The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list that merely lumps together and explains formulas that alread exist elsewhere on wikipedia. Whoever started it only placed a few on, but if it were to enumerate every formula in the same manner it would become huge, unworkable, and entirely composed of content that exists elsewhere on the site. Indrian 00:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G7 (article was blanked by only author). I'm not going to create a redirect from this typo to anywhere, but I have created Yokota Air Base Friendship Festival to redirect to Yokota Air Base, and marked ((R with possibilities)). Stifle (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short, unencyclopedic article with misspelled title referring to a local event created by User:Picturetokyo, whose only other contributions have been links to the user's own site Ianb 00:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys i dont know how this works. I would like to make the page better and i have lots more content and pictures i could add for it. I just thought that people would like to know more about it.--Picturetokyo 09:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also have 2 images starting out i would like to add.
[1] [2]--Picturetokyo 09:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could this ever be more than a dicdef? Chick Bowen 00:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- *Delete and move to Wiktionary I can't see it as being more than a Wiktionary entry.*User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, if not patent nonsense. Stormie 01:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks bogus, unencyclopedic.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 01:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedied G1. Tawker 05:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, if not patent nonsense. Stormie 01:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks bogus, unencyclopedic.--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 01:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page links to nothing else, and it is a song that did not reach any charts. Non-notable The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable -- few hits on 'net •Jim62sch• 01:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a PR piece, PROD contested by article writer. FCYTravis 01:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main article: Regular Grand Lodge of England had been deleted. So should this list page that derives from it. Wikipedia is not a) free web space b) propaganda c) original research d) an indiscriminate collection of information or a junk yard. . Delete and protect Blueboar 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A stub about a military campaign in a place where no military operations took place, telling us just that. Frankly useless, in my opinion; should we have articles about all the other places and circumstances where fighting didn't happen? Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Label shows no bands that meet WP:Music guidelines, and draws few (no more than ten) Google hits, and that includes its own website and MySpace links. Recommend delete. Consequentially 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was ((deletagain)). Mailer Diablo 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems non-notable, and seems to be written as a campaign advertisement. If she wins, then she'll be notable. (Or if evidence turns up that these books she's written are notable) Allen 01:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete all. Mailer Diablo 10:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This and other articles nominated below are part of a larger group of articles relating to councillors and candidates in Brentwood, Essex, England, seen at Category:Brentwood. I would happily nominate all of them other than those who have been leaders of the Council or are otherwise notable. The presence of the first few seems to spawning POV articles essentially reproducing election biographies, and could get too much to handle.
However, those which I am nominating now are just those of losing candidates - they have not held public office and no wider notability beyond local campaigning is asserted. We cannot have hundred of articles on failed local politicians on top of articles on every successful one. Perhaps the other articles can be considered individually.
Mtiedemann 02:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can find no references to a Japanese war criminal named Onishi Satrou (or Onishi Satoru). David Kernow 02:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete per A6. TheProject 23:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vilification page only. Possible libel. Remove it --Light current 02:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete; this is something that is already handled using redirects. RasputinAXP c 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like this article is pointless. If you want to note the original title of an opera, it should be on the article for that opera. Quite why anyone would want to look at a simple list of operas with their original titles, I don't know. I think my problem then is that this is too idiosyncratic to be encyclopedic mgekelly 02:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was that as very few people want these articles to exist separately (and the consensus cited on the talk page for the split is rather underwhelming, consisting of "Why don't we..?" and "Yeah, I'll do that"), both redirected to All your base are belong to us. If any more examples are wanted for that article, follow the redirects back. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These entries are indiscriminate collections of information. Brian G. Crawford 03:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable, and now-closed, high school -- WP can't and shouldn't list all the closed 50-yr-old high schools in the USA NawlinWiki 03:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedied A7. Tawker 05:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page. The page has very little content and poorly identifies the subject. Clubmarx | Talk 03:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. TheProject 04:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
notability, no hits on Google or Yahoo KsprayDad 03:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus for deletion or merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a list of books, possibly cut-and-paste from an electronic catalogue. Tagged for wikify and clean-up, which I've made a start on, but seems unlikely it could ever develop into anything encyclopedic.➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 13:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bio, borders on adcruft. One hit on Google, and all links point to his business website. --ES2 15:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak Delete, unless someone can verify that his book sold enough copies. -- ReyBrujo 05:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn-band, "experienced a good deal of local and some moderate regional success" only Spearhead 21:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete and redirect to flood. Mailer Diablo 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very faint whiff of notability under WP:BAND but very faint. Enough for me to divert from speedy to here just in case, anyway. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 22:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. I'm not doing it myself, however, as I don't know which game should go in which list. A lot of the games are already in one or the other, but not all. Merge tags added. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a fork of List of open source games and List of freeware games created by an anon IP from the 86.* IP block. The reason given was that "there's really no reason why people should have to look at 3 different articles because of legal technicalities. To the vast majority of people, a "free game" is something that can be downloaded and played for free." [4] This is contrary to Wikipedia:Content forking and WP:NOT (in that Wikipedia is not a links directory). It is also impossible to keep in sync with the original lists. So, it should be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was a "graphical MUD" that has not existed for 6 years. No independent/reliable sources. No indication of meeting WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. The only thing the game's website says is, "Paintball Net is coming..." and it has an Alexa rank of 3,365,697. I am recommending delete. --Hetar 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense, intentional hoax/vandalism, etc. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary; prodded, but contested. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. The article gives one external link as a source, and that link is broken. "Feminist imperative" gets 136 google hits, most of which do not seem to be about the definition of "feminist imperative" given in the article. Thus my suspicion that this was original research was confirmed. Delete Catamorphism 04:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was After doing some googling and finding the special issue of Management Today, keep. RasputinAXP c 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, fails WP:BIO. Also, I want to mention that the creator of the page, Charlieosmond (talk · contribs), appears to be Charlie Osmond, co-funder of FreshMinds with her [5], thus I believe it can also be considered vanity. ReyBrujo 04:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep, passes WP:CORP and information is easily verified. RasputinAXP c 14:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The company seems to fail WP:CORP for both companies and services.Also, note that the original creator of the article, Charlieosmond (talk · contribs), appears to be the co-funder of FreshMinds [6], and is also the creator of Caroline Plumb's article, the other co-funder of the company, and about Business research, the main topic of his company. I qualify this as vanity, hidden advertisment, or both. ReyBrujo 04:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. RasputinAXP c 14:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non–notable person . — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, apparently the author just wanted to remove a red link from Fairfax Moresby. NN. -- ReyBrujo 05:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep as withdrawn. Kotepho 23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The creating user doesn't exist anymore. No edits were made by the user aside from the act of creation. There are no references. If referenced, I would suggest merging it into the History of Hawaii or some such article, but in this case, I think deletion is the best idea. Xaxafrad 05:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
*Delete if nobody can provide references. The article is not being linked from any other relevant article in Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 05:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. Take a look. Dang it, I should have been doing something else :) Zora 11:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. AndyZ 15:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting as original nominator didn't do it correctly. This is an obvious delete. Aplomado - UTC 05:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Left untranslated after two weeks. Discussion from WP:PNT follows:
The language of this article is unknown. --Nationalparks 05:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Left untranslated at WP:PNT for three weeks. Here is the discussion:
The language of this article is not known to me. --71.28.250.126 19:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Fails WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB. RasputinAXP c 14:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promo page to a for-profit company that was started in only 2005. No pages link to this. Clubmarx | Talk 05:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. This is a factual article about a valid company offering a valid service in an emerging area of technology. The Wikipedia offers a disservice by denying a factual entry such as this one. -- frankatca 12:00 EDT, 6 May 2006
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, belongs at WP:MFD.. --Hetar 16:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User is perminintly banned -- Heltec 05:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect. Kusma (討論) 16:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article on the Erie doctrine, thus the page is an unnecessary duplicate. --Eastlaw 05:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge into Jim Baen. - Liberatore(T) 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google search yields a good number of hits, but it appears that vast majority are "you can buy this magazine here" links. Delete (but if kept, should be renamed to "Jim Baen's Universe," as it does not appear to be capitalized "UNIVERSE" in these links). --Nlu (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to establish notability Dismas|(talk) 05:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While not utter nonsense, there is no assertion made as to the notability of Dome Dogs, nor any sources listed for the global warming claim. Dismas|(talk) 05:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this article should be deleted. Everything in it is factual. None of it is lies. It is simply a parody on the global warming issue. It will be enhanced with charts and photographs in the near future..it is just a neat parody ofthe global warming issue for people to enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbitballer (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was merge into Box Car Racer (album). I'm merging with the album rather than the band article -- No Guru 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to have this article up and the text isn't relevant and it hasn't been cleaned up at all showing lack of interest on the article. Myxomatosis 04:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge into Box Car Racer (album). I'm merging contnet into the album article rather than the band one -- No Guru 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no relevant reason to have the article and no one has posted any information on the single. Myxomatosis 06:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a seemingly non existant chemical, containing an (admittedly effective) OR debunk of a bogus product. Count the policy failures... WP:V, WP:NOR etc. Delete. Rockpocket (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend to restart the AfD and require every voter to provide information on his expertise. Pavel Vozenilek 20:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In accordance with OTRS ticket number 2006051110012197. Factual errors and non-verifiability, plus it contains weasel words. Wikipedia is not the place for soapboxes:
— Bastique▼parlervoir 15:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge to List of Weebl and Bob cartoons and redirect or delete. Arguments to delete overweigh. --Ezeu 10:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The handful of Weebl and Bob episode articles that exist are short, lean towards fancruft, and lack notability. (An article for the series is fine. Even a list of episodes is tolerable. But individual articles?) My mass prodding was undone by serial de-prodder Kappa, so I now take it to the people. Deltabeignet 07:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an advertisement for a product and company, both which are not notable and of no contribution to this encyclopedia. Beltz 08:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge. --Ezeu 11:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article consists of nothing but a directory of links, possibly for the purposes of advertising. I am also nominating the following pages liked to by the original article for the same reason:
I have decided not to nominate IATA, also linked from the above article, since it actually contains content of merit. Tjohns ✎ 08:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Check if they are locally/nationwide, and of international interest. I believe you should not nominate them for deletion, rather merge links/info into one entry. Probably people search for this information. Associations are not neccessarily selling anything to customers. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was:Delete Prodego talk 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont believe it to be usefull, do we ealy need a article about a silly phrase such as that? Matthew Fenton (t) 08:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep without prejudice to proposals to move to "Japanisation" or "Japanization". Metamagician3000 11:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
highly biased - neologism rarely used in french (¹internet search shows usage within french), should not be used for political reason. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly written as an advertisement (and flagged as such). However, there is a minor claim to notability (produced two games). I am unable to determine the notability of this company, so I will defer to others on this issue and abstain from the AfD for now. The forum on the company website does not look particularly active. Adm studios is a redirect page, and on the same day an anon added an entry at the disambig page ADM; there are otherwise no incoming links. BillC 08:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. The note about Google Scholar was particularly noteworthy; it's true that WP:NOT a dictionary, but there's a strong feeling here, and well-argued, that this article could be more than just a dictionary definition. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
term not widely in use - term moved to Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms. difficult to spell. "Today, McDonaldization, Disneyfication, and Swooshification are the phrases that capture the fears of a growing monoculture." - political biased information, not wikipedia data. By the way: "Swooshification" - who says that (sounds creepy)? more "the age of nike". I do not see a need to list such words here. They really need a hudge fanbase (like ghey).
The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 16:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable amateur film made by some high-school friends. Prod removed without comment. Gwernol 09:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because its the sequel:
Gwernol 09:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep - Liberatore(T) 18:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement Dismas|(talk) 09:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was userfy - Liberatore(T) 18:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN bio or NN web site, take your pick. Dismas|(talk) 10:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Likely hoax. Google search shows no relevant entries. Punkmorten 10:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Likely hoax. Google search shows no relevant entries. Punkmorten 10:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded and moved here; original prod reason was "Not notable." I'll remain neutral myself, I just think that notability doesn't apply to every possible topic, and some people might disagree with deleting this page. Mangojuicetalk 11:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep and expand. The subject of this article obviously has some notoriety as a Liberal candidate for the House of Representatives, and there's scads of online stuff about him, including transcripts of ABC radio broadcasts on Radio National and notices about his practice on the NSW Law Society website. --Tony Sidaway 23:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn lawyer/politician/blogger, prod removed without comment by new user Tango 11:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads as an add Francisco Valverde 11:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was} delete; if someone is interested in creating List of political sex scandals of the United States by POV-removing the article (adding all Democrat scandals) and fact-checking all entries in this list, I'll be more than happy to undelete the content and made it available to him/her in his/her userspace. - Liberatore(T) 19:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do Not Merge or Rename non encyclopedic list & as per Deville below Strothra 11:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:I would concur with the idea of creating List of political sex scandals of the United States since there are plenty of sex scandals on both sides of the aisle but I'm not voting to keep this one if I'm going to advocate the creation of a new article. --Strothra 19:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind as per other comments on this discussion in favor of deletion which I had not thought of. --Strothra 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was The ayes have it. keep. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems nn to me Metros232 11:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from working with a notable producer or two, nothing stands out about this band Metros232 11:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Tregoweth as patent nonsense, and WP:SNOW applies here too. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because you live in Lancashire, or a friend asked you to look at it, 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)) . |
I have refactored some of the longer comments from here to the talk page to reduce the amount that people viewing the day's AFD have to scroll through. This is not an assertion that those comments are worse or less important, merely an effort to aid readability. Please place long comments on the talk page. No keep/delete recommendations have been moved. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about this "holiday" anywhere online Metros232 11:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, it's not online at the moment because it's quite new and not many people have heard about it yet outside of Lancashire. It definately isn't a hoax. Ed22882 12:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, wait a second, my reasons were to keep it not to delete it!--Ed2288 14:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DON NOT DELETE If you look at the discussion page for the Tunday article then u'll find that there are those who have heard of it out there... (comment refactored to talk page, posted by Guitar6strings at 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I'd just like to add that people are now telling blatant lies in order to get the article deleted, eg User:Athenemiranda on the Tunday discussion page. These lies undermine the whole argument for the deletion of the article.--Ed2288 18:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i am trying and ne1 celebrators out there PLEASES! help me cite sources for the article. But just sumthing away from the topic, im at college not in skool.--Guitar6strings 18:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Dontrileme 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I have found evidence of the roots of Tunday in Eric Rondel's "Chroniques Paysannes Legendes, Traditions et Superstitions". Hopefully we can now get this deletion debate behind us and start to add to and improve the Tunday article.--194.154.22.36 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Justin Eiler 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We must have different versions of "Chroniques Paysannes Legendes, Traditions et Superstitions". In my version, it appears to me (my french is not flawless) Tunday is on page 45. Is there something different in your version?
I accept the fact that people find it hard to accept the proposed sources by my fellow Tunday believers but whether you can find those books/sources or not does not make this article a hoax; it only further emphasises your point as an article that cannot not yet at this point be verifeid sufficeintly to your strict demands. I believe notability is somewhat "proven" or moving towards it wheather you may agree with me or not but ture, the real debate between people here is on the verifiablity. However i must strongly stress that despite this topic of discussion in my motion to keep the article; it is most deffinately not a hoax.--Guitar6strings 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written article, very dictionary like and non notable neologism Matthew Fenton (t) 12:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can verify usage in several contemporary sources; largely undeground usage. Started as student slang, although notably in more common use since the start of the year.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. DS 14:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable person, also article is entitled Create New yet it is about a porn "star" Matthew Fenton (t) 12:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete. No Guru 19:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable or non-notable neologism. None of the google results for "gino ninja" mention the neologism. SCHZMO ✍ 12:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Information is too vague to be of any importance. May be an attack page --soUmyaSch 14:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about a webcomic with no assertion of notability. Gwernol 14:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a prod tag with the following text:Spam: advertisement for a VOIP service with no assertion of notability. Prod tag was removed with no reason given and no edits save the addition of a logo, so I'm taking it to AfD for the stated reason Tonywalton | Talk 14:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some strange things have gone on in the history logs for this school article and Clarke High School (Ontario). There are towns with this same name: Orono, Ontario, and Orono (town), Maine, but so far as I can see, the town in Maine (a) has no Highway 115 by which the school is supposed to lie, and (b) it has no Clarke High School, it simply being called Orono High School. BillC 14:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep -- Longhair 03:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable one sentence article IrishGuy 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person's article is up for deletion in the French Wikipedia , as well as the article for his school École internationale de chant et de respiration. There is little, or no material for this individual in Google, and nothing for "Bernardo Giotto". There are no recordings listed in any of the databases, nor was any information available for any of the awards that he has listed in Englih or in French. He lists no degrees, nor does he list ensembles that he conducts. There are also a great many references to his school and his name in other articles which have nothing to do with the subject which keep popping up in the French version of Wikipedia, as well as a great many articles about little known family members which are also being examined. To be consistent, I'm nominating this article for deletion. Please also see the Article for Deletion entry in the French version of Wikipédia [24] Musikfabrik 15:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Merge into Qantas--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is like the Singapore Airlines flight numbers article, which was mostly deleted, and a summary was added to the mainline article. There is no reason for a separate article on this (WP:NOT) Dbinder 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Voting delete as the nominator. Dbinder 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user:Aplomado nominated this for prod with the following concern "Non-notable as per the decision of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rageshree_Ramachandran". This article is sufficiently different from Ramachandran (who didn't have the additional, if marginal, assertions of notability). Personally I don't feel she's notable enough for her own article, but just notable enough to be merged into either Scripps National Spelling Bee or a Scripps National Spelling Bee winners article (along with other winners, including the deleted Ramachandran). Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was transwikied, so delete. Well done to y'all for not being nasty about this, and Mr Wiley for taking it so well. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another webcomic. While some webcomics are notable, this one hasn't reached any form of print publication or significant circulation. Seems to have been created for the sole purpose of promoting the comic, as it states that it is, "well-drawn, humorous, and rich full-color." I am recommending delete. --Hetar 16:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the article, "One of many games in a series of "Doom Sports" that are played by upper sixth Parmitarians. (05/06)" --Hetar 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge with Indology. The criticism that this article is inherently POV and largely either original research or relying on unsound sources is a powerful one, and it's a criticism that isn't refuted here. However, the main proponents of deletion here do not seem to feel that there's anything wrong with the topic itself, given a proper treatment. As such, I think merging with Indology would be a good compromise here. As I see there's already an appropriately-named and filled-in section of that article, I'll just redirect ... and any further arguments can take place over there, and well away from AfD. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:13, 14 May 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)) . |
Indology is a stub, but here we host a detailed florilegium of every Hindu prejudice on the internet. This is not even a pov-fork of Indology, it is an ab-initio pov-fest, completely one-sided, unsalvageably biased and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. A short "history" and "alleged bias" section on Indology will be more than enough. dab (ᛏ) 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 21:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to not agree with WP:BIO. Although the article seems to be put together as well as is likely possible. I believe that the subject is simply not notable JGGardiner 17:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 15:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, speculation. Brian G. Crawford 17:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Particularly important points made in this discussion were: the numerous errors in the article, the lack of a coherent selection criteria, and the fact that many of the city descriptions are just copied and pasted from the main city articles. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title is POV fo shizzle. An NPOV title would be "list of big cities around the Pacific Ocean" which doesn't seem to be a necessary or useful article. SchmuckyTheCat 17:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a seemingly non-notable academic, possible a vanity article. According to Worldcat his only work is an unpublished dissertation (owned only by the school he graduated from). Don't know about articles, though, so I thought arguments could perhaps be made. Delete Mak (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge with Under the Iron Sea. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a particularly notable song. Not even a single. Wickethewok 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete, I guess, but redirecting makes so much sense ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page adds nothing to oven, of which it is a subset, already covered there. Any information that could conceivably go here should be there instead. Fnarf999 18:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Since any article on this subject would need to be written from scratch, we'll give the future author a helping hand. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extraneous articles linked from already deleted main article. These just got lost somewhere and should have been removed with the original Catman article. Also adding:
as they, too, are offshoots of the original non notable article. IrishGuy 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. User:Usgnus is particularly persuasive here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"For anyone steeped in old-media thinking, evidence that the on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia is an unreliable source can be found in a Vancouver publisher's entry about himself.
Kevin Potvin writes and publishes a weekly print tabloid called The Republic of East Vancouver, full of inflammatory opinion pieces reminiscent of the ideological rants of 18th-century pamphleteers. It claims a circulation of 6,000. Yet, according to Wikipedia, Mr. Potvin is a colossus.
The entry says that “some hail Potvin as the latest and best resource for fair investigative reporting and independent media campaigns for truth and accountability.” It also reports that his “work has appeared in Harper's and The Atlantic Monthly.”
Now for a fact check. According to Harper's magazine, Mr. Potvin had a letter to the editor printed once, in November of 1992. The Atlantic could find no record of Mr. Potvin — he says he wrote “a substantial letter to the editor” in 1987, but the magazine does not archive letters. " —The Globe and Mail, May 6, 2006
delete
lots of issues | leave me a message 19:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot figure out how to edit a wikipedia entry or how to add this reference to the entry, and maybe someone will help me with that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.169.92 (talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as ((nn-band)). Stifle (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN. The Hebrew counterpart was recently deleted from Hebrew Wikipedia as non-notable, and I noticed a request in Hebrew for help deleting it from the English Wikipedia. woggly 19:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy keep, per my comment at the bottom. Stifle (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page already exists under the name Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. Wikipedia manual of style states that biography should be under most common name Ghits: 20 vs. 2580. This page was created by another user who is in a dispute on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath discussion page, who is changing the redirects to that page, so that they come here. Admins have already put their two cents in on that pages discussion, that since that name gets the most Ghits, that's where the biography should be placed. Also, that article was up for deletion twice and was kept both times. Hamsacharya dan 19:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I could see, this doesn't seem notable. Gadren 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The precursor to this game, Virtual Producer, was featured in Entertainment Weekly a number of years ago. Although it doesn't have a large traffic rating, this is not the only criteria the game should be judged on. The world of online Hollywood simulations is fairly large, and HTG is an important part of it. I believe there are other sites from this genre that have their own Wikipedia pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark Broderick (talk • contribs) .
The result of the debate was merge with Rapidweaver. No Guru 15:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need this page in addition to Rapidweaver? After all, we don't have a page for PowerPoint templates. Gadren 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete CSD A7. kingboyk 05:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem notable enough yet, and it was created by him, according to the history, so it's a vanity page anyway. Gadren 20:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC) I'm also nominating this article, which is an exact copy of the above one:[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable website, alexa ranking well over 1,000,000, does not meet WP:WEB. Prod removed without comment. Rory096 20:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable - 114 google hits, too low for any alexa rating, does not meet the notablility criteria SFC9394 20:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as ((nn-group)). Stifle (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Gadren 21:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable? Aachhaya 21:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was merge to Stay Hungry. --Ezeu 10:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Song is by a notable band, but is not notable by itself. Rory096 21:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect to Battlestar Pegasus.
Delete because this can never be more than a stub. Given that the only authoritative source is the series and the series creator has said a number of times that he is going to steer clear of the techno-babble that plagued Trek. AlistairMcMillan 21:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that this may never be more than a stub with the recent announcment of the Caprica spin off, we may well learn more about this class of ship (amoung others) No Vote EnsRedShirt 00:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge anything salvagable, then redirect. Mailer Diablo 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be encyclopedic, if anything, merge into Chicago White Sox somehow Metros232 22:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. I did a mini clean-up of "dorama" articles a few months ago this is something that's left over. I'm not against including information on audio dramas on wikipedia, however, this is akin to making a list of all movies based on books or all anime based on manga. This just is the wrong way to go about it. --Kunzite 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Propose: Remove or Convert to category for the following reasons:
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, the article doesn't claim notability so ((nn-band)) applies. If someone recreates the article with such an assertion, then it can come back. Stifle (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable band. The so called band members appear to be misspellings of musicians from other bands. The article also has no content of notablity and has no ties to either of the music genres listed, ie: Gothic Metal. Ley Shade 22:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A random Linux distribution; links are dead, no compelling reason that it's notable. Ashibaka tock 22:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as ((nn-band)). Stifle (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable band. The article also has no content of notablity and has no ties to the music genre listed, ie: Gothic Metal. The article has sat for over a month doing nothing, and after searching and question the WP:HMM, we have found this band to be Non Notable. Ley Shade 22:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a dicdef and unencyclopedic (only a synonym of "big"). There is already an entry on "colossal" in Wiktionary that has the etymology. The usage note could be added to the Wiktionary article. SCHZMO ✍ 22:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. kingboyk 05:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created it then realized it is currently unnecessary (maybe when the play and movie have different articles John (Jwy) 22:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable. No Google hits outside of WP mirrors. TheProject 23:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to see the article cleaned up ... what do you say, Stifle? Feel like chancing your arm? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems as though no assertion of notability is made, also tone quite non-encyclopedic Deville (Talk) 23:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, delete, delete unless cleaned up, notable but incoherent? I guess I stick with keep. Could somebody like AJWeberman who understands all this clean it up a little? Weberman's entry is great [30]. 6Akira7 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as A7. The JPS talk to me 23:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a small and not very notable local organization. Only 35 google hits. Connecticiut is a pretty small place, and I doubt this even has much reknown within that state, let alone out of it. Indrian 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no clear consensus to delete. Merged as suggested.--Ezeu 20:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this article is an exact duplicate of the pakhtunkhwa thread..and adds little to the debate.. --Zak 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start? Fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN to begin with. The subject (and author) of this article has not only managed to edit Wikipedia a day after his own death, he's also found the time in the afterlife to be posting on a German forum in the last few weeks. BillC 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuristan
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Website with no demonstration of notability made. Fails WP:WEB BillC 23:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I am nominating Terra Romana as the article describes it as a web portal containing "many theme portals". The Terra Romana website contains only one portal, that being Forum Navis Romana, and describes itself as "under construction, expected Summer/Autumn 2005". Both articles seem to have created by the same author who created his own autobiography around the same time. --BillC 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, no real assertion of notability Deville (Talk) 00:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
for the muslim/pig stuff see: http://www.xanga.com/Sadomikeyism/88688608/item.html
for the Mike Lorrey holiday: http://www.xanga.com/Sadomikeyism/176277938/item.html
For Mike Lorrey's SAT scores and other history: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:WJaXVjM0rH4J:nh.sevatech.com/wiki/index.cgi/Mike_20Lorrey+mike+lorrey+afb+el&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
If newbie observations are not welcome on an AfD, ignore my comments. If I violate any rules or etiquette, please let me know. Most of Lorrey’s “notability” appears to be self generated. It appears he wrote both the Wiki article and the blog it is based on, sort of referencing himself, as opposed to referencing credible published articles by unbiased writers.
This is Mike Lorrey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mlorrey
The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 10:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely non-notable Deville (Talk) 00:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]