The result was speedy redirect, AfD was not necessary - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simple mis-spelling entry Wauconda, Illinois already exists JT GS1US 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — FireFox 20:18, 20 July '06
NN/OR. Although the article has a couple of references, they're to dead pages. The word 'Gogan' googles very high, but not with this meaning (except this Wikipedia article itself). Googling 'gogan goth bogan' gets a fair number of hits but they seem to originate in Wikipedia in most cases. This article is a classic example of someone using Wikipedia to seed something NN in the internet. The concept is not even defined in the article in such a way to make it clear what differentiate a 'gogan' from 'goth' in general. mgekelly 07:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy G3. Tawker 06:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vague title, and previous material divided between more specific pages. Current article itself is not a likely search term. EEMeltonIV 04:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was should be listed at IfD, not AfD. DarthVader 02:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur Artwork, only used in Python programming language article where it's used as a form of humour. --FlareNUKE 01:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus whatsoever. I leave you to ponder this: Indiscriminate information is not the same as indiscriminate presentation. Grandmasterka 04:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia is by definition unencyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Worldtraveller 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - if there is a major rewrite What a hodge-podge of trivia & other information, some which which deserve or have their own articles, my vote is keep because it does help to underline the social and musical importance of the Beatles, I'd be hard-pressed to vote keep for any other music group with an article like this. --Richhoncho 07:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Big comment I completely agree with LessHeard vanU. The discussion is not even over yet, and you guys are sharpening your knives, and have already started using them. I find that highly reprehensible and insulting to the process of Wikipedia discussion. Yes, it does need cutting, but can you PLEASE wait until the jury comes back in to deliver their verdict BEFORE you start erecting the scaffold for the hanging? Innocent until proven guilty, I believe. andreasegde 13:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that I am an incorrogible thief, but I only started it a month ago. (My... what a short life it had - laugh...)
My original idea was to have it as an index, so people would not have to trawl through whole pages of stuff to find one small reference about The Beatles. As that idea has (it seems so) well and truly had its genitalia skewered, I will sit back and think of something else to do. I still believe there should be a Beatles index - if only to connect the multitude of pages together. andreasegde 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is all I was trying to do, trim it back into a useful index, please see my last edit [[2]] before it was all reverted. Not saying I finished, or that other editors couldn't do better. You will note I added a small amount of detail to the "see also" so the reader could decide if they wanted to look further in that direction. --Richhoncho 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recently found this - Category:The Beatles - and it is a complete index of The Beatles pages. I have also added it to as many pages as I had time to. Now WHY was this link not already on the pages? Did I miss something here? andreasegde 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we not have an acronym for "indiscriminate collection of information", such as ICI? It would make comments easier to read, and it wouldn´t sound so much like "Parrot-speak". andreasegde 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Extra comment Indiscriminate, it is not. I beg you to look up the meaning of the word. Every piece mentions The Beatles, and has something to do with them. It has a thread... andreasegde 12:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not tried it myself (as I have a life, I think, outside Wikipedia) but how long would it take to trawl through every page that mentions The Beatles? The object was to combine links to other articles. It should have been called "Beatles Links". Yes, I know that it copies minor portions of the original articles, but it was meant to be an index, and not an original piece of work. Imagine a new user who is interested in The Beatles, and wants to know more about them, and their influence... Go on, try it.... andreasegde 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - see talk page. Just because we can't work information into an article doesn't mean it's not noteworthy, it means it doesn't fit neatly with the flow of the article. Unfortunate title - perhaps move to miscellany--Crestville 15:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor-league baseball player, otherwise not notable. As per multiple precedents, not enough until at least the Major League level. Calton | Talk 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — FireFox 20:19, 20 July '06
Candidate for Congress state legislature. Other accomplishments not notable. Candidacy itself does not warrant inclusion. --DarkAudit 00:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually has generated interest in both Troy and at Michigan State University as a college student running against the son of a current Congressman. The race has received coverage in a number of newspapers as well as Gongwer.
The result was delete. — FireFox 20:19, 20 July '06
non-notable website/web service, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Launched July 1, 2006 (2 weeks ago as of this writing), the only real mentions of the site are in blogs/forums [5]. Even these can be explained by its marketing tactics as described on this blog: [6]. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I work for Crowdstorm and just briefly wanted to put our viewpoint across before you go ahead with any deletion. We've been building this company up for some time now and trying to make a difference by letting the crowd find the best products and group together to get the best deals - which is a valuable service. A wikipedia entry is not purely a marketing tactic as we believe it is of interest to people to see more about the company, what it does, and useful links about the business. In fact, we didn't even create the entry ourselves but came across it a few days ago.
In the UK, it is a very notable company (see http://mashable.com/2006/05/15/kicking-up-a-crowdstorm/) and generated a lot of interest to-date which people are searching for across the net. I'm also not sure how this policy compares to allowing things like Last.Fm, Kaboodle, Yahoo up on wikipedia. How is the Crowdstorm entry different?
You guys do a great job of keeping wikipedia clean and we appreciate the work you do. We will abide by any decision you make and just wanted some way of getting our viewpoint across, understanding your reasoning, and seeing if there is anything we can change / do to help to make it more useful to wikipedia readers?
Many thanks.
The result was keep. — FireFox 20:21, 20 July '06
Nonnotable graduate student. NawlinWiki 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no major consensus = keep. — FireFox 20:24, 20 July '06
non-notable local politician at sub-provincial (Ontario) level JChap (Talk) 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — FireFox 20:27, 20 July '06
Non-notable. Fails WP:VAIN. No Alexa rating. --DarkAudit 01:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD G4 and A7 (previously deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather -- Samir धर्म 08:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious vanity page ScotchMB 01:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:WEB Rklawton 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — FireFox 20:28, 20 July '06
Article has no incoming/outgoing wikilinks, cites no sources, and returns no relevant Google results about the "movement". Might be vanity, advertisement, or original research; as HumbleGod points out, the phrase is likely a protologism. — Miles←☎ 03:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to Independent Green Party of Virginia. --Ezeu 10:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Independent Green Party candidate running for Senate in Virginia. Article notes that the candidate does not expect to win. Nominating for AfD as NN political candidate. -- H·G (words/works) 03:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 04:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, one part in one film but doesn't make a mention in any of the reviews I have found. Fails WP:BIO. BlueValour 03:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-19 04:26Z
L.G. has created KMBS FM, now with the same content I saw at KBIT FM (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBIT FM), and at KWLD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KWLD). Those two articles were created with a different username, but have very much the same content; I think those other names are sock puppets with User:L.G. and User:68.8.29.40.
68.8.29.40 has made literally hundreds of edits to List of urban-format radio stations in the United States. 68.101.241.195 might be inovlved in that, too. The edits were to add (or change, or rename, or otherwise diddle) with KWLD or KBIT FM or KBMS FM's listing in the San Diego market in that list topic.
Anyway: KBMS FM is now blank. Blank topics should be deleted. The previous versions of the topic show that we're talkinga bout the non-existant 92.3 FM radio station in the San Diego/TJ market again. The FCC says there's no such station [8] in FM; the station with the same call letters in AM is in Louisiana.Mikeblas 03:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as nomination withdrawn -- Samir धर्म 05:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information in this article is repeated in Lil' Kim JD[don't talk|email] 03:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was gone in a flash... Grandmasterka 04:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also listing Ace & Aqua, Not a notable forthcoming flash animation -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was that when even the forum contributors want it gone, you know it's gotta be a deleet. Grandmasterka 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding |
Vanity article for a non-notable WP:WEB forum/site. Alexa traffic rank (pirouzu.net): 1,179,445. 480 registered users. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 03:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a regular at said forum. This article's biased, inaccurate, and generally just a poor attempt at humor. Please delete it as soon as possible.--Joyeuse 03:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cool idea, though. Grandmasterka 05:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99 Ghits here. I am inherently sympathetic to any Wiki but this doesn't seem a particularly notable one unless other editors have further evidence.` BlueValour 03:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 05:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short stub without any information to support its notability. --Xrblsnggt 04:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Grandmasterka 05:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable soccer team. Google gives few results, and their playing record isn't too large. Kalani [talk] 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page refers to a non-notable and slanderous neologism ("a Non-Indian person that has a preference for Indian women") that may be a racist expression amongst Indian Youth. Article is probably better suited for www.urbandictionary.com. Author removed my prod tag, I'm listing the article here. Alphachimp talk 04:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No salting is necessary right now as it has not been recreated... I always put pages I delete on my watchlist though ;-). Grandmasterka 05:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vanity page, and not even completely factual. Roguelazer 04:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 05:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, UE, per prior mass AfD. Of the two sources, one is 404 and one is Mexbound.com, a promotion for User:Mexbound's firm. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 06:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable doujin (which is a nice way of saying unlicensed fanfic, most of the time) game. Google has nothing relevant, Whatlinkshere doesn't seem to indicate that it's important in any way, and there are no sources besides the game's official site (which is in Japanese). This was prodded, but the prod was removed without comment, which isn't helpful at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was kept no consensus - defaults to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unverified original research; fails WP:V and WP:OR criteria. Also, the article doesn't explain exactly how many video games a theme/characteristic/setting has to be in to be considered a stereotype or cliche. Is five to ten enough or does it have to be fifty or higher?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm questioning the notability of this article (WP:SOFTWARE, WP:CORP) and whether if it's just advertisement (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not). Using the same reasoning, I'm also nominating the related article Think Computer which is the company that makes the mentioned software package. Looking forward to your comments, Saeed Jahed 06:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a refinery. Nobody seems to care since the page has not been edited (except for minor wikying tweaks) since its creation 8 months ago. The Shell refinery (which the article is about) is only the 10th refinery (in terms of output) in the state of California [12]. Pascal.Tesson 06:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article describes a non-notable piece of fan fiction. Most Google hits for "Submission Agenda" looked irrelevant. BryanG(talk) 06:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article fit for an encyclopedia? Doesn't it qualify as listcruft? Ethii 06:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep all. Mailer Diablo 13:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abandoned by its creator. Doesn't convey any real information right now. Delete unless someone actually puts information here. --Nlu (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating:
For the same reason. --Nlu (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BUSINESS OF THIS GREAT MAGNITUDE--the massive cleanup of articles created with empty templates and left to die. Cursory checks of Google show that at least some of these guys can be verifiably confirmed as people holding these ministry positions, meaning they don't fail WP:BIO. -- H·G (words/works) 07:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for deletion removed without explanation. It's a simple case really: a band that "currently in the process of releases its self-titled debut album" fails WP:MUSIC. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete It sort of claims importance but doesn't explain or substantiate it, and niether do the keep advocates. I'm sure it will be fine to be recreated when substantiation arises.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable mall (precedent). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT Listcruft - we'd need tens of thousands of lists like this to cover the world. John Nagle 06:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be original research. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Michael Johnson 09:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close, but I don't think shows sufficient notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the article is under-construction. So it's a bit pre-mature to AfD it :) Another historian forwarded to me today, an article on him, and I've linked it on the page, but haven't extracted all the data yet. Maybe Zoe will upgrade her weak based on the new notability data. Wjhonson 06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent vanity page about non-notable programmer and hacker. The google test returns 135 unique ghits [16] (not that much for someone who has a blog). The article has been built by a sole user with very few other edits (contributions) and includes less than encyclopedic info such as the guy's piercings and his hobbies as a young AirForce recruit. Only very small claim to fame: Toshok was once raided by the FBI but cleared of any accusations. Pascal.Tesson 07:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Classitis is a companion term for the neologism Divitis (also nominated). See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Google suggests "classitis" is nowhere near as popular as its proponents seem to believe. mjb 07:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Divitis is a neologism that appears to have a longer history than its companion term classitis (also nominated), but seems no more deserving of an article, to me. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. mjb 07:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft. I have checked the radio stations which do have WP entries, but none of the "anchors" that I checked were on WP. I have no trouble adding Delete to this article. --Richhoncho 07:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "Nice guy syndrome." It isn't listed in the DSM-IVR. The article as it is is nothing but but one man's theories on certain men's dating woes and a compare and contrast with other questionable theories about dating. The talk page and the archived talk page for this article repeatedly call for deletion. Some people are pretty outraged that this kind of article is allowed to exist on Wikipedia. It has been nominated recently for deletion and it hasn't gotten any better. It's time to pull the plug on this one. Erik the Rude 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--LambiamTalk 12:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously spam. French and German versions should go, too. mjb 07:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was wtf delete!. Mailer Diablo 13:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a collection of online in-jokes. -- Samir धर्म 07:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that WP is not intended to be used for arbitrary in-jokes, but once they have gained a certain notoriety is it not valid material for an article. I again reference the O RLY article, which started as a small in-joke, but gained popularity and became an internet phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Low-Key (talk • contribs)
The result was speedy delete. Coffee 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable, vanity page. OCNative 08:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn Fancruft. Dakart 08:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly convinced this is a hoax, no relevant Ghits. OTOH It could be an Iranian word and therefore may not show up in an english approximation. I did check the other words and nothing showed except for WP entries. --Richhoncho 08:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Writing a book on liturgy, or a magazine column, doesn't make one notable unless the book/column is particularly important/significant/well-known -- and I've seen no indication that her writings are. And having a notable spouse does not make one notable either. SJK 08:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (CSD A1) – Gurch 18:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Author claims that the page is under construction, and that they are the only person who should edit the page. They have put the page in a catagory that doesn't exist, along with adding a strange un-needed title. Google throws up two very low traffic web pages that are under construction, and link to one another. The page contains no information at all, and appears to be used experimentally, or as information about upcoming pages on Wikipedia, it is hard to understand. Whatever this thing is, it is non-notable. Didn't put this up for speedy simply because I have never seen a page like this before. I say delete, but it is hard to tell... J Milburn 09:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Coffee 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn game mod, back after previous deletetion Howard Train 10:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; Wikipedia is not a genealogy database Tearlach 10:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sorry, I think the deleters are getting carried away with what they determine is 'notable' and what isn't. Same goes for other articles in this series. 155.91.28.231 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable: Wikipedia is not a genealogy database Tearlach 10:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sorry, I think the deleters are getting carried away with what they determine is 'notable' and what isn't. Same goes for other articles in this series. 155.91.28.231 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No fame or achievement, not notable.
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN genealogical entry: Wikipedia is not a genealogy database Tearlach 10:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. NN: Wikipedia is not a genealogy database Tearlach 10:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G5. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam for a non-notable corporation. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 10:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about an alliance of players in the MMORPG Dark Throne and is not notable.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 10:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about the length of the nomination, but I felt it was necessary so that participants are not fooled by appearances. There are many problems with this article, which is about a person who claims to be able to heal and diagnose people through sound (a problem in itself). First, it was written by the subject's lawyer, AKA "The Vitamin Lawyer" and AKA "High Priest, who pretended to be just a fan on the talk page. He has been disciplined (PDF) for practicing law without authorization in Ohio on her behalf. She has needed a lawyer on many occasions because she is frequently involved in lawsuits. Her bank seized all of her funds in 2004. She claimed that it was because someone took a loan out posing as her. However, I found nothing about it from a reliable source. She claimed that they asked her for the funds for seven years, but the bank refused to provide a copy of some documents (there is nothing about whether she used legal means to answer the charges or force them to give here a copy (if they truly didn't) until after they took the money). The method that they allegedly used to obtain the money sounds scummy, but the bank did win in court, which makes me think her claim of someone else using her identity might be false. Given the frequency of injustices in court systems, this is not certain, however.
Second, while she may have done some legitimate work, or at least some less insane work, she makes many outlandish claims. Here is a quote from an ad for a VHS tape of hers, "Sharry Edwards' uniquely healing voice is quantified at a University as a collection of frequencies with measurable qualities. Now science merges with ancient wisdom through the work of Sharry Edwards. Using her unusual capacities for hearing and toning, Sharry has pioneered an amazing technology that transfers her abilities to anyone who wants to work with sound and the healing arts." Note that the "University" is not given a name. Here is more stuff from a different advertisement, "Sharry created combinations of Frequency Equivalents that dissolve the protective coating around a pathogen so the white blood cells can destroy it." "She is researching to see if the right frequencies, played by select radio stations (even at inaudible levels) may be protective from the effects of biochemical warfare."
She did win the O. Spurgeon English Humanitarian Award. However, it seems to be an extremely obscure award and might even be a scam itself. "Spurgeon English Humanitarian Award" ("O" is omitted to increase the results) only gets 19 unique Google results. Also, it is supposedly for humanitarian work, not bioacoustics, and I was unable to find any humanitarian work that she had performed. John Forbes Nash also received the award, but it is unclear what humanitarian work he has ever done, either. In addition, almost all of the other recipients are involved in new age and alternative medicine, not humanitarian work, including Oscar G. Rasmussen, who is mentioned on Quackwatch for being involved in "Commercial hair analysis... a bogus test used for prescribing dietary supplements." Betty Ford might be the only one who qualifies as a humanitarian of any kind. I suspect that she and Nash may have been given the award to make it seem credible and/or important.
The article claims she was published by the Acoustical Society of America, but the link given as proof makes it seem like she was just presenting a paper at a meeting or conference. Also, who knows what requirements there were, if any? Finally, the abstract makes less crazy claims than her other work, although they are still improbable, "The emerging Mathematical Model being assembled through Human Bioacoustic research likely has the potential to allow Vocal Profiling to be used to predict and monitor health issues from the very first cries of a newborn through the frequency foundations of disease and aging." Some problems may be detectable by voice analysis in the future (throat cancer?), but there are many, many problems that would not affect the quality of a person's voice at all. Also, I would think that it would be especially hard when dealing with newborns, as claimed, since there would be no previous voice sample for comparison.
You might be saying, "Okay, she is involved in some questionable stuff, but maybe she's notable for it." In my opinion, she is not. Also, I think that people have to be exceptionally well known to qualify for an article for being frauds. Her name in quotes gets 710 search results on Google, but only about 240 of them are unique (this is pushing the limits of Google's unique search result reliability, but the ratio of total pages to unique is credible). Of the unique hits, some are the websites that she owns or that her lawyer and his wife own, and many others are directory and advertisement type pages for new age medicine. I did not get any results on Google News, but that happens with a lot of notable people as well as non-notable ones. For all of these reasons, I think that the article should be deleted. Kjkolb 10:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
((cite journal))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) The entirety of her mention in this magazine article, which is an overview of the work of some unrelated person, is "Sharry Edwards [27], who has the ability to hear in extraordinary ranges of sound, created a method to identify the missing sounds in a person's voice and a machine to generate that vibratory sound in order to bring systemic balance to that person." (page 95)The result was speedy delete. Coffee 16:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at an impasse here. I'd tag this for speedy, but for the fact that they're supposed to star as an extra in a major motion picture. Now, what gets my goat is how one can 'star' as an extra. To quote the wikipedia itself is that an extra is one "who has no role or purpose other than to appear in the background (for example, in an audience or busy street scene)." One cannot be a star when their role is to appear in the background. If we take this out, we're left with little. I doubt we can verify they've been an extra anywhere, as extras are rarely credited. Take your pick, WP:BIO, the fact that wikipedia is not an indescriminant collection of information, and the lack of ability to verify their claims all pointing toward this article for deletion. Kevin_b_er 11:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not a notable website; limited third-party coverage; alexa rank of 1,451,322; fails WP:WEB zzuuzz (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not a notable website; alexa rank of 682,281; fails WP:WEB -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads too much like spam. Furthermore, I have seen this article in two more places: here and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today, which further arouses my suspicions. MER-C 11:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Ken Dyers and Kenja Communications merged to Kenja Communication. --Ezeu 10:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a biography (and if it aims to be a biography, a look at WP:LIVING is recommended). This is not even an encyclopedic article, 50% of its content is For a detailed history of Cornelia Rau, and some information on the Kenja Communication group, go to the following site to view an article by Robert Manne, Senior Professor at La Trobe University, and correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age.. Wikipedia is not a registry of sex offenders. --Pjacobi 12:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have now merged the content of this page into Kenja Communication, which I cleaned up. I took the AFD notice with it, not wanting to preempt the outcome of the AFD... --SJK 10:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too redundant, the canon info should be on the Canon page, and the very basic background should be duplicated on the Buffy and Angel pages - the topics discussed have much more detailed pages of their own already. -- Lesqual 13:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel are about two TV series. This article, Buffyverse, is about a fictional universe which includes dozens of novels, hundreds of comics, as well as TV series, and potentially other films in the future. Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel the TV series are only a part of the Buffyverse. Therefore if anything the articles, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel are actually subpages to this page, Buffyverse.
Furthermore Lesqual has failed to mention the whole section on terminology. How are people who know little about the Buffyverse to know what the difference between 'Buffyverse' and 'Whedonverse' is for example; Including information on terminology revolving around this issue would really be inappropiate in any other article.
Finally I'd like to point out the Buffyverse has it's own wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse (there are over 50 members), and its own category. How can we have a wikiproject on a topic and delete the main topic of which that wikiproject revoles? IMO this is clearly an article that is needed. I'd agree with Lesqual that at present this article is not up to the standard it should be: for example he mentions that the Supernatural section does not have enough detail. But the whole point of Wikipedia is to gradually improve articles. -- Paxomen 16:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to MeatballWiki. --Ezeu 11:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem encyclopedic, I think this may be a case of biased coverage. Claims to fame are co-founding MeatballWiki, and starting the use of barnstars as wiki awards - a use not considered notable enough to mention in the barnstar article. the wub "?!" 13:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable website that fails WP:WEB. Completely unsourced so unverifiable. Prod removed without comment. Gwernol 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Ezeu 11:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a cute story and he was the subject of some media attension, but there is no need for a whole article on a guy who had 15 minites of fame. This should be merged into Windows Live ID which deals with Passport.net Jon513 13:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(by Jon513 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel kinda sorry bringing this here, but I can't find a reason to speedy it. It is an ad for a social networking website (fails WP:WEB). Jon513 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? Looks like advertising --Xrblsnggt 14:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is non-notable POV bunk. Accords with no known scientific results, no references provided other than the author's website, not published, 608 Google hits. Need I say anything more other than:
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fan film. CovenantD 14:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted due to disruption of previous AFD Will (message me!) 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Speedy delete. Me677 14:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganvertizing --Xrblsnggt 15:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus - default to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't seem to have any purpose, since it's basicly just a long list of names of mythological creatures that share some traits with vampires in east european folklore. And we already have a category that lists various types of vampire-like creatures, namely Category:Vampires, making this page redundant. No cited sources are available either. M.O (u) (t) 15:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Eversman ran for the US House in 2004 and lost 67% to 33%. He doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, especially WP:C&E. He's a published author but his book ranks over amillion on Amazon and is published by AuthorHouse, a printing on demand, self-publisher. His only claim to fame is that he ran, and lost, for office. Metros232 15:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ad for company failing WP:CORP (Alexa rank 4,568,671). —Caesura(t) 15:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fails to assert notability with verifiable sources. --Ezeu 11:23, 23 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)) . |
non-notable film by a non-notable director and non-notable film company. Self publised on the internet. Crossmr 16:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hey... I am new here... thanks for the advice... I have no plans to be blocked or kicked off or whatever happens to trouble makers! Thank you,--JustinChimento 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any PERSONAL ATTACKS within my comments and believe that the warning has no merit or platform, but I will refrain from making any statements about Crossmr again. Obviously you cannot rebute a personal attack made by admin. seems unfair, but ok. I'll play along. Sorry to anyone offended.
Colourburst, this page has been deleted before? how can you see that? Is it the same nominator? can't wikipedia prevent repeats? deleted articles from coming back? 6 month block on a deleted article's title or anything?
This film is known amongst the film community everywhere. Kent Uni is not the only course using it as a reference.
You only have to type it into Google to see that there are more than 'a few' reviews, articles and references.
--JustinChimento 21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally prodded as Non-notable game 17 Google hits. Untagged without comment.
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested CSD, no opinion. Ral315 (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was why the hell was this pointless procedural nomination kept open this long KEEP. — Jul. 21, '06 [17:40] <freak|talk>
This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Shoob over concerns regarding notability. This deletion was endorsed at DRV, but a new and different recreation was written in the meantime. An editor attempted to AfD this recreation, but did not properly complete the listing. I am doing so in order to clarify whether Ms. Shoob belongs. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided that the result is keep, let's end here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cola4 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. --Ezeu 11:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Artist doesn't meet criteria for WP:MUS. It's also in complete violation of WP:CITE. I vote to delete. OSU80 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question? On my page, yes I have many links on my own pages abou t myself, I re-wrote this as tastefully and truthfully as I could, can this be put up or edited without deletion please? I have not promoted, spammed, just kept it straight. There are certain things here THAT ARE NOT VERIFIABLE, for instance my playing giutar with Inner Circle for 2 years 1985-1987 I was never given credit That IS WHY i left the band> most people however know I did, I could really care less since I wasn't treated fairly by the band, so I just mention it because it was a well known diversified band that I did play with and recorded on their albums. What needs changed please? AND IF you take a look at Bruce Hornsbys' site ( association on my site) you will see there are links and many artist put their linkjs, I am reluctant to do this seems everytime I may do something I am up for deletion, warm me please what I should do Thank you Billy Yeager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mograbber (talk • contribs)
"ATTENTION PLEASE" i CLICKED into the above Film Festivals, they are not posted here at wiki I noticed does this mean I cannot list them on my bio? Should, I , or someone else put some basic info up about the film festivals? Will someone please address myself to let me know what I can do to fix this? Instead of addressimg me between yourselves as if I don't exsist. I am reading alot of rules and info, adhereing to them I agree with them, this is my bio, all true, not hawking products, not spamming, just who I am and what I have done. This is a great place AND I DO NOT INTEND TO BE COMING BACK AND RE-EDITING MY INFO TO PROMOTE MY SITE ALTHOUGH I NOTICE THERE IS A PLACE FOR LINKS ON THAT. Just want to get it up and be done with it, it will help me for press articles that need some basic information on myself which they always get wrong. Things such as Bunny is my mother, she is not she is my aunt, dates on my films, how exactly my contact with Bruce came about and what exactly happened this is all basic info. Seriously, look at some other artist sites out here, it is quit silly, Billy Bob about his mental disorders??? Help please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.167.78.44 (talk • contribs)
MoGrabber link http://www.grainypictures.com/splitscreen2/contents13.html Link is irrelevant to this discussion. OSU80 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there still a discussuion? What if I just put Billy Yeager was bron in Miami Florida September 6th 1957. He is a filmmaker and a musician and we will leave it at that. Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mograbber (talk • contribs) [reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information on the article is highly speculative, there are no sources for any of the informatiom, and no other articles link to it. JD[don't talk|email] 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OS 0 1 2, given new information. Please consult both the original AfD and the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting to evaluate encyclopedic suitability, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.google.de/search?client=firefox-a&rls=o http://www.google.de/search?client=firefox-a&rls=o http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en& http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=OS+012&hl=en User:Tumbleman
The result was delete. Clear violation of "original research" and "game guide" policies, as cited by editors below. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is list/gamecruft, original research, unsourced, and violates WP:NOT, in that Wikipedia is not a game guide hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be about a non-notable website called "Musiments". The creator of this page is called Musiments, and the only contribution s/he has ever made was creating the Musiments page. --TonyM キタ━( °∀° )━ッ!! 17:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Hungarians. Redirects are cheap. :) - Mailer Diablo 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic. We have List of Hungarians, List of Hungarian Jews and List of Hungarian Americans. How is it in any way encyclopedic to have a list of people because their grandfather, etc. was of a certain ethnicity? See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" Mad Jack 18:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent neologism, not found at dictionary.com, 32 Google hits. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ezeu 11:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against this brave man but I believe that being on the Cook County Board of Commissioners falls quite short of WP:BIO's requirement of "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office". In fact, there are articles for every other member of the board, many of which are similarly un-notable in my book. I just want to see what others think before I submit the rest. (Of course I won't if there is a consensus to keep this one) Pascal.Tesson 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ezeu 11:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? Nothing to indicate it is encyclopedic. --Xrblsnggt 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was moved to 14th century in North American history. Canderson7 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Centuries before 1776? Sure, the history of the colonies are important. Centuries before 1607? Sure, European exploration of the US and its effect is important. Centuries before 1492? I have to draw the line. It is nearly impossible to verify anything that may have happened way back then, and the one entry that's there comes off as POV. Morgan Wick 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete"Western Europeans lack wealth and seafaring skills necessary for worldwide exploration." Says it all. --Richhoncho 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia contains many articles--including several linked to the newly rewritten 14th century in United States history--based largely upon the archaeological record and even discusses the geologic time scale quite extensively. Chronologies based on the geologic/evolutionary and archaeological record can reveal the course of development of Native American technologies. Archaeologists routinely conduct field expeditions and publish books and scientific journal articles, rendering their findings (while subject to interpretation) as verifiable as any speculative or evolution-based assertions found on Wikipedia. Because the Native Americans in the United States did create cities like Cahokia in the Midwest and the various Pueblos in the Southwest, the article is neither "useless" nor necessarily "empty" nor inherently "nonsense." Dufekin 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This subject of this article does not exist, as far as I know, and there is close to no useful information. No source is cited and the article hasn't been edited since it was created. Ytny 18:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a recreation of an article that has already been deleted three times. The term itself is a nn neologism. There are only 213 ghits. Why there should be a made-up term for the study of Iceland when there is not such a term for the study of any other country does not make sense. The "science" itself is called geography. Anything that can be said in this article is more than covered under Iceland. Agent 86 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. This took a while to look through, and there are a lot of keep requests. However once comments from new, anonymous and recently reactivated user accounts are properly weighted - there is a clear consensus to delete. TigerShark 22:45, 23 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)) . |
Spam. Artw 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY TO alphachimp, I HAVE POSTED THE FOLLOWING ON HIS TALK PAGE SEEKING ADVICE ON GWO who claims to be "The Stig" on Top Gear's libelous posting above.
I think you have elided away from the point, User:alphachimp, or at least as far as the events are significant to me.
The objector made a direct accusation without supplying any supporting evidence. As I know that several of the contributors to the AfD page are distinct carbon-based humanoids, he has libeled them all. Furthermore, he has brought the discussion to a halt by libelling any subsequent contributor who opposes deletion. I am not, by using a legal term, advising a legal remedy -- that way madness and bankruptcy lie! I am simply pointing out that there is a reason in law why it is wrongful to make false accusations and I would ask you to point me to the appropriate rememdy within Wikipedia for an unsupported accusation against fellow contributors.
A bun-fight on the AfD page is not a satisfactory remedy.
User:GWO must either present evidence to support his claim or retract it. How do I invoke this challenge?
The objector's posting was directly responsible for my NOT putting forward a new argument in favour of retention. What am I to do to prevent being subject to this 'prior restraint' which he has invoked?
FYI - the original posting:
* Delete, nn website indulging in shocking sock puppetry. -- GWO
May I also clarify my motivations:
it is not 'offence' or 'indignation' at having been bullied out of an AfD. It is the fact that the actions of a contributor on an AfD page have been highly disruptive to the editing process. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.164.244 (talk • contribs)
It looks to me like you made an account, played with it a little, and abandoned it, a very common fate of Wikipedia accounts (something like 3/4 of them have never edited at all). Then someone brought this AfD to the attention of Thingbox members and you came over from there. Please do edit some of the China articles (and anything else that interests you) but until you actually do participate like that (rather than merely intending to), we have to think of you as a non-participant. Also, even if you had been editing regularly, the mere act of coming over because of an external campaign is itself reason to make adjustments (see here); it's just easier to infer what likely happened, given your contrib history. Phr (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it is interesting to read the comments made about people perceived to be "newcomers" in the light of the following section: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, in particular, this passage: "Do not call newcomers disparaging names, such as "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary." Some have done this more than others. I do not count user:Phr as being one of them. Thanks for the explanation, Phr, but I can only reiterate that your inference is, in my case, inaccurate. ddstretch 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that we agree now that Thingbox doesn't meet the WP:WEB guidelines. See also WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer (the "review your intentions" paragraph), understand that Wikipedia is in the 20 largest web sites on the whole internet, realize we're constantly bombarded by people trying to sell products or gain notoriety by putting stuff in front of our readers because they know the value of that much advertising, and understand that we know exactly what it is that they want. It's a perpetual battle to stick to our goal of being an encyclopedia and not an advertising service and we very frequently have to tell (e.g.) up-and-coming musicians claiming to be on the verge of "making it" to come back after they've made it, not before. This is pretty similar--if the article gets deleted, I advise waiting a few months and examining the guidelines before trying again (assuming you meet the guidelines by then, which you very well might), and don't organize a campaign, those (as you see) tend to go over badly. I hope that helps you understand the situation a little better. -- Phr (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 16:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claims subject is a lottery winner, and that might be true -- but the article is completely uncited. There's about 18 hits for "Andrew Scanlon" + lotto
, [45], and about 21 for "Andrew Scanlon" +lottery
[46]. I don't think winning the lotto (even together with philanthropy and youth) are notable enough. Throw in unverifiaiblity and you don't have a good subject for an article. Mikeblas 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is superb and helps poor people by giving them hope you <personal attack/incivility removed>
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer girlfriend: notable? Computerjoe's talk 19:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is little more then a dicdef. Gay Cdn 21:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This is a weird combination of a neologism and original research. The links at bottom point to a forum and a weighlifting page. In both, the word appears with quotes, indicating even the cited sources consider this a neologism. Googling for "Dad Strength" reveals 750 hits, but after the first two pages, many of them are "dad. Strength" or "dad's strength", so the real Ghits are probably far lower. Among the one's actually about the stated term, there's nothing useful, just more forums, etc. Googling for the Latin term, vires paternus, turns up nothing as well.--Chaser T 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as CSD A7 and A1. Mushroom (Talk) 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not encyclopedic and is about a non-noteworthy band per the Music Notability Guidelines. Stratosphere 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, looks like vanity and (self-)promotion. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the writier for this article. Jerry Kwan is one of my friends and I'd like to write an introduction of him. He is a public writer in Hong Kong and has published books as evidence of his publicity. Please check up the books before you decide there's "No evidence of notability".. thanks a lot!~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsomclose (talk • contribs)
Delete Publishing a book does not make one notable - a lot of people publish books, most of them obscure, bad or just unprofitable. Most of this article is trivial info and on the rare occasion that anything is cited, it's from the subject's own site. If this person is notable as his friend suggests, someone other than himself and his friends will write the article. Ytny 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article but an advert for a non notable company Andymarczak 20:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable motivational speaker. Lots of Google hits for his name, but a lot don't appear to be him. "David Parnell" speaker gets about 366 hits. A lot of it seems to be sites for schools and organizations saying that he has/will speak to them. The article reads like an advert/speaker's biography, gives no sources, and expresses nothing about him that doesn't sound like a lot of other motivational speakers out there. Metros232 20:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and recreate as redirect. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just came across this page, have no bias for or against Lucas but this page describes original research on a non-notable topic and does not deserve more than a couple of lines in the fan criticism page. Zargulon 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for this person's album titles produces zero relevant GHits except for his own website. That spells NN and total failure of WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC to me. Fan-1967 20:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:01, 23 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)) . |
This article is largely erroneous, non encyclopedic, opinionated, incomplete, and loosely formulated. Nuwaubian Hotep 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no vote fixing incorrect AfD step 2.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page appear to be vanity / advert / spam Wirbelwind 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic at this scope and largely superfluous. There already exists a list of Top 500 home run hitters of all time on Wikipedia. This list does not add any notable information that is not already available on that list. RPIRED 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would think that the top 100 or 200 should be enough. Plenty of the top 1000 home run hitters will not and should not be in the Hall of Fame. Jonswift 05:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del russian language dicdef and nothing else. (the previous nomination was for different content Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novostroika). `'mikka (t) 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP (no consenus). Several comments by new users discounted. TigerShark 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Roy A.A. 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information SweetNeo85 21:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. TigerShark 22:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These articles were forked from Parkinson's disease, an article that has recently been plagued by one particularly nasty editor. These forks were not discussed on the article talkpage, and other material much more suitable for splitting off has been left. I propose delete (no merge necessary). JFW | T@lk 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides being an incredibly ugly black table, this article clearly says at the bottom of the page that the information in it is copyrighted. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable video production company/website, 12 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 21:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted per WP:NOT and WP:SNOW. No sense being overly legalistic. FCYTravis 22:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a hoax --Alex9891 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense hoax, see listing for "Screw me do me do", above. NawlinWiki 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Returns around 600 Ghits, many of which are wikipedia-derived, or have variant usages Artw 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is an open advertisement. Doesn't pretend otherwise. Company links at bottom of page. KarenAnn 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another pointless Academy Awards list (only 5 entries).NawlinWiki 22:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE with Team ECK. TigerShark 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a report of a wrestling event or series of events, without wikilinks, categorization, and so on. Cantalamessa 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD G7 author request. Kimchi.sg 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A company that repairs, refurbishes and resells laptops in Raleigh, NC. No indication that it comes remotely close to WP:CORP unless you want to count its great feedback rating on eBay. Fan-1967 22:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely unencyclopediac article, both in prose and in content. According to WP:NOT, we are entirely opposed to gameguides and article in similar veins. This is gamefaqs material and unjustified for encycloepdiac inclusion. Its also horridly written and infrignes upon numerous manual of style guidelines. Randall Brackett 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merged to castration. Ordinarily I wouldn't close one I commented on, but the opinion was nearly unanimous and the redirect had already been done. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
listcruf. Each of the cults mentioned already includes remarks on castration. --Pboyd04 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original result was No consensus. However this debate has been reopen for discussion by Gwernol (talk · contribs). Mostly Rainy 14:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person/persona. o/s/p 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(reindenting)OK, this will be my last comment on the issue here since things seem to be getting dragged out. To answer your points, it's not a case of different standards because the articles in question (as far as I can tell) haven't been put forward to AfD. In other words, no standards whatsoever have been applied; there's no standards regarding what articles can be created, only what articles can pass AfD. I know WP:BIO is not an exhaustive list, but there still needs to be some claim to wide notability and as things stand I'm just not seeing it. Finally, on the issue of links to his reviews of games, I personally wouldn't have a problem with providing external links at the bottom of the relevant articles; given that it's likely he's the only one to have reviewed them it would seem to fit within WP:EL. Anyway, like I said I'm bowing out of arguing on here, but feel free to respond on here, and if you want to get my responses drop me a line on my talk page. --Daduzi talk 15:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page. he is very popular with 300,000 total views of his videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainMe (talk • contribs)
Yes, some of those articles would not survive an AFD. What does that have to do with anything? Recury 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn group. A google search revels about 800 different groups of the same name. --Pboyd04 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was that we worry because of articles like this - delete. Mailer Diablo 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. —Caesura(t) 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 07:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn church (299 members). Plus most of the article reads like an advertisement. --Pboyd04 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable Yu-Gi-Oh player, 80 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is messedrocker
(talk)
17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn group grand total of 177 ghits with wiki mirrors still in the mix. --Pboyd04 23:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deproded - Slang dictdef - Wikipedia is not a dictionary - Delete --Spring Rubber 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Vissarion considering that more than half the article is copyvio from [[72]]. Kimchi.sg 16:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn group. Few ghits. Would speedy but they claim media coverage. --Pboyd04 23:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be original research. --Pboyd04 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Kimchi.sg 16:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN neologism, possibly protogism, that fails WP:V Stanfordandson 00:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod. Another small software company with no indication it meets WP:CORP. Google returns 21 unique hits, most of which seem to be for a Montréal firm of the same name. Fan-1967 02:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]