The result of the nomination was Keep. See page 10 of Milton Friedman's seminal 1962 work "Capitalism and Freedom" for his use of the term, which is introduces the core subject matter of the book. You can even read it online at a URL given on the talk page of the article. --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research Intangible 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable vanity. Coil00 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother deleting it? It's up now, its acurate and Im sure is useful in some sense. If people are talking about, they are clearly using it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.226.1.194 (talk • contribs) .
The result of the nomination was merge and redirect to Brights movement. – Avi 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable only as co-director of The Brights Net. Suggest redirecting to The Brights Net, including whatever relevant information about his life that will inform that article. SilkTork 12:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was murdered by popular demand. Kimchi.sg 09:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Complete hoax or non-notable. None of the credits turn up on Google. IMDB doesn't list any of these credits for a "Melissa Mancini" - probably not the same one[1] - any actress playing a "Mrs. Salvatore" is more than likely a bit older than 20. Mad Jack 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. Prodego talk 03:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a mix of crystal-ballery and original research. Google only picks up the IMDB, which is a dead zone of reliability when it comes to upcoming projects (the whole cast could've been fan submitted there).[4] Could not find any official confirmation from the studio or anything else online that would verify this. Oh, and TV.com, also linked, is another fan-submitted Wiki. It's sites like that and the IMDB that kill our reliability when we use them as sources.
The result of the debate was speedy circumcised from article space, CSD A3/A1/G1. And BJAODN. Kimchi.sg 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dick def. Artw 00:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Artw 00:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Surprise. Author contributes only to these articles, only 414 unique for "Relevance Gap", difficult to meaningfully google a phrase as generic as "Fundamental Change" but I am finding nothing that indicates this concept is anything other that an (old) neologism. Delete unless evidence that these phrases in this context are commonly used.
brenneman {L} 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was keep. The references in the article are conclusive in establishing the term's provenance, currency and usage. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Failed 90s neologism. Artw 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Keep. A bit of web trivia, adequately sourced by the Wired article which cites Gennero, who was there. The copyright status of the image is another matter. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems like a hoax.....for being such a monumental topic, it has one source, that being the website of the guy who uploaded the image. The website claims the uploader knew the guy who invented the internet in 1992. It smells a bit stale to me. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Keep. Eminence in his field of apologetics is established by the references in the article. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 11 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)) . |
NOMINATOR: Please add a specific justification for deletion to this nomination, here at the top of the discussion. AfD is not an (un)popularity contest - you must cite specific justifications for deletion. Georgewilliamherbert 08:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anything of substance here except self-promotion, let us see it. I say this not out of a negative view, but I see little evidence here of value. I shouldn't have to go to his website to know what he is about- and that seems like what the article is seeking to do. It looks more like a personal webpage than an encyclopedia article.
What is the issue here? It seems there are two issues being discussed: (1) Is the person noteworthy and (2) Did I do a good job writing the article? Question #1 is valid for a discussion of whether or not it is a vanity page, but question #2 would be better for a discussion of whether the article needs a rewrite. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a really pointless and nonnotable list to me; also only five list entries after 10 months on WP. NawlinWiki 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
gamecruft. Artw 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for a calendar that doesn't exist yet, and would probably be considered cruft of some variety if it did. Artw 01:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COPYVIO from here DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Keep. - Bobet 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable musical instrument, even the article says It is very rare and even on the internet you won't find much information about it. DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable clutter. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, nor a site for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to slap their last name into in some attempt to feel important. Gnrlotto 01:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable flash game - doesn't even give a link! Artw 01:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local TV show -- Koffieyahoo 02:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, fails the Google test. Putting up for AfD at author's request after he removed prod. RidG Talk/Contributions 02:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Kimchi.sg. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an ad, non-notable --BradBeattie 02:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. JDoorjam Talk 06:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be spam for the company --BradBeattie 02:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete per CSD A7. Mangojuicetalk 04:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, not notable B.d.mills 02:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Independent record label that, based on Google search, doesn't seem to exist beyond a few myspace pages. Listed web page for the company is nothing but a banner and a poster for a concert last February. There is no other website content, and no links from that page. Fan-1967 02:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was No consensus to delete, therefore keep. - Bobet 18:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia entry. Cheese Sandwich 03:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His only claim to fame seems to be that he is a candidate. Article written like an advertisement, not NPOV. No vote from me. Dipics 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My belief was that I was following the Wikipedia instructions for "Candidates_and_elections"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.154.12 (talk • contribs)
--Nurchster 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible WP:VAIN, Fails WP:MUSIC the only ghits are for MySpace and other blogs etc DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. -Seidenstud 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. when they start citing their own myspace page, it's descended into vanity. Xrblsnggt 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted as CSD A7 - totally no assertion of their own notability whatsoever. Kimchi.sg 09:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks any sort of notability Seidenstud 03:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced speculation and crystal-ballism. Would have prodded but the large amount of vandalism for such a small article suggests the prod wouldn't survive. Opabinia regalis 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ghits imply that it is legit, and Mars Volta is certainly notable enough -Seidenstud 03:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unencyclopedic entry with a great many problems. The statements concerning nominations for the "Governor General's Prize" [sic] and the Griffin Poetry Prize are incorrect. A Google search for something called the "Governor General's Peace Prize" receives one hit: this very Wikipedia article. Doiron is a little-known figure whose last two books were issued by a print on demand house. This article goes to great lengths in an attempt to raise his profile; and in doing so reveals its point of view. I'm not convinced that there is no place for an article on Doiron in Wikipedia, however I do feel that the exising article should be deleted. Victoriagirl 03:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete author request
Rather obvious nn hoax. Speedily deleted by Blnguyen, recreated by the original author, and the history restored by me as no CSD was cited. Delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was CSD A6, WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:SNOW, WP:IAR vile shite - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a "popular series of children's books" as claimed in the article, but a single webcomic site, [14]. Nothing on Amazon and very few Ghits (mainly the WP article and mirrors for "Rabbi rabbit"). Nonnotable. NawlinWiki 04:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete both. Sango123 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article about a non-notable artist. Ghits: [15].
I am also nominating:
as a protologism created by the same author of the above article. There are a bunch of Ghits on the term, [16], but few that appear to be related to the meaning given in this article. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was keep. Sango123 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this stands up to WP:CORP Please discuss below !!! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was daftly deleted as CSD A7 - no assertion of group's notability. Kimchi.sg 09:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. The youth organization for a temple in Dallas. Since just about every house of worship I've ever heard of has such an organization for its teenagers, I can't imagine that each one deserves an article. Fan-1967 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an advertisement. It does not meet wikipedia criteria for corporate notability (i.e. Only around since 2000. Only has 25 customers, is not publicly traded) Xrblsnggt 04:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB And is most assuredly WP:SPAM DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN operating system that some kid came up with. -Bill (who is cool!) 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per csd a7--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by The main event9718 (talk · contribs), whose only three edits are in this article. Article has been prod'ed[17] (No evidence of notability. High school athletes aren't notable, unless they are Lebron James or Greg Oden or someone of that caliber and cleared without comment.[18] After some Google search (which returned the Wikipedia article for Alex Michael Rickett and less than 100 about Alex Rickett), I believe he fails WP:BIO, as he is only mentioned in a few pages but does not get interviews or features. ReyBrujo 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Delete, after discounting the 2 votes by anonymous users and the other 2 that were the users' first and only edits, there's a fairly clear consensus to delete. - Bobet 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a "Radical Jewish Group" seems to fail in the notability area - there are plenty of ghits but apart from the groups own website, the rest seem to be MySpace, blogs and forums - also, there are no internal links to this article DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and in Jewish Renaissance Magazine http://www.jewishrenaissance.org.uk/current.htm (you see it in the contents but the article is not available online)
Chuckycat 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Delete. - Bobet 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like an advertisement WP:SPAM -- Xrblsnggt 05:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was keep. – Avi 00:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article created on 13 May ((context)) tag added on 24 May nothing done since - article only contains an imageDavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 05:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Often spelled with a zero, however I get 543 hits at Google[22]. Only contribution made by G0y (talk · contribs). -- ReyBrujo 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Ezeu 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, POV, OR, essay. Wikipedia is not for things "coined by a cook at the Derrick Golf and Winter club on the 5th of July, 2006." I couldn't think of any category to speedy it, but this needs to be deleted. Fan-1967 05:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAM advertising DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 05:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete csd g4--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigga know technology, speedied by me as a repost, and contested by another admin. I am re-submitting the article to AFD to get consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-06 05:51Z
The result of the nomination was keep. Sango123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De-prodded w/ no explanation. No claim of notability is presented in article. Only 11 unique google hits. Icarus 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Another US Congressional candidate, otherwise unremarkable. A candidate, I stress, not an actual politician. Did some professional political organizer's trade magazine put out an article recently about using Wikipedia for campaigns, or what? Calton | Talk 06:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see how this guy has any claim to notability Poss WP:VAIN as the only link is to his own (foreign language) website DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 06:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as author request. Kimchi.sg 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy contested by the author. Aspiring actress who doesn't seem to have actually done anything, but has high hopes. Fan-1967 06:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would like to say, that I wanted to make this page for Hope Marie because I honestly feel in my opinion that she supports a lot of good and moral stuff. Her music is powerful and helps people understand that life is short, you only live once and don't dwell on things. She is also a active member of the Army and likes to help people...I honestly feel that in the next year a lot more people are going to be hearing and seeing a lot of great things from Hope Marie. She is a role model to a lot of females and repersents good will and being strong for yourself in a positive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewhiskeyangel (talk • contribs)
Just delete it...whatever I guess we will have to wait for Hope Marie to become superfamous before we can see her page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewhiskeyangel (talk • contribs)
The result of the nomination was keep. Sango123 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, surely this is WP:NFT!!!! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 06:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Moriori. Kimchi.sg 09:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A magazine launched two months ago isn't notable - it's advertising Rklawton 06:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was keep. – Avi 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Less than 200 google hits and many of them are not about the subject. I can't seem to find any notable sources on this one. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for non-notable web forum with only 138 members. PROD tag applied by Fan-1967, removed by only editor. Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and very short-lived webcomic. 14 unique Google hits when searching for "Widows' revenge" "comic". Originally PROD'ed, PROD tag removed by only editor. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was early closure and delete as hoax. — Deckiller 12:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
pure hoax, users first page, registered today, photo is trying to link to a myspace image, couldn't find a thing on google related to him Andeh 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate wasSpeedy keep per the nominator's withdrawal.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable artist: no entry on allmusic.com, no Google hits for artist name in connection with any of his three records Fram 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was No consensus. – Avi 00:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable TV show Computerjoe's talk 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator retracted.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator retracted.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN and WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to meet WP:BAND. Reads like a fan magazine article. Strong Delete. If anyone can show notability, then Keep and clean up. Would have speedied but article has been around a couple of months, and would have prod'ed, but am pretty sure the prod would be contested. TheRingess 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Seems to be a vanity page from the edit history. Only Google hits of any note are a small NYT blurb from 5 years ago about an obscure zoning dispute and some pretty minor play production mentions. Fails WP:NOR, WP:RS and seems to have become a magnet for trolling, personal attacks, and disruption (see this ANI entry). - Merzbow 07:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also bundling an article about this person's supposed theatre company, Grove Street Playhouse, for deletion. It's also been a magnet for the same sort of stuff and appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (companies_and_corporations) as well as WP:NOR and WP:RS. No notable Google hits. - Merzbow 08:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting historical documentation added on Grove Street Playhouse page. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 16:51:04 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Nominator retracted.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN and especially WP:VAIN Universitytruth 07:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
advertisement and fails WP:CORP hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sotones Records. Fails multiple Google tests [32] [33] [34]. User's only contributions have been related to this group, their "record label" also up for AfD, and evolutionary theory. All of these may need to be examined. HumbleGod 08:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created by owner of current version, none-notible, advertisement.-- 9cds(talk) 09:06, 6 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)) . |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quest High School
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:VERIFY Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. and The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it., and doesn't pass WP:WEB. The website the article links to is also unavailable as it has "reached it's daily bandwidth limit". I would say speedy delete as nonsense, however am going to say Delete because the site is unavailable. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 09:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article's contents are not sourced, and doesn't pass WP:VERIFY. Only claim to notability is In 2005, M. S. 180 was ranked number 1 school in the district due to high grades on the standardized examinations. but doesn't cite a reliable source. Delete. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 09:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this for PROD a few weeks ago, but the notice was removed, and per the agreement on the talk page, I agreed to not nominate it for AfD until the preliminary NTSB report was released. That has now happened, but the report, in the words of one of the article's defenders, "not very interesting". Basically, this is a non-event. Aircraft have minor technical failings leading to emergency landings all the time. No-one was injured or killed in this accident, and it does not look like much is going to come of this. I am not convinced this is notable enough; this year alone, there have been 748 aviation incidents that the NTSB has reported on (did a search on their website). Unless you are proposing articles for them all, we need to be selective about which ones we keep, and, in my opinion, this is not one of them. Batmanand | Talk 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Nomination withdrawn. – Avi 00:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains nothing encyclopedic, doesn't establish why it should be included so fails WP:VERIFY, and is a possible copyvio as it contains lyrics to a possibly copyrighted song. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 10:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was No consensus. – Avi 00:54, 12 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)) . |
"Keep"....It is an honor to state that the great professor Dr. Michel Bakhoum is a world renowned leader that had great and unlimited influence on the lives of a significant number of engineering students, professional engineers, professors, and researchers. His successful students are all over the world. His books, publications, and landmark designed projects are the testimony of the great achievements this great man had all over the country of Egypt. It is a great honor to state that I am one of thousands of his students. [N. Grace, Professor and Chairman, Civil Engineering Department, Director, Center for Innovative Materials Research, Lawrence Tech University, USA]
Delete as a resume for an engineer who passed away in 1981. No substantial assertion of notability or encyclopedic content. ((prod)) tag removed by anonymous user without comment. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 10:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Keep due to revisions made to article...the notability of the subject was less an issue than the fact that it was written as a CV (for me, anyway). The article still needs significant cleanup, but its salvageable now. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 13:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prof. Dr. Michel Bakhoum, a prominent star who shone in the sky of the 20th Century. He was an able Professor, a profound researcher, and an outstanding Structural Engineer… He had a surpassing capacity for perseverance to work and for distinctive output. His works are a great evidence for his superiority during his life and will remain as an everlasting memory— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.135.100.52 (talk • contribs)
*Keep the article: Please refer to the revised article. User:Dr. Mourad Michel Bakhoum8 July 2006 (UTC)
I see the article as a very interesting article and it has imporoved a lot and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.114.58.8 (talk • contribs)
*Keep:Although Egypt has a very long and ancient history of great architecture, its present has very few scientists and engineers. Dr. Prof. Michel Bakhoum was one of the few present engineers who highly contributed to the current Egyptian engineering. He was not only a great and genius engineer but also a great Professor, who taught as mentioned in the article more than ten thousand civil engineers. His designs and teachings has greatly affected the urban development of the city of Cairo and many other cities in Egypt. I believe the article should be kept to inform young students all over the world about his great achievements that are an incentive to each and everyone to achieve more in his/her career. I as a young Egyptian female engineer do not rely on what our ancient Egyptians did but value their mind and their great architecture as much as I value Dr. Michel Bakhoum, the teacher and model of thousands. People like him, who achieve and serve for all their lives are for all of us, young researchers, great examples. Therefore I, and my fellow young scientists and engineers, believe the article must be kept because Dr. Michel Bakhoum is not a forgotten history but a living influence. User:Dina Bakhoum
The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable vanity. (Contested prod.) Zoz (t) 10:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete. – Avi 00:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this article was tagged with ((not verified)) two months ago, and article still hasn't been improved, still failing WP:VERIFY and therefore WP:BIO. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 10:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Keep and Cleanup. – Avi 00:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page doesn't contain useful information, essentially an advert for this magazine Damburger 10:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No notability - vanity page about a school committee member fbb_fan 10:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage.
The result of the discussion was Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet the criteria for notability
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was requested to be speedied on 9th February. Article author removed the tag and said on the talk page (s)he needs some time to improve the article. Article is still very similar five months later and still doesn't establish why the person the article is about is notable. I'm going to say Strong Delete as this article has seen no improvement after the authors request on the talk page for "a little more time". As a comparison, see Darius from the UK's Pop Idol. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 11:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
another "quasi-religious group devoted to bringing a mass extinction event to Earth".... Travelbird 11:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for non notable resort Fram 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable "upcoming scen queen", no Google hits except myspace and a school page Travelbird 11:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. The abundance of 'reviews' added has been adequately addressed by Merzbow, and I find it especially damning that no articles link to this one. This theatre is not of any particular note. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was the original nominator... this is a vanity page (original author is a Majeski sock) that fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies_and_corporations) as well as WP:NOR and WP:RS. No notable Google hits. - Merzbow 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. Nomination previously bundled with Marilyn Majeski; separating because they deserve two different discussions. Lbbzman 11:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A company that shut it's doors when the internet was still in its infancy cannot be judged on google hits. Thirteen New York Times articles have been added as references. All can be easily found on the NY Times website, simply sign up for a free website membership and search Grove Street Playhouse. More evidence of notability to follow. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 16:47:42 (UTC)
I don't know, but The NY Times is NOT in the same category as a small town local newspaper. They have very high standards because there are a much higher number of theatre companies competing for reviews. Only noteworthy productions are generally covered. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-06 17:16:55 (UTC)
Grove Street Playhouse, originally the Courtyard Playhouse, is VERY NOTABLE for being one of the very FIRST and longest surviving Off-Off Broadway theatres. the "small NYT blurb from 5 yrs ago about an obscure zoning dispute" which Merzbow cites on the Marilyn Majeski project page, is actually a full 1/2 page article on page 3 of the NY Times, complete with photo of Ms. Majeski, which details a much longer and richer history of this theatre, which dates back to the days of Cino's Cafe. ("Making It Work: Serial Drama at Grove Street Playhouse", Corey Kilganon, NY Times, 01/24/99). I also found an article on Backstage.com ("Miss Majesty's Licked: Grove Street Shudders) which also chronicles the 49 year history of this theatre. Perhaps for vanity reasons, Majeski has limited the editorials exclusively to the period after 1994 when she changed the company's name.
I trust the NY Times fact checkers, according to Wikipedia's standards this is considered a highly reliable source. Likewise, Backstage is equally reliable as the #1 trade publication for theatre. Grove Street Playhouse is an important part of theatrical history and should not be deleted, but kept and cleaned up.
I think that NYTheatreHistorian should be blocked from editing this page, because clearly he has some sort of personal vendetta against this woman. The edit history shows a clear pattern of vandalism on his part. Most disturbing aren his repeated attempts to reveals her current place of employment. My understanding is that divulging personal information is strictly against Wikipedia policy. Although, I disagree with Ms. Majeski's use of socks, if she is being "stalked" as she claims, perhaps she is doing this out of fear. Irregardless, the history of this organization should not be deleted because of it's former artistic director's bad behavior.
Anyone who has voted to Delete should check out these articles - you may want to change your minds. ≈--Casual Observer 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT a "sock" for this woman! If you will check the IP address I made my remarks from, you will find that it reverts back to my hotel room. Do you really think this woman is renting a hotel room to edit Wikipedia under an assumed identity? It seems like you are blocking people based solely on their point of view. I wonder how many other people you've falsely accused. Please, unblock me. Casual Observer
Interesting that the IP address 63.164.145.85 for the unsigned comment above is registered to Kinko's, Inc. through SprintLink with an address in Reston, VA just outside of Washington, DC. I was not aware that Kinko's had branched out to provide service internet to hotels these days. --NYTheaterHistorian 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor editing and multiple references added including Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, and People Magazine article featuring Marilyn Majeski. Also a quote from the ever quotable Quentin Crisp has been added. In an interview with the Off-Off Broadway Review's Marshall Yaeger he said: "I'm not famous - I'm notorious. If I, who am nothing, can get to the Grove Street Theatre, then anyone can achieve anything!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.167.9 (talk • contribs) <-another sock IP pschemp | talk 00:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, NYTheatreHistorian has deliberately introduced false information into this article. The primary reference material which is cited as the source for his most recent edit, Playbill October 1, 1998 is readily available on line at http://www.playbill.com/news/article/41186.html and makes no mention of the statements included in NYTheatreHistorian's most recent contribution to this article. In fact, the article gives a very different reason for the litigation. NYTheatreHistorian has continued to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for stalking and harrasssment as defined by the law. This indidvidual's activities extend beyond the pages of Wikipedia into the real world. Wikipedia's Administrators have provided no assistance to the victim in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.82.84.3 (talk • contribs) .
Corrected referrence from http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117481186?categoryid=15&cs=1 , which validates entry noted above as factual and not a personal attack, nor stalking or harrassment. -- 151.202.72.206 18:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)--NYTheaterHistorian 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC) hmmm pschemp | talk 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per concerns outlined on talk page by User:Dugwiki, briefly "Article is literally a huge unabridged outline of part of this book; not encyclopedic in nature". ::Supergolden:: 12:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a non-notable biography. At first I thought she might be thinking Sky Radio was related to the British broadcast company, but it's not (it's a radio station about airlines).
Most of the results of the Google test aren't her. I don't see a result about her until the 2nd page. Additionally, the author of the article is User:Caroldiego so vanity is possibly an issue (she produced a radio show in San Diego, so that may explain the diego in the user name). Metros232 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes... and a note to Isotope23... I believe Ms. Hiller's remark about the porn bio was with tongue firmly planted in cheek... as in facetious...
(from someone "notable" enough to have worked on 40+ films/TV shows, have music in about a dozen and appeared in a handful)
The result of the debate was not particularly amusing hoax. DS 13:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for something made up in school (or on the beach) one day. Seb Patrick 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia does however reflect small scale growing sports, as all of the major sports had their origins in small groups of people. as such this article must be allowed as it gives good publicity to a sport we are seeking to publicise. already there is a tournament held for anyone next weekend at bournemouth beach.
The result of the discussion was delete. There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, much less binding precedents, so the argument that Hi Hi should have articles on every episode because other TV series do does not stand up. 'Merge and delete' is not possible per the GFDL, and even if it was, List of Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi episodes is just a list, and does not allow for episode guides at present. Though that list is apprently undergoing rewriting, and I will retrieve the deleted content of this article on request if it is needed for that purpose. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need a Wikipedia article for each episode. It is totally unnecessary. Wiki is for the general concept of stuff. DarkAdonis255 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep as a result of withdrawal of nomination with no support.
Capitalistroadster 02:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Torbett doesn't have good Google results to warrant an entry here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cola4 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 July 2006
I've decided that the result should be keep as no one wants it to go.
The result of the nomination was kept consensus to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need not a page for each episode. DarkAdonis255 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed this article for deletion as it seems to me to be a vanity piece on a non-notable, self-published book. The creator and almost exclusive contributor to the article is 'sirmyk' who is the author, Michael Bailey. John Self 08:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy "Cut!" CSD A7 - simply saying a person is an actor is not an assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this page does not fit within the standard Wikipedia guidelines. Not notable actor, no encyclopedic value yet.
The result of the discussion was delete, reasoning is more or less identical to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dis-Harmony / Collect All 5! / Ninjcompoop. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need articles for each episode. DarkAdonis255 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After half a month, the article's creator failed to show notability. Now, this band is NOT The Essentials at http://www.essentialsmusic.com/ . It's a different, more local, band. Targetter 02:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete of mistakenly placed page by request of creator and sole editor. Uncle G 14:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page and meant for it to be a category. I messed up as I was making it. Category has since been created and this page should be deleted.--Looper5920 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - set of non-notable neologisms from a relatively obscure web forum. Prod removed without comment Gwernol 13:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was Keep Eluchil404 03:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN-bio, few google hits, mainly about a kidnapping of her daughter, advert ? Optimale Gu 13:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A charming essay but it can't be described as anything other than original research through and through. David | Talk 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable person: while the first items are correct (finsihed 16th in a major spelling bee, had a very minor appearance in a movie), the rest seems speculative or at least unverifiable (e.g. "Biplab panda" Foucalut gives no Google hits, and neither does his name with "policy debate"). The boy may have a bright future ahead, but as for know, he doesn't merit his own encyclopedic article yet. If it does somehow not get deleted, it should be moved to the correct capitalization though. Fram 13:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A1. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The FCC says that KWLD call letters are assigned to a station on 91.5 MHz in Plainview, Texas [43], not 92.3 in San Diego. The www.wild923.com website previously listed in the article is not working. I couldn't find a radio station named "WILD" in San Diego; there is a radio station at 92.5 in San Diego, which suggests that there's no station at 92.5 because of channel spacing. The KBIT station now mentioned mentioned by the article is not found with an FCC search. [[44]] Let's stop the nonsense. Mikeblas 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 15:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable collegiate organization Tom Harrison Talk 13:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is intended as a testcase. There are added recently many very short stubs about gotras, which are basically clans. This is a typical one. It just says, if I understand it correctly, that this is one of the many clans in this region of India. This seems to be rather useless and an example of WP:NOT. I am not going to list all of them yet, as there are way too many (see List of Jat clans for just one region, and Rajput clans for another), but if this one gets deleted, I would like a proposal as to how I (or anyone) can best procedd to delete all the other ones (of similar content: there are some which are notable (clans of rulers etcetera) and undeletable for other reasons). Fram 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was vandalised, and the vandalised version was nominated for deletion. The nomination was malformed and nothing happened. I have unvandalised the article, but am not sure whether the result meets with WP:CORP. Therefore I'm now sending it here for discussion.➨ ЯЄDVERS 14:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is inaccurate -- Joe Benvenuti is not an owner nor affiliated with Ubiquiti Networks (www.ubnt.com).
Please remove this fact or delete the article in its entirety.
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a repost (minus stub tag) of article deleted at [[previous AfD. Kimchi.sg 14:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember a precedent to delete these; anyway, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and the article title is hard to type and has misplaced parentheses. (Some of this can be fixed, but the article probably isn't worth saving even then.) --ais523 14:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/喆. Comes close to a CSD (repost) Travelbird 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete as utterly no assertion of notability.
Apologies to Tevildo, but I read the first paragraph twice (which is basically all the content worth reading in the article, the rest being a few lists of performers) and I don't see how being a school version of a Broadway musical performed students in some high school in some part of the United States is an assertion of notability in itself. Thus, closing early. Kimchi.sg 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki's now being used to listed performers of a highschool production? What's next, who played the tree in Central Elementary's 2nd grade ensemble? Wildthing61476 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete hoax, nonsense. Kimchi.sg 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Part original research and part vanity, this article is the sole work of 1 editor, and it was his sole contribution. Alex Forsyth Niger returns 3 hits on Google, Forsyth A Cock and Balls Story returns one, and Forsyth Rifles in Donkeys returns none. He also apparently is able to predict his own death. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 14:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Non-notable article, appears to fail WP:WEB also badly writen. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD G7 - author's request. Kimchi.sg 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A new flash cartoon production team working on its first project", out of one member's basement, tried to speedy under WP:BIO but author removed tag w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NFT and, more formally, WP:CSD#A7 (and probably A6); the sole claim of notability, being "the subject of numerous comics and an animated feature series", is easily disproven by a quick web search. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be "the subject of numerous comics and an animated feature series". I got two Ghits, both from a blog indicating that this was a comic book made up in school to mock some poor schoolkid. NawlinWiki 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spamvertising for forum hosting site; author removed prod tag NawlinWiki 15:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find this as advertising. But if you think it is, what is needed to be done if this topic should remain here on wikipedia?--ChrillDeVille 15:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed all the links except the one to Forumsvibe, so this cannot be counted as advertising for those special forums ChrillDeVille 16:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was no consensus - default to keep Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable individual who fails to meet WP:BIO. Simply serving as a director of a golf association does not make him notable or encyclopedic. Strothra 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable bar. If this stays can I list the numerous bars in and around my neighborhood of Fells Point? Wildthing61476 15:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn amateur theatre group, gets 40 hits on google, poorly written, reads as ad Burgwerworldz 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was - with opinion split down the middle and arguments to notability largely unaddressed as to why they are insufficient, no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for a product created by its author, KingsleyIdehen (talk · contribs). Almost an exact copy of Virtuoso Universal Server which is also nominated for deletion. waffle iron talk 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was} delete. Verifiability is non-negotiable, Wikipedia is not the place for neologisms, and as has been adequately addressed below (in particular by Craig Stuntz), the sources provided do not give confidence either that this article is sufficiently verified as an accepted term as it stands, nor that a consistent universally accepted definition for this term could be given if someone tried to rewrite it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparantly this is related to Virtuoso Universal Server which is currently also at AfD. Both articles were created by User:KingsleyIdehen. The nominator of the AfD for Universal Virtual Server also included the article Universal server in the nomination, but the deletion of that article (the first version, not the current relist) did not entail the deletion of Universal server, per the discussion, in my opinion (I closed that AfD).
The allegation is that this article (Universal server) is all part of a ploy to get a link to OpenLink into Wikipedia. Be that as it may, the article should stand or fall on its own merits. Herostratus 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks verifiability, notability. No Google hits. —Caesura(t) 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. - brenneman {L} 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. No more notable than thousands of other opera singers around the world. Delete. User:Angr 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman {L} 04:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional vanity piece, claims to have "lay the foundation and tone adopted by today's bloggers" but does not contain anything in the way of references, not even a personal blog link. RFerreira 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website/directory. Fails WP:WEB and Google test. (Attempted PROD). mtz206 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Until he actually wins a seat in Congress he does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Delete. User:Angr 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity article used for political purposes
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this university department has any individual notability or fame, like the Cavendish Laboratory or the Lincoln Laboratory have. Delete, since there is nothing worth merging into the article of the university that it is part of. Dr Zak 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was BA-L333333TED!. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely nothing notable about this site. It was some minor net meme many years ago and now seems utterly forgotten. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia of general knowledge, not a compendium of every little stupid site someone put online. --Cyde↔Weys 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable --Macarion 17:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consists of nothing more than a badly formed and non-wikified list of administrators on PC Gamer's forum. I don't see how this is encyclopedic or notable. Dvandersluis 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the reference in the talk page, there are over 700 papers about this circuit. So why aren't any of them referenced in the article. I'd suggest speedy (no assertion of notability), but I'm not sure that applies to electrical circuits. See below — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable short film. The award he received for this film doesn't seem to exist as far as I can see. "National Youth Filmmaker Society" gets 9 Google hits, all MySpace links. Okay...actually, looking further...it only exists as an entity on MySpace [51]. 27 unique Google hits for "Darren Fisher" Shanks. Delete as non-notable film. Metros232 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unused and unneeded disambig page for two other articles. I had originally prod'ed it, but an anon wanted to make it into a redirect. I have no idea why. This is just basic house cleaning. -- Ned Scott 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable --Macarion 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has absolutely no legitimate basis for existing within Wikipedia's database, for it was clearly created based on an individual's biased perspective on an internet website. The article contains many unnecessary references to certain individuals and actually derides them within its text. This is absolutely unnecessary and should not be tolerated. Very little factual information is being displayed, for the article is filled with opinionated, idiosyncratic statements with the sole intention of promoting the website. The absence of a neutral point of view throughout it, the inability to verify many of the article's statements, and the fact that it was written from an idiosyncratic perspective with the intention of advertising the webpage on Wikipedia, thus, legitimizes its deletion. Furthermore, one can visit the website's forum itself at www.mvpmods.com and discover that the creation of this page has clearly been an immature advertising campaign in order to arouse amusement amongst its members. Themaroons 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
The result of the discussion was delete. Given the relatively spare discussion here, I'm relying on the precedent of June 16 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Ortolani). Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted as Francesca Ortolani on June 16; author was warned against recreating article and did it anyway. Also nominating the following related articles:
NawlinWiki 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. The existence of the article is premature, as most commentors have observed. A mention in the Derbyshire article might be worthwhile, but no merge is required. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded, htom disagreed. This hypothesis was first formulated yesterday ([56]) by columnist John Derbyshire on the weblog of the National Review. The lack of notability seems obvious to me. David Sneek 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - Blanked by author. --lightdarkness (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page was originally prod'ed, prod removed by author, page now currently blank. Checking history, this appeared to be a non-notable web forum. Suggested deletion and protection for recreation due to author behavior.Wildthing61476 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dicdef already in Witionary DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was Keep Eluchil404 03:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very sad story, but I dont see the notability. Unlike other victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks, he did not exhibit any notable bravery. --Asbl 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: previous AfD discussion. Parsssseltongue 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a bit of gamecruft relating to Knights of the Old Republic II. Wildthing61476 19:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete elementary school with not assertion of significance. Schools are theoretically deletable, since WP:SCHOOL failed, and this one is not even a high school. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --Macarion 19:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn as the ((copyvio)) template should have been used, and the reasons for the nomination are no longer present in the article. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 06:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article appears to have always been a copyvio of [61], and seems that just pieces of that webpage were cut and pasted to create this article. Article as it stands doesn't seem to have an encyclopedic tone and creating it from scratch would be my suggestion. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete all. Mailer Diablo 04:31, 12 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)) . |
According to the IMDB this director has no movies to his credit apart from the one listed, and that is not yet released. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - This director is mentioned in a related article. - 112233445566 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This article contains a link to an article about the film he directed; likewise, the article about the film contains a link to this article. It should not be deleted. -- Filmbuff1 20:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (Note:Filmbuff1 has made only six edits, all to this page or the pages it references DJ Clayworth)
The article about this director ought to be preserved as a stub. CitizenKane41 23:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, 2200 ghits but I think most are for an Australian philosopher who died in 1985, says he owns "Atlantis music company" but "Charles Hamblin" Atlantis gets 5 ghits minus wikipedia, and looks like none are about him
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:WEB; Alexa ranking of 327,415. JChap 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was keep. —Centrx→talk • 05:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion by Mbeychok with the following reason:
This is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion, so I'm instead taking the issue to AfD on their behalf. This implies no opinion either way on my part. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE —Whouk (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notbale businessman whose article was created at the same time that a copyvio of his business's profile was posted (now deleted). Harro5 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Currently accepted by many people." So? And does this concept really need to be explained? --Macarion 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy, attack/nonsense page.--Andeh 22:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nn-bio / attack page. Speedy tag removed by author, otherwise I would not bother to bring it here. -- RHaworth 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was Keep Eluchil404 03:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO, no notability claimed - or does every weather-person get an article? Rklawton 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. Google search for "Pharaoh Moans" wine yields 12 results [62]. Other articles by creator appear to be primarily for advertisement. mtz206 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was article made saving throw; kept. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
obvious factual errors, otherwise no content except for marketing ploys and excerpts from the license KiloByte 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This fails WP:ADS and is a contested prod. Gay Cdn 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From deletion guidelines: The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
Do blogs about coffee and gadgets count? Or are these considered trivial?
http://www.singleservecoffee.com/archives/004326.php http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/001187.php http://www.gizmag.com/go/5051/ http://www.coffeecrew.com/content/view/345/27/ http://www.dansdata.com/aeropress.htm http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/502.html http://www.coffeeandcaffeine.com/archives/making-coffee-with-an-aeropress/ http://www.madprofessor.net/2006/05/aerobie_aeropress_1.html http://home.surewest.net/frcn/Coffee/aeropress.html http://mostlycajun.com/wordpress/?p=1689 http://www.howtobrewcoffee.com/aeropress.htm http://tomness.blogspot.com/2006/05/aeropress.html
So people who care a lot about coffee around the web are talking about the aeropress. It would seem to me that a Wikipedia entry is called for. I'm new to this though. If not, then please tell me why. Should any of the above reviews be linked as references? As the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, this might seem even more spammy. (I have no connection with the aerobie company, I just use the thing.) --Bephillips 06:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.
So a blog by someone like Juan Cole might be considered a reliable source. I'm not saying that any of the above qualify as such. I doubt they do. Thanks again for helping me with the process.--Bephillips 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - A disputed prod. Gay Cdn 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedy Easy... err... Delete per CSD:A1. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None notable website that does not even exist yet. There is no link to anything relating to the apparently upcoming website, or even the domain name that the website will take. It does not explain anything about the site apart from the fact that it is schedualed to be completed. Google reveals a lot of existing sites of the same name. J Milburn 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedy delete per CSD:G3. I consider creating deliberate hoax articles to be vandalism. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a hoax, or at least unverifiable given that this name does not appear in any references I can find other than Wikipedia mirrors. Dpv 20:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, or so I'm assuming given the nominator's change to keep. Mindmatrix 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article simply amounts to advertising for the involved companies. There is very little that merits saving from any encyclopedicity's point of view, and what little there is should go on the Miscellany page. See in particular the blurb about T Mobile in the Trivia section -- it's an unadulturated commercial/advertisement! Mareklug talk 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Drop me a message if you want userfy. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another hoax; only things on Google are this [64] also apparently fake biography, and this [65] apparently real biography which shows him as a nonnotable children's author and art journalist. NawlinWiki 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page appears to be original research and completely non-encyclopedic. In addition, this user has been warned previously for POV topics regarding this current topic Wildthing61476 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rahim's only claim to notability is her organization, Teens Transforming the Community. Since the article about her does not contain any additional information, even merging seems too much effort. Thus, delete. --Huon 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete userfied. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None Notable person. No reason given for notability, real name not given. Should be Userfied. J Milburn 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was Merge with Undermind. I also merged all of the other songs on the same album. —Centrx→talk • 05:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In short, I am worried about the numerous articles for songs at list of Phish songs because only a few might be considered notable based on songs. Also, the articles may be considered fancruft to a degree. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 21:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN person, no attempt to claim notability, should be userfied.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs)
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May be a vanity page. No encyclopedic content Eubulide 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedy redirected by the author's creater, User:Sparkyfry. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches for "Dusty Kilmore" and "Minnesota Twins Dusty Kilmore" turns up no results. Article seems to be written as a possible joke, non-notable term regardless. Wildthing61476 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dusty Kilmore lives! This is great, as a huge Twins fan, I just want to say that this is exactly the kind of thing I come to Wikipedia looking for, history that can not be found anyshere else. This is for real, it was a major part of a highly rated baseball telecast in a major market for an entire season. Great job Sparkyfry! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.29.240.140 (talk • contribs) 6 July 2006.
I disagree with a few things. First, this article is not "fancruft". The term "Dusty Kielmohr" was used by a large number of baseball fans in the Twin Cities, who were closely following the local Major League Baseball team as it pursued a pennant (which it won). The Google link I cited above demonstrates this. There are all sorts of articles on obscure occurrences in Major League Baseball, whether it involves the Twins' Circle Me, Bert phenomenon or Steve Bartman's unfortunate day at a Cubs game. These events are important to baseball fans in their respective markets, and there are thousands upon thousands of such fans.
I wrote this article specifically because I was chatting with somebody the other day, and he used the term "Dusty Kielmohr." I remembered the term, but couldn't remember what it meant. This is exactly the sort of situation where Wikipedia can come in useful. To be sure, it's trivial, but so is a lot of the stuff on here. Unlike fancruft, I researched the article before writing to ensure the accuracy of the statistics (i.e., combined batting average, home runs, etc.) and facts (i.e., who was traded for whom on what date). I wrote it in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, but that is a stylistic choice that other writers can change if they so desire. (It seemed appropriate for a piece of baseball trivia.) It doesn't detract from the value of having the article in the first place. The only thing I got wrong was the spelling of the term. (It's a term coined by local sportswriters, so it's not something with a proper dictionary spelling anyway.) Other people could likely make the same spelling mistake, so it seems reasonable to have a redirect link from the other spelling.
Second, I do not think it is appropriate to link this article to Bobby Kielty, any more than it is appropriate to Dustan Mohr. The term "Dusty Kielmohr" was used specifically to refer to *both* players, and not one or the other. It might be appropriate to have a link to the Dusty Kielmohr article on both Dustan Mohr's Wikipedia page and Bobby Kielty's Wikipedia page, or to have a link to both of those pages from this one, but not an entire redirect.
Dusty Kielmohr is a legitimate piece of Twins baseball history and deserves a Wikipedia article. Sparkyfry 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete AmiDaniel (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. This doesn't belong here. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del. Wikipedia is not a library of kookery. A couple of historically notable examples would be enough and may well go into the Nostradamus article. But 9/11 and Indian Ocean earthquake is way overboard. `'mikka (t) 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete and redirect. Mailer Diablo 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This used to be a redirect to the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah, one section of which is known as the Vision of Isaiah, until User:TheEditrix replaced it with a new article on a verse found in 2 Chronicles.
The article asserts that there was a book called "Vision of Isaiah". This is problematic on three counts
Delete as original research and replace the original redirect to the Ascension of Isaiah. Dr Zak 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was merged to Midnight Cowboy (novel). --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is virtually a copy of Midnight Cowboy (novel), with nothing more than a slight change made to the first sentence. The article is of no original substance and should therefore be deleted. Extravagance 21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
College basketball players are not inherently notable -WP:BIO refers. I am, however, persuaded that they can be. In this case, though, there is insufficient notability aserted to make the grade. Delete. BlueValour 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD G1 - nonsense. Kimchi.sg 07:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
unencyclopedic, a Google search for [faze prank "pacific northwest"] gives a few hundred mostly irrelevant results-- ugen64 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made-up word, 0 google hits. WP:NEO applies. Fan-1967 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Philopaideia:
I made this article.
I am working on a book project called The Philopaideia Project compiling the classical knowledge of various human cultures.
I work in philanthropy.
I own philopaideia.org. I'm working on the website.
philosophy=love of wisdom philopaideia=love of learning
"paedo" is an entirely different word from "paideia."
Also: There is a long history, especially in Greek, of scholars creating words for their own purposes. For instance, Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 275-194 B.C.E.) was the first to call himself philologos (philology, φιλολόγος). Source: The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Second Edition, pg. 405.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenry312 (talk • contribs)
According to Wikipedia, paideia has nothing to do with 'love of boys' but instead is defined as:
To the ancient Greeks, Paideia was "the process of educating man into his true form, the real and genuine human nature." (1) It also means culture. It is the ideal in which the Hellenes formed the world around them and their youth.
Please look up Pedophilia. It is clearly stated in this article that the root word means boy and has an entirely different meaning from Paideia: pais (παις, "child")
I did read WP:NEO, however I believe that Classical Civilizations is not a subject that can easily be governed by the vagaries of popular culture. Most of what is the Classics will never be accepted under the greater whole of humans. Most people, especially Americans, have no idea what the root words are of the most basic Greek words like anthropology or philosophy.
It is a valid point that Philopaideia is not in widespread use at this time, but I believe in the spirit of the Greeks, which invented new words to suit their purposes (similar to German), such constructive concepts should be encouraged.
In addition, I don't think it should qualify as a neologism because it merely merges together two widely understood words- love (philo-) and learning (paideia). Rather than pedophilia, it would be better to relate Pedagogy and the word Encyclopaideia (all learning). In fact, Wikipedia itself could be written instead as "Wikipaideia" rather than Wikipedia as that would be truer to the original spelling for Encyclopaideia.
My website for The Philopaideia Project will be up soon and as soon as I said, I own philopaideia.org. This is not a for-profit operation but instead a non-profit venture and I have a long history of successful work in local and global charities and philanthropic foundations (many in my native Chicago).
Also, please keep in mind that I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to follow the rules and learn how to properly post. Thanks--johnhenry312
The result of the discussion was keep. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
College basketball players, though not inherently notable by WP:BIO can be. This guy, though, doesn't seem notable. The article can be recreated if he does play for a professional team. Delete BlueValour 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN Company producing wheels. Very few google hits, and the article is a very poor one. I say Delete. J Milburn 22:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. As you might have noticed not native english. So feel free to improve. The article is background to te related article about Holland mechnics. There are in this marked 4 suppliers and wheel building a very specilized field. If you ride a bike you might have noticed the importance of the wheels in it. So please give me a hand how to make the article better and I will be greatful for that.
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-important person biography --Zachblume 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF requirements. I couldn't find any books of general interest or widely-used textbooks written by Dr. Robson-Brown, nor could I find evidence that she has been quoted in any major publications. None of the links provided in the article establish her as particularly noteworthy: the Organisations section merely list groups with which she is affiliated (it's not surprising that a professor would be a member of such groups, and indeed dozens of others are listed alongside her), and the links under Reference Works lead to 1) a book review written by the professor, 2) a site, listed twice, through which a collection of papers she co-edited is sold, 3) a review of a conference which she attended, 4) the schedule for a "mini-conference" at which she spoke, and 5) a bibliography in which one paper which she co-authored is listed along with several hundred others. The main author of the article has been banned indefinitely for trolling, but given his eagerness to prove the notability of another person, I think that if there were something particularly noteworthy about Dr. Robson-Brown, he would have found it. - Tapir Terrific 22:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was Keep stub - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.
Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. OzLawyer 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.
Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. OzLawyer 22:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.
Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. OzLawyer 22:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.
Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. OzLawyer 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.
Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. OzLawyer 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.
Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. OzLawyer 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.
Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. OzLawyer 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.
Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. OzLawyer 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was merge into Bialowieza Forest. Mailer Diablo 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Group up for deletion: Barrel Oak, Dominator Oak, Emperor of the North Oak, Emperor of the South Oak, Great Mamamuszi Oak, Southern Cross Oak, The Guardian of Zwierzyniec, The King of Nieznanowo, Tsar Oak.
Nothing about these trees makes them any more notable than any other Oak tree in the world. One other article about a tree in the same forest which has some sort of historical significance, Jagiełło Oak has not been put up for deletion. OzLawyer 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, non-NPOV bandcruft, appears to be a puff piece for this band, no semblence of any notability. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Flowerparty☀ 04:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just another NN company, this time a record company that doesn't even have a real website! --Bill (who is cool!) 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Flowerparty☀ 04:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely NN lego creation, practically no google hits. Delete. J Milburn 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Flowerparty☀ 04:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this for PROD but someone contested so I'm brining it here. Reason for prod were: nn podcast. doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB --Pboyd04 23:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Flowerparty☀ 04:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No clear assertion of notability (or really anything else) in the article Could be merged into 108 Stars of Destiny (Suikoden) if that article is rewritten. Eluchil404 23:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Flowerparty☀ 04:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This website does not appear notable in any way, and as a consequence fails WP:WEB -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete. Flowerparty☀ 04:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a company. So what? There is nothing in the article to suggest that it is especially notable, above all the hundreds of thousands of other companies in the USA. The article just gives a history of customers' shopping habits, and notes that they opened a few stores. Nothing notable whatsoever... not to mention that nothing is referenced. EuroSong talk 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the nomination was Speedy delete per CSD:A1/G4, its fourteenth deletion. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website Steve 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a college rivalry, which in my opinion isn't all that notable, and apparently google agrees. All colleges have rivalries, but the only people that have any interest in them are current students and those closely involved in the program. Also, it's not particularly well written, and everything it mentions could probably be summed up into the articles of the colleges themselves (if they haven't been already.) tmopkisn tlka 00:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at WP:HOCKEY seems to be that while junior hockey (the highest level of amateur hockey competition) is relevant and notable, midget (one step down, and for players 17 and under) is not. This league is not particularly noteworthy and falls a little too far down the scale. Also, a team in the league, the Connecticut Renegades, was nominated here with no consensus, and another team was deleted here. I voted to keep both teams but would now change my vote per further consideration and discussion; if anyone wants to re-nominate the Connecticut team I would support that deletion. BoojiBoy 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]