiable, there's no source for any of this information in this article, other than the implicit primary source, and the units of Advance Wars are not widely discussed outside of how-to guides. Additionally, a great deal of this article is itself a how-to guide: the merits and flaws of various weapons are constantly touted.
Relevant precedent in other AFDs: two weapon lists for the Resident Evil series, a list of weapons in Cave Story, and a list of Pokémon attacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE nn-web comic --Madchester 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another non notable webcomic, seen here. "Brad the vampire" generates 40 Google hits, whereas an Alexa lookup of the site gives zero stats. - Hahnchen 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Also, length of time on Wikipedia should not be a deterrent in AfDing articles... I had this article deleted after it had spent nearly four years here! Grandmasterka 08:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been on Wikipedia ages, but I've not come across it until now. It's another webcomic, seen here. I had fallen into the trap of think it was notable just because we've had the article so long, like an editor did at this afd when suggesting a merge. 88 Google links for the phrase "Okay pants" is not good, and many of these links have nothing to do with the webcomic and none of them come from respected sources. Alexa shows a ranking of 400,000 for those interested. - Hahnchen 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete... I wish someone could have responded to the weak keep though! If needed, take it to WP:DRV. Grandmasterka 08:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another webcomic, found [6] by a group called Guardian Sun Studios. You can also take a look at their swanky Unencylopedia page at Uncyclopedia:Otaku no Yen. Googling "Otaku no yen" -emulator brings up 130 links (otaku no yen seems to be a gameboy emulator also). 130 links is not a lot, and many of these links are to japanese language pages. I can't read japanese, but looking at the links on these sites, they didn't seem to refer to this webcomic as I couldn't find a relevent link. Alexa returns figures of 1.6 million. Contrary to The History section of the article, I doubt somewhat that this has reached levels of "international fame" - Hahnchen 00:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discuss any potential name changes on the talk page. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Apparently only Wikipedia and its mirror sites use this term: [7] Also contains lots of unsourced content for an article that boils down to "professors and students sometimes date each other". Opabinia regalis 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming article: At this point, the majority say the article should stay, but some feel it should be renamed. I've started a discussion on the article talk page, if people want to vote on this. Aine63 01:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 08:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion nomination Here's the reason I gave the first time round in March 2006 which ended in no consensus: "This is a list from another one of those trivial cheap-to-make "list of the best" TV programs - typically a collection of clips and talking heads of B or C-list celebrities. It has no real authority. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for every "list of the best" produced out by these tv programs or by popular magazines." Same this time around. Though I want to add in L'esprit de l'escalier (I was distracted and neglected to pay much attention at all towards the end of the first afd) a response to what during the first afd was JJay's reply to my rolling out the rating figures for this program (ratings which I believed to be not very impressive). JJay found those ratings to be impressive and said that we have articles for most of the other programs mentioned in my excerpt. I would now point out out that the one-off show The Ultimate Sitcom's (1.5m viewers) closest peers Get Famous, Get Fit, Get Rich: Celebrity Fitness Videos ... Exposed (1.3m viewers) and Larger than Life - Eating Themselves to Death (2.1m viewers, a program about obese people who can't stop eating) still do not have their own articles, and I hope they never do. The only argument I see coming from the keep voters in the first afd was "the program was probably seen by a huge number of people". There are many trivial programs on TV which get low ratings that still translate to large numbers of people but are insignificant by encyclopedic standards. This is a one-off clip show which is one of these programs. Bwithh 00:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep per JJ. It is plenty notable, and remember that including someone else's value judgments does not constitute a value judgment on the part of editors. AdamBiswanger1 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE to Mac OS X. TigerShark 11:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unofficial neologism, not common enough to warrant an article or redirect. RandyWang (raves/rants) 01:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although Mac OS X86 is a small group it exist nonetheless and it deserves at least an article stating it --Drchoc007 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 AmiDaniel (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really unnotable English footballer playing for very low-level club. NawlinWiki 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as copyvio —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-14 10:14Z
Yets to be released movie. Crystal ball, article text largely lifted from ImdB. Artw 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Needs to be categories for each national or subnational entity. Grandmasterka 08:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already 51 kilobytes long, redundant to the lists of musicians and musical groups by country that can be found at Category:Musicians by nationality and Category:Musical groups by nationality. Ezeu 01:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article violates WP:NEO, including being unsupported by reliable sources. Jonathan F 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can refer to more than what this article covers, including 4 (number). Invitatious (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close since the nominator has no intention of getting the article deleted. If you wish to propose a merge, there's ((mergeto)), ((mergefrom)), and talk pages. AfD's not the place for this. Kimchi.sg 21:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the other Street Fighter Alpha pages redirect to Street Fighter Alpha, and this one should too. I vote to Redirect. Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gamecruft and duplicate content. The bulk of this article is plot summary of Metal Gear Solid, which already has such a long, overdetailed plot summary that merging this article there would be a bad idea. The only part of this article that isn't plot summary is a wholly unsourced and possibly fanon Features section, which wouldn't be encyclopedic in any case (as the rest of the island doesn't appear in any fictional work). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising page for non-notable private company. Fails WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Search of Google News produced 0 hits for firm. Satori Son 02:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Didn't play professionally and not enough notability as a college player. Delete BlueValour 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Some of the worst NBA players ever, were still some of the best in the world. Only 1 in 1000 make it to the NBA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Summonmaster13 (talk • contribs) . Sorry Summonmaster13 only 1 'vote' per person. BlueValour 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. So new that the article previously claimed that the term was coined in June 2006, by none other than PJ Conley, which happens to be the name of our friend the author, who has no other contributions and may or may not be affiliated with OMarketing the non-notable consulting firm. It's like a resume for a deleted-article application. Opabinia regalis 02:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No Guru 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technology is fictional[17] Yamla 02:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Mostly Rainy 02:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Festival with no claims of notable insufficient claims of notability - only seems to be slightly notable on a local scale at best. Never seems to have had any notable performers, national coverage, etc... Deleted before with little objection, but apparently can't be speedied. See previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Zero. Wickethewok 02:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom. Until more notability is establishedZos 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. More notability evidence: Here's another mention of HZ in the City Paper, the second paragraph of which confirms other press the festival has earned: 2001 city paper reference
The first two years drew press attention from fringe-oriented music magazines such as Cadence and The Wire, but the fest also won the notice of more mainstream outlets such as The Washington Post and National Public Radio's All Things Considered.
Sure, City Paper is an alternative press weekly, but I doubt it's lying.
To confirm the Washington Post references, please visit the archive search and type "High Zero" in quotes, or use this link
Notability of performers: In 2005, Phil Minton performed (listing in performers) and directed a Feral Choir at the festival. He's internationally known as a vocal improvisor who has developed extended vocal techniques since the seventies. If you web search his name, you'll come up with a variety of mentions on jazz sites, sound art sites, and listings in discographies.
On the Music_festivals page, observe that many genres (Jazz, Reggae, Country Music, Dance, etc) have festivals with articles in Wikipedia. However, the avant-garde genres are lumped together (Electronic/Electroacoustic/Experimental/Industrial/Noise/Sound Art) and only given links to outside sites. This may be a case of Systemic bias against these genres.
While editors may consider certain avant-garde genres obscure, their communities and musicians pursue them with as much dedication as in more popular genres. The material may be obscure to some music listeners, but is not a danger to wikipedia. It helps maintain a comprehensive representation of music across stylistic boundaries.
Thanks for the welcome. The quality of my writing will hopefully improve with practice. --Ravelite 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft and unencyclopedic. The article is also unsourced and can be construed as original research hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is messedrocker
(talk)
04:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. Nandesuka 15:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This author is not notable enough to have this terribly misnamed article in addition to his biography. Integrate this into bio and delete. People can read his books if they want to know more. WP is not a soapbox. -999 (Talk) 02:57, 14 July 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)) . |
The result was MERGE to Sailor Crystal. TigerShark 11:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delisted this from WP:CSD-- — xaosflux Talk 03:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep the subject. Content to be dealt with by WP:CP. Mailer Diablo 09:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bio. He served on many corporate boards, with success, but so what? So have thousands of other people in the world. Nothing especially notable to make him worthy of his own encyclopædia entry. Delete EuroSong talk 03:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we should delete this as copyvio, (or a complete rewrite is nescessary) --Amists 10:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, admitted fiction —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-14 10:16Z
I just went and checked my well-worn copy of Quidditch Through the Ages, and it does not contain a complete list of Quidditch World Cup winners. In other words, this list is original work (not research, because it must have been made up by the author (in one day at Hogwarts?)) NawlinWiki 03:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm note sure if a trophy played for between two college teams justifies an entry ... please discuss !!! DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 03:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (A7). Pepsidrinka 03:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No claim to notability. Short almost to speediable proportions, but sadly, I think it provides enough context to avoid it. Prodded, removed by anon without improvement. Morgan Wick 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in dispute. Very few ghits [24] & [25] --NMChico24 04:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. --Peta 04:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If anyone wants the content for another wiki, drop me a note - I'll undelete the material and send it to you. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All uncited research. Not verifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Directly from the talk page of the article: "The research originated from GameFAQs" - hardly an encylopedic source. Also nominating Jeigan (archetype), which is the same thing but a specific case. Wickethewok 04:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. If not then definitely NN auto insurance agency. Fails WP:CORP. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer to the article's talk page to resolve the question of merging. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article likely contains copyright violations (notice anonymous edit [26] four months after [27] was written), does not maintain a NPOV (written as a position paper), and lacks references. --jonsafari 05:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deletendo. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page fails due to being considered Self-Promotion of a trivial webpage. Delete per WP:N, WP:VAIN. NisMax 04:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 07:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded by article's creator (who is himself a likely sockpuppet). If this isn't a hoax, it's still a dicdef. WP:NOT a dictionary.--Chaser T 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was clown delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. For becoming "increasingly common," the so-called "illicit" clown mass is in general not widely talked about.[29] It looks like there are at least a couple verifiable incidents in the U.S. in which a priest and/or his assistants were dressed as clowns for mass, but that doesn't make a "clown mass" practice so much as "masses in which a participant was dressed as a clown." Even if we considered the priests the subjects here (though the article seems more intent on attacking a heretical "practice"), the "most well known" recent priest/clown that the article mentions is apparently not that well known at all.[30] Perhaps if we really dug around we could construct a list of unusual mass costumes, simply given the sheer number of priests around the world and the number of ways in which they could express their own individual approach to the faith or simply try a gimmick to draw attention to the parish. Postdlf 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax: no results on Google for either "Peruvian parcher fish" or the likely misspelling, "Peruvian archer fish." RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to be a non-notable adult model or non-notable website of adult model. Deleted previously as non-notable or spam, see first nomination. hateless 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the initial (unsourced) claim that he was "one of the greatest gnostics and spiritual leaders of his time", the article does little to assert the importance or significance of this man above any other run-of-the-mill Islamic scholar. It's actually quite hard to pick out any relevant bits from the article, because it seems to be 90% waffle. Much seems to focus on the achivements and positions of this man's relatives. The subject was politically active in the '60s, but so were a lot of people. I don't see that this man has any special notability. Only 24 Google hits. Aside from all that.. the whole article is extremely POV and smacks of religious preaching: something that does not belong in an encyclopædia. (e.g final paragraph, which begins "Shaykh Amin al-Hasanat is the rightful torchbearer of truth and spirituality"...). Delete EuroSong talk 06:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails both WP:WEB and WP:CORP, reads like advertising, and is largely crystal ball gazing. Agent 86 07:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the Google test - cannot find it at all - and no other related terms return more than one or two results. Possible hoax, or simply vanity.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same user, specifically to expand upon this entry:
RandyWang (raves/rants) 07:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography: the name returns only 26 hits on Google, while "Daniel Koshute" returns only 55. I see no other evidence for notability. RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I whole-heartedly disagree. I decided to look up Dan's bands and make a page on Wikipedia because people ask me about Dan Koshute and want information on him. Everything I wrote on that page is absolutely one-hundred-percent factual. You say it's not a notable biography, but people can't look for him if we don't have something for him. He's done a lot of studio recording and he's an unfathomable talent. He plays with lots of people and does tons of gigs, so people would very much benefit from having a source of info avaiable on Wikipedia. If it gets deleted then there's nothing I can do about that but I will be deeply personally insulted as I put a lot of heart and soul into that webpage. There's no word for it other than injustice. I'll puke if in a year Dan Koshute becomes a popular radio artist and you guys deleted my page on him. How big do you have to be to be on Wikipedia? I know artists with ten well-selling independent albums, but they don't get play on VH1 or Clearchannel, does that mean that no one would want information on them or that they're unworthy of being talked about? I can't concieve of any serious ill that having this informative available would do. It's not a vanity piece what-so-ever since I'm not Dan Koshute and I don't even know him personally. I've just seen him perform. I'm nothing but a passionate fan, case in point see the glowing review I gave to Rambling Ron Boone. --AboveGroundSound 08:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More google results might come up for The Rhodora as far as the many places they play. Though I tried it and it's also the name of a poem. If I merged Dan with pages on The Rhodora and/or other related bands or rising stars would that be any better? --AboveGroundSound 08:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under what condition can I prove that Dan Koshute is currently notable? It's obvious to me based on the amount he's done. I really can't accept a place that would cut down something like this that has only potential for doing good. I won't be using wikipedia again. --AboveGroundSound 08:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of self-classification codes, like the Geek Code, out there. They're fun to make. However, this one doesn't appear to be widely used; a Google search for "LAEN+omnicode" - an identifier which should appear in most such codes - picks up only 40 unique hits, and a search for sites linking to it picks up mostly User Friendly diary pages. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB, extremely few Google hits, no Alexa rank. Prodded, prod removed without comment. Delete --Huon 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An unreferenced WP:WEASEL POV fork of Zionism and Racism, Anti-Zionism, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating Michael Bisco
Neither of these subjects meet WP:BIO Ste4k 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims no assertion of notability byond his role in the murder trial of Scott Peterson. While he was certainly involved in a noteworthy event a quick check of google does not suggest that he gained renown or noteriety thereby and thus still falls short of WP:BIO Eluchil404 09:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yomangani 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, spam, advert. Rob 09:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged as a speedy, but claims to be skateboarding legend. A quick glance at Google results seems to show he's mentioned as featuring on one or more skating DVDs/Videos. I think a speedy is premature. Taking it here for further examination. No vote. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam & advert for nn company. I've already listed the companys advert page for delete. Rob 09:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created by Theo Valich himself. [32] Fails WP:Bio and it's vanity. Dionyseus 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly unencyclopedic trivia. We already have List of Pokémon by name (as well as several other lists at List of Pokémon, so we really don't need the "species" (which is never mentioned outside the info screen in the games) in list form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is claimed to be the co-chairperson of some organization. Is that a valid claim of notability? - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Resume of professor who does not obviously meet WP:PROF. Needs massive clean-up even if she is notable enough to be kept. Eluchil404 10:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT to Teapot Dome scandal Ryanjunk 14:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be a poorly written POV fork of Teapot Dome scandal with nothing to be merged. Ste4k 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A redirect is inappropriate here, as mechanist lacks the Thief (computer game series) context, and actually refers to other things. Mangojuicetalk 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're working on cleaning up the Thief articles, but a sect from the second game doesn't deserve it's own page. --BradBeattie 10:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert/spam for nn company. Rob 11:09, 14 July 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)) . |
The result was delete. No Guru 16:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for nn company. Recent edits have removed much of the spam, but nevertheless I cannot see what makes this company notable. Article reads like an advert and nothing indicates any notability other than they sell stuff. They have also listed themselves under categories they do not appear to belong to, e.g. electronics manufacturers, at least based on the contents of the article. Rob 11:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:NEO applies and the keep'ers have not rebutted the argument that the article is "uninformative" - and probably could not be made so. Redirect to digitalis - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism that is only used in this context in this wikipedia article.--Peta 11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No Guru 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable internet forum (43 registered users at the time of nomination). Was prodded as such and deprodded anonymously without comment. ~ Matticus78 11:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Merging can be proposed separately and debated on talk pages in this case. Mangojuicetalk 03:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is practically empty and has been since its incarnation in 2004. If deleted, nothing is lost, really, but I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if someone expands it. Punkmorten 11:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as reposted content.--Andeh 12:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a repost. Anonymous ips are removing the speedy deletion tag. Here's the link to the second nomination: [33]Dionyseus 10:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertisement. Article was deprodded by author, so bringing it to AFD. Brian G 12:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable website that fails WP:WEB. No reliable sources so unverifiable. Prod was rmoved without comment. Gwernol 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:05, 20 July 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)) . |
Please hold any lengthy discussions on the talk page, so that the AfD will not become too cluttered. Likewise, please check this AfD's talk page for more discussion. --Philosophus T 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD submitted by Byrgenwulf with comment "Added an article, will discuss it right away." This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. See also the article's Talk page. Tevildo 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WARNING REGARDING THE FOLLOWING TABLE
The following table has been identified as a confused or dishonest attempt to mislead the Wikipedia community. The problems with it are as follows:
1. Langan is not "discussing" the CTMU in Wikipedia. Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, and is notable in his own right. It is those who wish to dispute the CTMU, or declare it non-notable, who must show their credentials and prove their authority.
2. Again, Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, not merely the owner of a website which talks about the CTMU or which contains archived materials regarding it. This is a very important distinction which the table fails to reflect.
3. Langan did not write the Wikipedia article on the CTMU. Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, the notable, widely-publicized theory ABOUT which the article was written.
In short, the table below is irrelevant or worse, misrepresenting the situation at hand and encouraging the misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines.
Maybe that's why nobody signed off on it. Asmodeus 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -->
CTMU Article | Wikipedia guidance |
Langan is of limited means and largely self-taught. | Beware false authority Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. |
(Langan's) first paper on the theory, "The Resolution of Newcomb's Paradox", appeared in the December 1989–January 1990 issue of Noesis, the journal of the Noetic Society (now the Mega Society)" (Langan was editor of the Noetic Society when the cited paper was published in Noesis [34].) Cites Langan's self-published works on his website. |
The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web. |
Cites Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) Cites the Christopher Langan biography at ISCID. ISCID and PCID, parts of the same oganization, of which [Langan is a "fellow", have an obvious agenda. |
Also ask yourself: Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Check multiple sources. Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.130.228 (talk • contribs)
. This seems to indicate that it is cosmology: philosophy doesn't deal in expanding universes or "conspansion", really. And, a bit of a slip up here, the Hawking-Hartle model wasn't "proposed" in Hawking's pop science book, but in Phys. Rev. D28, 2960 (1983). Byrgenwulf 18:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]A cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s Participatory Universe and the Stephen Hawking-James Hartle "imaginary time" theory of cosmology proposed in Hawking’s phenomenal book A Brief History of Time, the CTMU resolves many of the most intractable paradoxes known to physical science while explaining recent data which indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
Comment. The mainstream media coverage is about both the person and the theory, and features the theory prominently. The Times, for example, begins its article (Wigmore, Barry (February 7, 2000); "Einstein's brain, King Kong's body") with:
Every age has its great thinkers: Plato looked at metaphysics, ethics, and politics; Descartes tried to rebuild human knowledge; Bertrand Russell gave us mathematical logic; from Stephen Hawking came A Brief History of Time. Now there's Chris Langan, the brainy bouncer, with his Cognition-Theoretic Model of the Universe.
20/20 uses the theory as a framing device:
...I found arguably the smartest person in America in eastern Long Island. [...] His name is Christopher Langan and he’s working on his masterpiece: a mathematical, philosophical manuscript, with a radical view of the universe.[45]
The Popular Science header says:
He's a working class guy with an IQ that's off the charts. What does he have to say about science? Everything -- a theory of everything, that is.[46]
The caption of the article's photo reads:
Christopher Langan spends his downtime coming up with a solution to a problem that philosophers and scientists have pondered for thousands of years.
So the CTMU has not just been "referenced in at least one major mainstream publication" as the proposed notability guideline for non-mainstream theories requires, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines", but has received prominent, attention-getting placement in many such publications, with circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions. It deserves its own article. Tim Smith 16:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something tells me a fat dude on Long Island is having a tough time keeping track of all his sockpuppets! LOL Keglined 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article seems to be well-verified and addresses a notable topic (I read about Langan and the CTMU in Popular Science). Genotypical 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to add my opinion, not to be insulted. Genotypical 19:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Haven't seen this many socks since my last trip to JC Penny's. I just read the main article's description of "Expansion QUA Contraction," and had to laugh. No offense, guys (sic), but I'd bet plenty of people on psychedelic drugs have come up with more convincing "alternative" explanations of e=mc2 than this one. :)
Keep. It meets the notability requirements. Whether or not it is currently accepted by a majority of philosophers, what one considers to be "gibberish," whether one personally accepts the theory, what one's philosophical persuasion is, and what one's opinion of a theory's author is have little to no relevance here.68.122.147.181 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipendians - Please move Discussion about the merits of the Theory/Psuedo-science to another page.
If the artcle does have notability and critism outside of bar bouncers or their apologists, the article should stay. I am not a sock, I am an apologist for Berkley Idealism; neither opinions affect me unless I see the argument in real time. I can see this becoming a vanity decision (purely based on the number of socks) deleted on that basis. There is no need for paragraph after paragraph of debate. All interested editors have expressed opinions now (Disregarding ppl who have socked). I can only see what i see now, but it would make it very difficult to decide other than a delete. With the original editors continually rejecting rewrites - a blatent POV or WP:Notability. Without allowing other editors to edit text what is the point of the article? Blog it somewhere. With constant RV of critism sections the article it is a shambles.
(put please read Serpents's Choice post below re: other methods of adjudication/ resolution) - why prolong a decision with fruitless debate? Mike33 07:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) repost with amendments Mike33 08:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nonsense. Not a scientific theory. KarenAnn 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Langan article. The wide variety of news sources confirms the theory/author as notable, but not as scientific (and most of the writing on the theory itself is gibberish). Re: Jefffire, I don't think >14,000 Google hits is a fair standard at all. (Edit: Whoops, forgot sig.) Icewolf34 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin. The CTMU article was created in September 2005 and proceeded peacefully and largely unchanged until last week, when it erupted in controversy. Since then, the article has seen over 220 edits, over 140 of which were during this AfD. An edit war has waged for the whole course of the AfD, with users inserting and deleting huge blocks of text on less than a moment's notice, and reverting each other just as quickly. The size of the article has ranged from 9 KB to 27 KB, the number of sections from 7 to 12, the number of references from 5 to 12, the number of footnotes from 0 to 42. The version of the article that is now protected bears nearly no resemblance to the one originally nominated for deletion.
The AfD discussion itself has obviously also been chaotic. It is filled with one-edit users and IPs, loud accusations of forgery, a large anonymously-added table, personal attacks, irrelevant debates about the validity of the theory, an anonymous user having a conversation with himself, and so on. Many of the reasons given as justification depend crucially on which transitory version of the article the user saw: a user dissatisfied with 5 references might have approved 12, a user calling the article unverifiable with 0 footnotes might have accepted 42; a user calling the 27 KB version gibberish might have found the 9 KB version more understandable.
In short, it is impossible to extract an informed decision from an AfD conducted during an edit war of this scope. At this point, the only option I see is to close with no consensus. Tim Smith 04:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two separate speedy tags removed by page author. Not notable and vanity page by the person about whom it is. Suitable for Speedy, surely Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy G1 by Geogre. Tevildo 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement and nonencyclopedic. Earlier tag for speedy delete was removed by author. Therefore a listing here. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ten google hits on this. It is apparently an unusual looking ice cream stand. While I agree that it's a cool looking ice cream stand(see http://www.salvadorsicecream.com/ ), this doesn't make it notable by wikipedia standards Xyzzyplugh 13:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Kimchi.sg 10:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rescued from speedy. Not really speediable, but meets WP:MUSIC marginally if at all, having apparently just one record (I don't know how notable the label, Finger Records, is) and no assertion of major tours or venues. The one thread that suvivability of this article can hang is that one member later joined U.S. Bombs, which has an article (although I don't know how notable U.S. Bombs really is) and WP:MUSIC notes that notability can (not "must") be gained if "...Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable...". WP:MUSIC goes on to say that in this case "...it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such...", but I'm not sure if a redirect is usable here since another member joined a different group (Firecracker 500) which I think has an album or albums and may also be notable. Herostratus 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a non-notable high school football team. Does not appear to have made any significant impact, and doesn't register significantly on google. The page has been tagged for lack of importance since April. MLA 13:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 10:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable British sports company; article created by User:Davindersangha who, oddly enough, is the sole owner of the company. NawlinWiki 14:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Kimchi.sg 10:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same person as John Davidson (game show host), from what I can tell. A merge or possible renaming could suffice. Kirjtc2 14:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soldier who died a few days ago in Israel. Doesn't meet WP:BIO Xyzzyplugh 14:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Created by User:Ejourney. -- Fan-1967 14:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just an ad for the site. Author is SocialSeeker, whose only edits are to this page. --DarkAudit 15:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to sports club. Mangojuicetalk 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word Polideportivo isn't found in any English dictionary or encyclopedia. For the other side, it is the translation for multisports and is used in multisports club (Spanish: Club polideportivo). It should be redirected to sports club or simply deleted. Typelighter 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert, Not Notable. StanMan 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail Wikipedia:Vanity (as seen in this talk page edit[48] and page creation history[49]), Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. CovenantD 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Welsh rabbit, which covers the "cheese on toast" variant already. Mangojuicetalk 03:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Content duplicated by article Welsh rarebit Cavie78 15:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as hoax. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax, creator refuses to provide a source for it being real. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U | T | C | E ) 15:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bare list with no explanatory text. All the malls are blue links to be sure, but Category:Shopping_malls_in_North_Carolina also exists and seems to serve exactly the same purpose. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. The talk page doesn't give much support although I note the question has been raised. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 04:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any notability in this bio. NawlinWiki 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 10:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable candidate for party nomination for state house seat. NawlinWiki 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Yohji Yamamoto. Mangojuicetalk 04:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mykeblack (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) objected to the original speedy deletion request that was filed when the article was a few sentences longer. I still don't think a blurb on a line of designer clothing that belongs in a catalogue is remotely close to being notable in an encyclopedic sense. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 15:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Initialized as an attack/nonsense article, now consists of claims with zero Google results. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that this group is notable per, let's say, WP:ORG. They do not appear to have any connection with or endorsement from Giuliani. Their claim to fame is being "a federally-filed committee with the Federal Election Commission", which I assume is a matter of filling out some forms. Sandstein 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Anyone who wants to recreate as a redirect, if they feel strongly, go ahead. Mangojuicetalk 04:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is only a translation of a Latin phrase. 24fan24 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete with particular credence given to the cogent presentations by obvious mathematical experts like Arthur Rubin and the rebuttal of the keep advoocates.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT for things made up in geometry class. Prod'd by me, deprod'd. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, this article describes original research by Bowers that has never appeared in print. I do think that this is worthwhile mathematical research performed by trained mathematicians, but I don't see that it fits the mission and policies of Wikipedia. Bowers' web page is an appropriate place to share this research with the world (and by setting up their own installation of mediawiki, the authors could transfer these page to UniformPolytopeWiki without much difficulty).
Here is my assessment of the literature. I was unable to find Bowers' name on mathscinet. I was able to find some papers by Norman in the 1960s on uniform polytopes. There is a vague promise at http://hometown.aol.com/polycell/uniform.html that a book by Norman on uniform polytopes will be published by Cambridge press, but Google returns no other information on the book. There is no indication that the terminology here will appear in the book. That page claims it is currently “the only place in the world where you can find this information!” which supports the claim that the work on uniform polytope classification falls into the wikipedia original research category.
CMummert 17:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of digging using search term Jonathan Bowers polyhedra finds a host of links some of which include
Delete per WP:OR and WP:V (cf CMummert and Dpbsmith's comments). Keep votes do not attempt to refute that the article violates these policies. --C S (Talk) 10:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and restub. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another copyvio. Compare 'After taking a 7-0 lead on a Ken Dorsey strike to Roscoe Parrish, it appeared that Miami was on its way to an easy win as the Buckeyes didn't get a first down until late in the first quarter. The Buckeyes finally got moving midway through the second quarter. After OSU quarterback Craig Krenzel was stuffed on third down on the goal line, head coach Jim Tressel made his first really big decision of the game. He went for it and Krenzel was barely able to get in to tie it at seven.' with 'After taking a 7-0 lead on a Ken Dorsey strike to Roscoe Parrish, it appeared that Miami was on its way to an easy win as the Buckeyes didn't get a first down until late in the first quarter. The Buckeyes finally got moving midway through the second quarter. After OSU quarterback Craig Krenzel was stuffed on third down on the goal line, head coach Jim Tressel had his first really big decision of the game. He went for it and Krenzel was barely able to get in to tie it at seven.' from here. Delete or reduce to a stub and start again. It would be helpful if User:Summonmaster13 could let us know how many more of these there are (or even better fix them) rather than us finding them one by one. BlueValour 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
too broad of a description, choices are based on vague impressions rather than sources, list will never be complete JianLi 17:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic. This stuff belongs in a legal textbook, not an encyclopedia. Voortle 17:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bare list. I'm not sure I see why this list should exist. There is already a category: Category:Shopping malls in Georgia (U.S. state) ... see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in North Carolina. No talk page, no support for existance. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft and unencyclopedic. This article is unsourced (one website is given and nothing is cited) and full of original research in the trivia section. Furthermore, the biography sections are all cut and paste jobs from the singular website given as a source. As such, this is a WP:COPYVIO violation hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Helicoptor 12:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
unclear notoreity/legitimacy, was tagged CSD but seems to make seevral several claims. No opinion myself. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus on Jonathan Bowers, delete on the rest. Mangojuicetalk 04:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is a non-notable math and numbers fan with a big imagination. I suggest his page be deleted, together with Jonathan Bowers' large numbers, Jonathan Bowers' array notation and all the redirects to Jonathan Bowers: Quingentillion -- Sescentillion -- Septingentillion -- Octingentillion -- Nongentillion -- Millillion -- Nanillion -- Zeptillion -- Yoctillion -- Vecillion -- Mecillion -- Duecillion -- Trecillion -- Tetrecillion -- Pentecillion -- Hexecillion -- Heptecillion -- Octecillion -- Ennecillion -- Icosillion -- Triacontillion -- Tetracontillion -- Pentacontillion -- Hexacontillion -- Heptacontillion -- Googolplexian -- Googolquadriplex -- Googolquinplex -- Googolsexplex -- Googolseptaplex -- Googoloctaplex -- Googolnonaplex -- Googoldecaplex -- Octacontillion -- Ennacontillion -- Hectillion -- Killillion -- Megillion -- Gigillion -- Terillion -- Petillion -- Exillion -- Zettillion -- Yottillion -- Xennillion -- Vekillion -- Duekillion -- Trekillion -- Tetrekillion -- Pentekillion -- Hexekillion -- Heptekillion -- Octekillion -- Ennekillion -- Twentillion -- Triatwentillion -- Icterillion -- Thirtillion -- Fortillion -- Fiftillion -- Sixtillion -- Seventillion -- Eightillion -- Nintillion -- Hundrillion -- Thousillion -- Lakhillion -- Crorillion -- Awkillion -- Bentrizillion -- Botillion -- Trotillion -- Icpetillion -- Ikectillion -- Iczetillion -- Ikyotillion -- Icxenillion -- Multillion -- Versillion -- Supillion -- Gaxillion -- Mejillion -- Gijillion -- Astillion -- Lunillion -- Fermillion -- Jovillion -- Solillion -- Betillion -- Glocillion -- Notillion -- Yootillion -- Zotillion -- Exotillion -- Potillion -- Totillion -- Dalillion -- Tralillion -- Talillion -- Palillion -- Exalillion -- Zalillion -- Yalillion -- Nalillion . So, Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nandesuka 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft/gamecruft and unencyclopedic. This article is unsourced and full of original research . The list is also rendundant, as there is already a category for Soul Cailbur characters hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft/gamecruft and unencyclopedic. This article is unsourced and full of original research . The list is also rendundant, as there is already a category for Tekken characters hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Eluchil404 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft/gamecruft and unencyclopedic. This article is unsourced and full of original research . The list is also rendundant, as there is already a category for Yu-Gi-Oh! characters hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all (including the ones listed below). Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needless disambiguation pageless. No one's going to search for January in the year 1. The user that created this is probably a sock of User:Jose and Ricardo. Voortle 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Calton | Talk 00:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP as a notable failed game. Ryanjunk 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None notable game that failed. Trunk 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The result was Keep Eluchil404 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article on large numbers. This is mainly a redundant article as the names and values of large numbers can already be explained in the large numbers article. Voortle 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. "NN" doesn't convince me of anything, but the verifiability concerns do. Mangojuicetalk 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable person, as is Jonathan Bowers above. Many people could equally have claimed to have invented the term gay pride. This doesn't make the guy notable. Oh Crap 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are links to the first two AfDs, both of which failed to get consensus for deletion:
The result was DELETE. TigerShark 11:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem notable, except possibly by association. Found it by accident. All edits four months ago by 2000 Flushes (talk · contribs). — Jul. 14, '06 [18:33] <freak|talk>
The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short article with 2 links to themselves. If that's not enough you can click "Corporate Blog" external link and see what they say about WP. --Richhoncho 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mangojuicetalk 12:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable local politician. I declare an interest insofar as Steve's colleague in Preston Town Hall is someone who beat me in an election a few years ago, but I have nominated for deletion LibDem and Green candidates on the basis of WP:BIO which I believe this article fails too. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Eluchil404 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
article itself states that they only exist in one media, Pokecruft without encyclopedic value -- nae'blis (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads completely like an advert and, not surprisingly, was written by User:Skunkboy. A search for skunkboy is problematic since it seems to be a very popular Internet handle. Alexa gives it a ranking of almost 4.5 million. Delete as unverifiable, advert. Metros232 18:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was del-eat. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a hoax or something made up in school one day. I can't find the reference anywhere and I severely doubt Longman published it (Longman is part of Pearson Education and only publishes education-related materials). Metros232 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a game that didn't work. Either this is a joke or it's a failure on WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 18:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A web forum - the most visited FF forum on the web! According to the webmaster, anyway, and surely she would have no reason to exaggerate? Apparently "Because it was not recorded as it happened, the history of Final Fantasy Shrine is convoluted and difficult to accurately report". So we can't. Oh, but we do! Btw, I have an unsatisfactory life and dress up as a little girl to pleasure myself with my wand of justice. Just with speculation instead of fact. And that sets the theme for the whole article, I'm afraid. It is possible that an article on this web forum might be worth having, not that it matters at all to anyone, but then again I seem to have an inferiority complex, due to my lack of female attention and outbreak of acne. (although a para in the FF article is almost certianly sufficient). Almost all of this, though, is original research. Who defines what is notable? What constitutes an in-joke? Why should anyone outside the forums care about that anyway? So: I say delete this, redirect to FF and then keep an encyclopaedic para on the forum in that article. Just zis Guy you know? 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about no. This is a 100% informative article on probably one of the most active FF Fansites on the web. While a fair few of the general regulars share less interest in the series, there are still very high amount of interest expressed in the Final Fantasy forums. The writer of the article was explaining that the people that post for General Chat have already aired their views on the Final Fantasy series.
The reason the forum has in jokes, is because a lot of the General Discussion based members are a closely knit community.
I say leave this alone and stop complaining when there is no reason to.
- Lewis, or Rapture.
First off, I don't really see how this point: "I have been a fan for many years and read many fansites, I have never come across this one", can really be seen as vindication for the deletion of the entire article. By that logic almost every article on Wikipedia ought to be deleted because I haven't come across their source topic before. Pretty ridiculous.
The next point made for deletion refers to a nonexistent contradiction. Whilst it is true that much of the regular members hold no desire to stage discussions about the Final Fantasy franchise, an awful lot still do and with a steady flow of around 40 members joining everyday, almost without exception to discuss Final Fantasy, the Final Fantasy forums remain a hive of activity.
As for the "who defines what is fact" argument, surely this applicable to absolutely every piece of information on the planet. What is a fact to one person is a lie to the next, and it's just a matter of perspective. And while it's undeniable that there is an amount speculation within the article, everything written has been thoroughly researched, and how is the researched-as-far-as-possible speculation in this article any different from say, the speculation in the Bible entry, and I'm not for a moment suggesting that that be deleted as the information contained in that entry is, like this one, as accurate is can possibly be.
"Almost everything from the Jargon section is part of normal web/game lingo and not unique or especially prominent to FFShrine." This is of course true, but just because there is an overlap between the Jargon section and any sort of web lingo dictionary does not make its documentation any less relevant. These are the most commonly used pieces of jargon on the site and that was what the author was drawing the readers' attention to, and not trying to suggest that there were FFShrine originals, unique to the site or anything remotely like that.
The suggestion that the article is "spam" is clearly incorrect in my opinion. It would be spam if upon opening the article you were greeted with "LOL, JOIN US ON FFSHRINE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!1", or something along those lines. However, the article is presenting the history of the site in an informative manner with there clearly being a lot of effort on the part of the author(s) to keep the article as respectable as possible and totally avoid straying into spam. Or maybe my definition of spam is incorrect?
In all, I see no real reason for the deletion of the FFShrine article, at least not more than I can see real reason for the deletion of almost every article on here.
-- Mossy
I don't really give two fucks, tbh. But the fact that you made the effort just to put some tiny article up for deletion and have a bunch of cretins vote on it should give us some indication of how small your penis is. And how often I have to rip into your wife just to keep her satisfied. Leave the fucking page alone, you touchy, over sensitive fuckrag.
WIKIPEDIA, MORE LIKE, WANK MY PEDIA!
LOL
(_ _")
No, you should not delete this very interesting and imformative article. Why? Because: Final Fantasy Forums is fastly becoming one of the world's biggest forums based one of the world's biggest thing. With nearly 24,000 signed up members, and a fascinating history that spans for 5 years, people are bound to want to know more about the history of FFShrine Forums.
Anyway Wikipedia has thousands of articles that are only a few lines short! Search Sumatra for example. With an interesting, informative and humourous article, I see no point in deleting this one. A lot of eventful things have happened to Final Fantasy Forums, though I have not been here to see all of them happen. And everyone one of those events brought FFShrine Forums to a closer relationship. We are a very tight community, and if you want to bring us down, we will hold our ground!
What is fact? Well almost everything you hear could be a lie, well at least not the whole truth. People exaggerating to make themselves better, stories or information being passed down and leaving out small bits, non accurate calculations etc etc etc. Not you hear is 100% true. Sit an apple infront of you and say its just an apple is lying to yourself because there is much more than just an apple. There is living bacteria and a whole lot of other stuff there as well. Why i'm talking about apples i do not know. They are healthy ^^ Remember guys 5 serves of veges and 2 serves of fruit a day!!!
P.S Rezo is such a good drawer. Go to www.kiwisbybeat.com The only place you can see his amazing Minus Strips ^^ It is very, very, very very very, very ,very worth your time and effort.
- Alvinz
The result was moved to WP:RFD as a redirect for deletion; closed there too. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this redirects to Nicolaus Copernicus --PhiJ 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's now been changed to a Redirects for deletion --PhiJ 19:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this has any notability, then it is totally lost in the translation, "Peters and their shadows." What does that mean? --Richhoncho 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone is using this as a personal website, not as an encyclopedia.
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. It looks like an idea somebody has for revolutionizing advertising that they decided to publish at Wikipedia. (The original version said the term was "coined by me".) Whether or not it's a good idea, it's not ready for an article. The external link isn't really a source, and also claims coinage... Relevant policies and guidelines would be WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and Wikipedia:No original research. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the crew would not be deemed notable (if they are, they can be mentioned in the main article). Links to IMDb pages were long ago deemed sufficient for this type of thing. MisfitToys 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 10:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected breach of WP:AUTO Guinnog 10:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:80.192.18.180 is presumably Mr Campbell himself; it was after I noticed the user adding references to his own books to several articles on my watchlist and challenged him on it that he set up his present account. --Guinnog 20:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally prod'd as "Nearly a dictionary definition, cannot be significantly expanded beyond that definition." Prod removed by an anon adding an ((NPOV)) and ((dict)) tags. I still say delete, but it might be transwikied to Wiktionary, if someone there wants it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Snittker - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - no salvageable content, although the page should not be subject to CSD G4 deletions if recreated with more encyclopedic content, per Drenched. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinly veiled attack page; if I'm unitentionally assuming bad faith, I apologise; the article is also grounds for deletion as a blatant violation of WP:NOR hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete pending Phaedriel's research. Contact me (or any admin) if you would like the contents of the old article. This deletion should not be subject to CSD G4 in the event that notability can be established. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote, procedural nom. This was twice speedy deleted, and tagged for repost again, for which it's ineligible, see WP:CSD. The article is about an independent musician, who may meet WP:MUSIC (his CD's are sold here, e.g.) and/or may be independently notable as a native-american rapper. Or he may be NN. You decide! - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anybody who mails their CDs to CDBaby can put them up for sale. So anybody who wants to spend up to $1,500 to have a pressing is in business. Of course every gigging act has a pressing these days. I understand that actual sales are very low at CDBaby. --Richhoncho 21:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*I believe He should stay as an article because he is very popular among the native american community and even though he may not be very popular outside that community there are still people who may want to know more about him.--Remember Wounded Knee!!! 04:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*If you care so much about it then why don't you edit it you british @$$HOLE!--Remember Wounded Knee!!! 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Because this is america and none of you foreigners are going to tell me what to do, okay FELLOW!--Remember Wounded Knee!!! 14:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*I think its time for you to go back to your own country.--Remember Wounded Knee!!! 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*The Wu Tang Clan ain't nuttin' ta f*ck with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soaring Eagle (talk • contribs) . *If you can have an article on wikipedia about oral sex and a list of sex positions then you should be able to have an article on buggin malone.--Remember Wounded Knee!!! 16:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if you people delete this article, Im just going to put it back up so just forget about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soaring Eagle (talk • contribs) .
Does anyone know how to upload pictures into articles? I tried it and it was too confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soaring Eagle (talk • contribs) .
Al yoo verjinz kneed too get of thee cumputur and gow get layd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soaring Eagle (talk • contribs) .
NOTE. This artist apparently has become increasingly popular among several Native American communities, specially the Winnebago and Potawatomi of Wisconsin. I promise, right here and now, that I'll try my very best in the next days to research on the subject and provide every bit of info I can dig, as well as researching on its alleged notability, for which I cannot vouch now. Should this article become deleted in the meantime (I'm going out on vacation for a day or two tomorrow), and if I reach a favorable conclusion re. its notability, I'll contact the involved users and administrators to consider it submitting to Deletion review. In the meantime, on behalf of those Native Americans wikipedians that try and help to improve this project everyday, I wish to tell you that I'm embarrased and saddened by the judgements made by this particular user, which in no way represent the feelings of the vast majority of Native Americans nor those of us involved in Wikipedia. Warm regards to all of you, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone put an AFD on this page on the 20th of last month, but never completed the process, and the tag is still around. Completing this nom. No opinion from me.-Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as self-published author of God Found which was recently AfD'd. Deprodded without comment.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism that should stay in Urban Dictionary (delete) or weak redirect to Southernplayalisticadillacmuzik. --feydey 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to elision. Elide can be one form of the word elision, and the redirect will help people find our article on elision. Kimchi.sg 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is advertising and/or self-promotion for an unknown band Daniel Quinlan 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]Advertisements or spam: These may be subject to deletion, but not speedy deletion. There is often a chance to replace them with an NPOV version instead.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A student organisation with tenuous claims to notability. Those are in the 'Awards and Achievements' section, and a Google searched for the name of the organisation coupled with the concrete awards, as well as a general Factiva search, turned up no reliable sources for the organisation having won them. That doesn't mean they're making them up, it probably just means the awards aren't notable, and therefore don't confer notability. Needless to say, without external verification the claims to notability can be ignored completely. Delete. Sam Blanning(talk) 11:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mangojuicetalk 12:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a promotional advertisement to me. PhaseSpace is the name of the company. Article describes the product. Link at bottom of page goes to company website. KarenAnn 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I note that there was no discussion about the modifications I made to keep it within the criteria set forth. Then when I recreated the article, there was no discussion at all.Tmcsheery 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mangojuicetalk 12:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When we discussed the Sidney bus routes the concensus was that bus timetables are not appropriate for WP. The CAT system is already covered in the Raleigh, North Carolina article and I have added the few additional facts. All that is left is timetables and fares. Delete. BlueValour 21:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article meets the notability guidelines, then I would recommend that it be kept and expanded. 68.50.203.109 08:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ad for company that fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Alexa ranking of 653,958. —Caesura(t) 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but advertising. Even if their hearts are pure, this is still pure spam. My vote is Delete Dipics 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Billion dollar mark up have you seen how cheap thes shoes are. TOMS is world renound phenomenon have you seen its recent press i truly think this is something people should be able to find more out about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.120.121 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ad for software that fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). See also my nomination for the company that developed it. —Caesura(t) 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What can I do to revised this article, This is along the same type of article as MYSQL, MS SQL and Others. And includes History, information, about, details and more. I do not understand.
What is incorrect about the article and why would it be deleted. I really want to know what I need to do to re-submit it. I have spend two weeks on it. I followed the guidelines and researched other software related articles on this site prior to submitting.
The result was no consensus. While counting votes gives a 75% delete count, there were several opinions expressed that this could be a valid topic, and the article has also changed significantly since the AfD so that it is not an advertisement and demonstrates notability (as mentioned as reasons for deletion by some voters). It may be best to give the article some time, and renominate later if it can be shown that it can't cut it in Wikipedia. JYolkowski // talk 23:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just advertisement. The page's creator has not only removed the tag from the page but also blanked this page and removed the listing from Afd. My vote is an obvious Strong Delete Dipics 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start on this one? The article appears to be self-written, and is indescribable; you have to read it. (One of the section headings is: "The Wisdom From the Infinitely Spiritual Light BEing Channeled Through Dr. Patti "Diamondlady" Diamond, DD.") Generates 79 unique GHits, just about all of of which appear to be self-generated, mainly press-release sites and forums. Her books are published by Lulu, a print-on-demand operation; one has an Amazon sales rank of "None", the other about 1.9 million. Her "doctorate" (every single mention of her contains the "DD") is from Universal Ministries, the people who will ordain anyone for a couple bucks. I see no evidence of any genuine notability, and this looks like advertising. Fan-1967 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fahrenheit 451, nothing to merge by now. Kimchi.sg 11:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
minor character; little useful content (direct quotes from book); should be merged with main article? Nyvhek 21:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Roy A.A. 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod'd several days ago, anonymous user removed it so sending it to AfD. This article is almost certainly a hoax (an American with background in Cubo-Futurism helped Saddam Hussein pen an illicit novel and now lives on a boat in California). Of course Google revealed nothing backing anything in this article up. -- H·G (words/works) 21:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was speedy delete - repost. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN local club - fewer members than my local social club. Hardly any independent Google hits here. BlueValour 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 11:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sourcing and no Google hits here that indicates that this is a generally used term. Delete BlueValour 21:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 11:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sourcing. Not verifiable. Insufficient Google hits to underpin significance here. BlueValour 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (repost of copyvio). OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable instruction method (zero Google hits). Prod tag was removed by author without comment OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May have been notable once but no longer. Delete. BlueValour 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No notability asserted. Nothing to distinguish this from thousands of other malls. Delete BlueValour 22:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced personal pseudoscience. Author disputes prod. Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am disputing the pseudoscience comment not the author. To consider either claim requires verification, not opinion? I have several websites with observed cellular structures that could not be otherwise seen without nm magnification. www.microscience2006.org.uk/cgi-bin/press_view_details.cgi?press_id=erg49719053 which is the press release at the Royal Microscopical Show at Excel London 2006. www.grayfieldoptical.com - a company who sell the nanoscope and have video records. www.improvision.com/products/rtm/ - who sell the Richardson version of the nanoscope with resolutions down to under 100nm. Yes, as a Graduate Physicist, I was more than sceptical of the claims knowing of the 300nm wavelength resolution limit of light. But there are references from the 1940's where respected institutions (articles available if required) considered there might be ways around them. When my son was diagnosed with Diabetes last month I began to search for causes and a cure. This led to the Rife claims which were initially preposterous. However digging up all the literature (I do mean all including Court Cases!) led to a simple premise. How could he have obtained his images? How could his frequency methods work on Lymes disease where antibiotics fail? ("When antibiotics fail--Lyme disease and rife machines" by Bryan Rosner). There are numerous unsupported claims for his machines but surely the real proof would be to reproduce his high powered microscope? To this end I decided to view the Rife #5 microscope (Ex Dr Gonin of University College, London) to try to understand it better. Hours of research on the internet led to the Erganom microscope of Kurt Olbrich which was synchronistically on show in London the following week! You can see 30nm data spacings on the new DVD discs live. Astonishing! So I think the evidence for optical nanoscopes is very strong. It is also very important that the data on Wikipedia is accurate. Let me know what more evidence is required? If you just think about it for a moment the medical possibilities are revolutionary. At the moment the electron microscope sample has to be dead and in a vacuum. The optical nanoscope allows one to see live cellular phenomena down to viral sizes. I have not put it in this article but you can see the action of cancer causing particles as described by rife. How slightly alkaline blood reduces their mobility. You can also see the destruction of pathogenic cells. Even more importantly you can see where Rife was wrong! With modern equipment you can see viruses evading frequencies and needing multiples, so all in all a remarkable discovery that the world needs to know about. There is even perhaps some mileage in a possible cure for type 1 diabetes. Two patients have been cured using retrodifferentiated stem cells with ongoing research at Cambridge University. I cannot be bothered with the hassle of placing a challenged article but I am following the research closely. There is currently one (yes one!) nanoscope in use in the UK which to my mind could actually show how the body destroys pancreatic beta cells? Is this sort of work important? Of course it is and accurate articles on Wikipedia will help the process. Regards Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris500 (talk • contribs)
There seems to be genuine confusion over this new topic. A microscope magnifies to micrometers with a max effective resolution of x2000 limited by wavelength optics. A nanoscope magnifies to nanometers. Most nanoscopes use smaller wavelengths to achieve this (X rays, etc) but this destroys live cells. An electron microscope also shows nanometric sizes but has it's own category. An optical nanoscope breaks the conventional light wavelength barrier and allows the observation of live cells. (At nm levels viruses can be seen). The literature on this subject is sparse (but I will find some) because it is considered impossible in Physics Books. Now you have the logical description of the products? This is not how they are described! The high resolution optical microscopes that show nanometric sizes should then be called nanoscopes. They are not. They are still called microscopes due to their historical method. Confusing or what! The Erganom 500, used at University College, is still called a microscope when surely the correct term is a nanoscope? I take your reasonable point that hard evidence is required before insertion. This will be provided. Thanks
The concept for this nanoscope (which is called a microscope) was developed in the 1970's. Perhaps understandably, but regrettably, it was decided by users that secrecy outweighed scientific knowledge. However letters confirming it's qualities are as below: Institute for Immunology, Witten University, Germany . www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/expertise.pdf . Dr Greenberg, University College, London . www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/greenberg.gif . Professor Gerd Binning, Nobel Prize winner 1986 for electron microscope . www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/Binning.pdf . This is quite good verification but presumably not enough! Let me know what else is required! I will obtain originals if that is what is required.
Fair comment. Please check the latest updates including a verified article from Science 2004 on the work of Dr Brinkmann of the Max Planck Institute on Neurophils. Also there is a letter from a Nobel Winning physicist Professor Binnig. It doesn't come any better than that!? Yes, you are correct there is some laxity in the use of terms for microscopes (or nanoscopes and whatever else they might be called). There is resolution and magnification and how the human eye detects these. Magnification is the multiplication of the original objects size and is often referred to lenses. You can magnify an image on a photocopier but you don't increase the definition, or resolution. The key measure, as you say, is the resolution or the size of the smallest two points that can be distinguished. This is defined in the classic Richard Feynmann Physics text (Lectures on Physics Vol 1:27-8) as distance "d = lambda(wavelength of light)/nxsin(theta). The smallest things that we can see are therefore approximately the wavelength of light", or 400nm. If you can see objects smaller than this then that theory must be wrong? That is the method of science. This wavelength 'barrier' is the limit that has been broken and now allows the observation of live cellular phenomena. Coincidentally it also opens up the new field of electromagnetic medicine to scientific experiments. To me it is more than strange that human and animal electrowhatever phenomena have not been clinically examined. They exist. They are powerful. They are a part of what makes us think.
Quite correctly you question my motives. It's simply the only one you can ever have. Truth.
Is there a real result in these new optical nanoscopes? I think so and appreciate your questions to show evidence. It is not even clear at the moment what they are called!
You might sense that I am pretty well pissed off with the Medical Establishment. My son was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes just before his A levels. This marvellous and costly Health Service of ours didn't know what caused it and considered it incurable. Bollocks! Get off your overpaid complacent fat arses and find out why. Do I really need to do it!!!????
I am a trained Theoretical Physicist from Imperial College and have spent my lifetime solving problems that were considered impossible by those too feeble to look. I know the limits of science and nature. You don't get any more fundamental than the observational limits of Quantum Mechanics. Everthing else is just detail, including the human body. I look, and I mean really look with a passion that brooks no obstacle, and I find that a Drugs Based medical establishment oversees most research and is not looking for cures but ways to make billions of dirty dollars. Disgusting. Tell that to a 5 year old with daily injections. Tell that to a Food Industry that knowingly sells products containing damaging cheap products to children. I hope to see the day when it is considered a crime.
I find that a billion sheep with two legs blitley believe the pseudoscience tag of rife WITHOUT the brains to examine it. EXAMINE IT STUPID!!! Simple logic indicates a measurable phenomena. Have a look. Prove or disprove the results. It couldn't be simpler really. As Jeremy Clarkson so aptly says "why are people so stupid and slow!".
You look and find that you can see these phenomena, and it has been known for 30 BLOODY YEARS! F***ing ridiculous!!
Next time you are in hospital just think how many illnesses could be solved by such technology. Then ask yourself what you are doing about it.
SOD ALL.
The result was Userfy. Mostly Rainy 10:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN, should be moved to use space. Sanbeg 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Ryanjunk 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not played for a NBA team and no outstanding college notability. BlueValour 23:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (no consensus), recommend merge to Lindsay Lohan per Deletion policy and arguments below. The nominator's point about the other articles not having a discography page is well taken, but that is an argument for merge, not deletion. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 albums don't need a discography page VivianDarkbloom 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ani DiFranco doesn't have a discography page. Rosanne Cash doesn't have a discography page. Nick Drake doesn't have a discography page. P.J._Harvey doesn't have a discography page. Bette Midler doesn't have a discography page. Dolly Parton doesn't have a discography page. Linda Ronstadt doesn't have a discography page. Alison Krauss doesn't have a discography page. Lucinda Williams doesn't have a discography page. I don't what the cutoff point shou'd be, but it's higher than 2 albums. VivianDarkbloom 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Grandmasterka 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
crystal-balling VivianDarkbloom 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This might be Madonna's next single and might come out in the Fall, only evidence is a junior writer at Billboard's blog and that's not a reliable source. It might deserve an article if that happens, right now it's like somebody who might be elected to Congress. VivianDarkbloom 23:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedy Delete per A7 and below. — Deckiller 04:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages Beyholm 23:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Worthy of an entry, as the site is not noteworthy enough in either the limitted context of Australia, or in wider Internet culture. projectphp 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I came up with a quick google.
The 1st one looks passable, the 2nd one looks iffy. Anything else? I agree forum posts aren't reliable sources. As someone who's never heard of Zazz before (or Woot), I'm neutral, though the store concept is definitely interesting. If it doesn't survive the AfD, perhaps a small portion can be added to a section in Woot (retailer), and Zazz can become a redirect to there. TransUtopian 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]