< January 16 | January 18 > |
---|
The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a Phil of the Future episode that is a 1-2sentance summary (taken from List of Phil of the Future episodes) and an infobox. Provides no more information than the list of episodes does Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 09:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no content Noon991 09:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7 – no assertion of notability. Whoever wants to write an article about this bike might as well start from scratch at Kona Coiler. ~ trialsanderrors 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was de-prod'd and replaced with a one-liner. Before that it was a description of a non-notable bike, with no sources, linkless, and unedited significantly since its creation in February '06. Delete.-- Fang Aili talk 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3 – articles consisting solely of external links. ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created after these external links were removed from the Cumberland, Maryland article. I believe it fails WP:NOT as it is simply a directory of links. I'm bringing this here for broader consensus. Also, does this list merit a merge back into the article or not? Metros232 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article created as POV fork after this book was excluded, as a source, from An Inconvenient Truth based on WP:RS and relevance. Cannot find mainstream reviews or notable independent sources (other than publisher) referring to this book. No evidence of significant scientific or cultural impact. Low sales ranking (~35,000) on Amazon. Many more influential pro/con treatises on climate change do not warrant their own article. MastCell 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, without prejudice against a redirect if someone wants to create one. Chick Bowen 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very brief article, and I doubt anything else could be added to it. Notable Sort-of-notable, but not enough for its own article. It could simply be merged with a list of items in the Mario series, or deleted altogether. –Llama man 00:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Under the circumstances a merge seemed like the best result and the one that had the clearest consensus of this AfD. However, this does not mean that the material itself is that great--after all, it is based almost entirely on one source, with no confirmation from other sources of the significance of that source. It should probably be edited down. Chick Bowen 22:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about the recent report in the Sunday Times that Israel is planning a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, rather it is an analysis of Israel's capability to launch such a strike. As it stands, this article needs to be deleted because of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article treats the alleged plan as something that Israel admits (i.e. frequent statements like "Israeli claims that..."), when in fact Israel claims that the Times piece is not accurate. The very title of the article asserts that Israel in fact did propose such a strike, which is completely POV. I removed the most obvious OR from the article, an assessment of the potential radioactive fallout, but the second section is also OR. If we have an article on this topic, it needs to be about the Sunday Times article, NOT about the allegedly proposed strike. It would need to be called something like Reports of an Israeli plan for a nuclear first-strike on the Natanz facility. The question then becomes, Is the Sunday Times piece notable? Policy is foggy here, there doesn't seem to be a specific notability guideline for current events and the general notability criteria really don't work (ANY current event is by definition going to have multiple published works about it. Personally, I don't think that a newspaper report that generated a few days worth of controversy but seems to have been otherwise ignored is at all notable. GabrielF 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have proposed on the article talk page for the contents to be merged into the existing article on Natanz, per User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s suggestion above. The sources in the current version of the article are high quality, the only issue seems to be its long term viability/notability. I think this is a viable compromise. --64.230.123.177 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. ST47Talk 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was restored after a deletion review that introduced new information not available at the first AfD. The actual value of the new information was contested though, so relisting was called for. Please consider the prior discussions and evidence before commenting in this AfD. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pokémon, but to be fair, you are not going to find a lot of media coverage online if it happened in 1998. (Al Gore hadn't invented the Internets yet.) --Infrangible 04:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, and probably this should be run again soon. This admin's opinion is that WP:WEB is not really adequate on the subject of webcomics, and citing it (particularly with no other justifications!) is not a great argument. Furthermore, independent sources should be provided to determine notability. If they are not (and depending on any consensus that emerges about webcomics in the future), then more evidence of notability should be provided the next time this goes up for deletion, and that should be relatively soon. Chick Bowen 22:31, 24 January 2007 (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)) . |
A speedy deletion of this webcomic was overturned at deletion review and is now here for full discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, closing slightly early per WP:SNOW. No arguments for keeping. --Coredesat 07:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as having notability problems and unreferenced since December 30, 2006. Google search does not turn up any reliable sources that would allow this article to pass WP:CORP notability criteria. --Farix (Talk) 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination, especially in the face of massive canvassing for votes by the nominator. --Coredesat 06:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term Turco-Persian does not exists academically and it is a factitious entry! Check the Encyclopaedia Iranica to confirm -- The name "Turco-Persian" is an imaginary one and therefore the entry should be deleted. Surena 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep due to bad-faith nomination. Despite the delete vote, the mass canvassing of user talk pages by the nominator ensures that consensus will never be reached. --Coredesat 07:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term Turko-Persian Tradition does not exists academically and it is a factitious entry! Check the Encyclopaedia Iranica to confirm – This is misinformation. The name " Turko-Persian Tradition" is an imaginary one and therefore the entry should be deleted. Surena 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily redirected. --Coredesat 07:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This biographical stub has too little detail to properly stress the subject's importance and, consequently, has been tagged for non-notability and lack of sources. Eight months before its creation, however, another editor initiated a more extensive and well-sourced (three book references) bio of the same individual, with her name spelled correctly (Ethel MacDonald). There is no need to merge the two—All the details from the "McDonald" stub already exist in the "MacDonald" biography. Romanspinner|talk
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides no clear information about anything and seems to be nothing more than the start of a tutorial. It has little or no encyclopaedic value and shows no notability Tx17777 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll just go ahead and fold this up and move the content as apparently I'm not able to get the idea across. I wanted to create an encyclopedic entry that explained in an unbiased approach what people like Hewlett and packard, Jobs, Gates, and Ford did with a business idea. In the end for wikipedia to remain vibrant, editors must have the final say, I just hope the editors of a category are truly expert in that category.Egurr 04:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable form of poetry. Google search for Psaiku only discovered 814 hits, and it seems to have been invented by Robert Meyers-Lussier and not used otherwise. Incidentally, the page was created by Bobmeyers, making it self-promotion. Delete. (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable Runescape software. No assertion of notability is made, only that it has 15 000 hits is noted (across versions, not all that much). It may be a conflict of interest, seeing the "this article has been authorized by the software's creator" that was previously at the bottom [13]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per original research, this article make so many claims that are OR. Also the article fails WP:Cite and has so much WP:POV it reads like a fan site Gnevin 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced stub on unremarkable game, likely original research. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to be a vanity page or advertisement for the gym. The gym does not meet notability standards (they have produced two Olympians, neither of whom was prominent). Other editors have noted the promotional quality of the article. DanielEng 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable TV worker. Australian community TV credits are the highpoints of this career: that, and claims of producing numerous commercials for Australian TV networks and technical work on a DVD. No real sources, of course. Fails basic WP:BIO. PROD tag added but removed without comment. Calton | Talk 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a vested interest in this page. David Roati has produced documentaries which are sourced. These documentaries are widely available throughout Australia. Are you implying that a director is not noteable? These documentaries are sourced. Micca12145 04:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Micca12145 06:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Micca12145 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Micca12145 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Micca12145 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. I can find no verification of the term, and, although I'm trying to assume good faith, the fact that the author's name is the same as the article makes me suspicious. Joyous! | Talk 02:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7 and g4. No need for 2nd AFD. NawlinWiki 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating deletion discussion page for Evan Sackett because this page was already deleted yesterday, and is already back up. COI, sock puppetry suspected. Speedy Delete? Rockstar915 02:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC) you suck![reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical, no sources, imdb comes up blank. There is no mention of her band anywhere. --Infrangible 02:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carpet9 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear very notable. Fails WP:BIO. Fewer than a dozen google hits which do not derive from WP. Only claim at notability is that he won a medal for amateur ornithology. Not enough. Wehwalt 02:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"*Weak Delete - seems a very marginal case. He's been published but referred to in only one journal article I can find but has no Australian news article and no books about him. Looks well published but I can't find any way that we can have verifyability from reliable sources. All of the bio information appears to be single sourced from the Bright Sparcs website.I'm happy to change my mind if someone can find that anyone else has written about him... - Peripitus (Talk) 06:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Woodway, Texas. Merge already completed by User:Uppland. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reason non noteabel gradern article does not say why it is impotent enough to be on here no reason to be on here wikipedia is not the yellow pages and wikipedia is not a place to list botanical gradens in the world Oo7565 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by Scimitar (deletion log). BryanG(talk) 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about wolves. Redundant since the information in the article is already in (and better written) at Wolf. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to List of country name etymologies. All content already present at target location. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates List of country name etymologies, which is a much more complete list. --Astrokey44 03:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete
Summary: On the weight of argument from policy and guidelines (which represent community consensus in a way a poll of a few editors does not), I must call this as Delete. It is not unlikely that at some time in the future we may have sufficient independent reliable sources for an article on this subject to be written. It is unlikely to be in the near future, though. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because your vote was solicited by Nmaster64 on his blog or this forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Non-notable webcomic - more than one comic called Fanboys - Google search on "F@NB0Y$ Dewitt" narrows field to 10 unique out of 57 total. Search on "Fanboys Krudman" returns only 16 unique on 6,580. Delete MikeWazowski 03:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Google searches to determine notability, in this case specifically, are not viable. The use of non-alphanumeric characters and the general reference to the comic as "fanboys", a term not easily searchable given it's common usage, especially within circles where it's popular, makes it completely unfair to judge in this manner. There is simply no good manner to search for this and return an accurate count which is usable to judge anything.
The comic has recently been featured on extremely popular gaming sites such as Destructoid, Joystiq, Dueling Analogs, and more. The comic is continuously growing in popularity, and receives thousands of hits a day. Certainly it has achieved a popularity higher than many of the comics on the wiki's list of webcomics.
The article itself is well-made and appears to meet all Wikipedia standards. Given it's growing popularity, it's winnings and features in Joystiq's weekly webcomic poll (Joystiq sits w/ an Alexa rating around 2000), and it's mention on numerous other gaming and comic sites around the net, I think F@NB0Y$ has certainly earned itself a small wikipedia article. I'd also like a viable explanation as to who the hell it's hurting by existing. This seems counter-intuitive to the concept of the Wikipedia, when good information is censored based on a few people who don't feel the work "popular enough". --Nmaster64 11:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
---Wiki-approved Webcomics with lower traffic rankings than F@NB0Y$---
Note: the list above marks every webcomic existing on the Wikipedia's List of webcomics that has a lower Alexa traffic rankings for it's domain than Fanboys-Online.com. This does not include any comics who's sites do not have data available, nor comics who's rankings are increased due to co-existing on a domain with other content or comics. Thus, it is likely the list is in reality longer.
Based on the above information, the basis that the webcomic F@NB0Y$ is non-notable is at best ridiculous, at worst an example of horrible bias. It's clear F@NB0Y$ is even at current a relatively popular webcomic, and with it's continued growth, especially as it begins to see more and more exposure, merits the existence of a Wiki article. --Nmaster64 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
---Propositions seperate from "keep" and "delete"---
A couple ideas hit me for more reasonable answers to this debate, and I thought I'd throw them out for consideration.
--Nmaster64 06:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After seeing Joe Loves Crappy Movies get deleted from Wikipedia I've become convinced that Wikipedians simply don't want Wikipedia to fulfil the idea that you can find any information about anything on it. I understand that many people try to use Wikipedia as a way to advertise and get hits to their webpage (anyone remember Jesus Camp?). However, F@NB0Y$ is not using Wikipedia any more than any other person that has an article about them on Wiki. Just because the comic is not notable to one person, doesn't mean it isn't notable to the people that view it. I bring to light evidence A, the fact that Torchic was a featured main page article recently. ALL information is notable. Pop culture classification does not mean that it has no merit as knowledge. Webcomics have become extremely popular and the more we know about them the more we can study the trends. You all have to realize that Penny Arcade was once just a no nothing comic like this one and has since then become one, if not THE, most dominent name in the gamer subculture. Deleting yet another webcomic on the grounds of notability doesn't make sense because the notability of anything comes down to personal bias. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you guys so obsessed over notability (a guideline) when the glaring problems are with verifiability and original research (policies). Even if it meets with what you believe is the notability threshold, the problem is with non-negotiable policies. /Blaxthos 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reset indent
.Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in Wikipedia itself.
— WP:POINT
do you honestly think I've been trying to save this little article this whole time? Do you honestly believe I've held any hope of this staying? I've been trying to encourage discussion of new ideas and possible solutions to what I see as a serious problem in the Wiki.
(dialogue about indentions removed)
Ok this is getting out of hand. Nmaster has brought it up and I'm going to bring it up again, and I don't want to see another "delete: per nom" or WEB reference until this is answered. WHERE do you guys want us to get sources? This is the main problem WEB presents to Webcomics. They aren't notable in the academic world so we can't pull the information from CNN or anything similar. I know on the TV show I edit we can site episodes for the information, is there a way to do this here? Is there a way to directly site the author through an e-mail or something? If you can answer this then we will go to work and find the sources. But you can't just sit there at your desk claiming we don't have sources and not verifying what constitutes as a source. AfDs are not just for deleting, they are a call for cleanup as well. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccoredence with the policy these awards are noted on the article page.
People are also using meatpuppetry as a reason for deleteing the article are just absurd as it completely throws all acedemic merit out the window in favour of spite. Since the subject of the article is not doing this themselves it hard seems right to use it as a reason to remove the article.
I suggest a quick read over of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions by anyone trying to use the Google test as evidence either for or against the deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Njiska (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC).— Njiska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Warning: SPA accounts are removing appropriate SPA tags. I believe if indiscriminant CHECKUSER was available, we would find at least one puppetmaster amongst the keep voters. /Blaxthos 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of midnight, 23 January 2006 (central standard time, GMT-0600):
DISCLAIMERS: My counting could be inaccurate. Simple vote counting is not the main determination of consensus. These numbers are simply to show where we stand right now, and to demonstrate that when extrapolating WP:SPA accounts that consensus appears clear. /Blaxthos 06:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presume I wasn't counted (as I didn't "vote" either way). Just trying to make this discussion clearer. Walton monarchist89 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments without delete or keep were not counted. Any vote with SPA template next to the vote was counted as an SPA. Every SPA tag appeared to be legitimately placed, including USER:Zaron (contribs). /Blaxthos 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Renaming should be discussed at Talk:Miscellaneous defunct or merged Netherlands banks or elsewhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic and akwardly titled article with unsourced and unverified information about businesses that fail notability requirements.
The article topic would probably be better handled as a List or a Category, but only under the conditions that the content met notability requirements and referenced reliable sources. -- wtfunkymonkey 03:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Already merged and redirected. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 08:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism coined by Dick Vitale. All relevant material is already in the Vitale article. Article history shows 3 human edits total. YechielMan 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An e-book originating in 1990. The original author removed the prod tag and asked for help to improve the article, but I doubt it comes anywhere close to meeting Wikipedia:Notability (books). Google search for "hyperspace calculations" & "perry jones" yields three hits (2 tripod, 1 blog}, and Newsbank and JSTOR searches for the title yield zero. ~ trialsanderrors 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn, speedy keep Ashibaka (tock) 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should not exist as link-farms or directories;
reference Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stock_photography_archives, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_open-content_projects and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fax software (2nd nomination) Hu12 04:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Thanks to the author for clarifying the matter. Chick Bowen 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created by user with the name of the product, possible advertising -Painezor TC 04:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect all to Ground Control II: Operation Exodus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(View AfD)
Up for deletion are character articles from the Ground Control II: Operation Exodus videogame. To begin with, these characters are already described at Ground_Control_II:_Operation_Exodus#Characters. Their individual pages include either speculative elaboration (see Dr. Alice Mcneal) or useless trivia (from Centurion Cezarus: "Age: Unknown, Weight: Unknown" etc.). Wikipedia is not a game guide, and it shouldn't be a repository of half-drafted cruft. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ms. Kidd is encouraged to marry 68.230.85.142. Chick Bowen 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines of WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 05:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Chick Bowen 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary defintion for a neologism. There doesn't appear to be any coverage of this word or it's usage by reliable sources. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Author removed prod without explanation. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you.
The result was go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, Afd is for the mainspace only. --- RockMFR 07:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be deleted because translation projects are not translating images. And even if translation projects allow the translation of images, nobody (probably not even university professors) could really interpret the meaning of those words because it was written at 222 AD (almost 2000 years ago). To put it in western perspective, you're analyzing something much older than Shakespeare's language and we all know that some words can't be translated nowadays in Shakespeare's plays. OhanaUnited 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Farewell, tubcat. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another unverifiable "funny cat picture" article with no real assertion of notability and no coverage in reliable sources. The previous AfD in March 2006 was filled with !votes claiming that it's a "notable internet meme", without providing any sources to back the claim of notability. Fails WP:V and WP:N. WarpstarRider 05:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Fang Aili talk 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no assertion of notability per WP:BAND — Swpb talk contribs 05:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:34, 25 January 2007 (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)) . |
no assertion of notability per WP:BAND.
I am also nominating the following related page because this album does not assert notability beyond that of the band, which is itself not asserted:
The band in question have been on the prime time show the session on BBC Radio Berkshire.
Is doing a UK TOUR from 28th March - 5th April in many venues from North to South of the UK
Album released on Napster/Itunes by Record label Automator records and was also stocked in HMV and Fopp stores nation wide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.67.151 (talk • contribs)
I, not as the article creator, but the major contributer to a vast majority of the information supplied on the page believe that reasons stated above by Alexbeglin are both valid and indeed very good reasons as to why the article should not be met with deletion. The hour long radio, as well as the upcoming tour, plus the reviews by several magazines and a mention in the NME all qualify this article about The Enigma Project to stay, and not be deleted. Scuzzmonkey 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I have followed the progress of The Enigma Project for a considerable length of time now. It is true that at the time of creation, this article did not meet the required criterion. However, as it currently stands the BBC Has articles on their website regarding the band Enigma Project BBC Article exhibit A Enigma Project BBC Article Exhibit B. This thus means the band has at least met the criterion for a verifyable article by a notable company, and hence, the band's notability is confirmed as it has met one of the criterion, which is all that is required according to WP:BAND. Furthermore, Itunes (on which The Enigma Project's work can be found) is significantly notable- could this be counted as a label of production? Finally The broadcast 1 hour long on the BBC Berkshire mainstream radio confirms this band's notability. Therefore, I feel that this article no longer qualifies for deletion under Wikipedia's policy, as any artist must only meet ONE of the criterion listed on the link given earlier- as such I would move that this discussion is closed? Phil 10:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of anyone reading this page, The preceding post was made by user 86.138.67.151, but signed as alexbeglin. I believe this indicates that the two editors are one and the same, and should be treated as a single user for the purposes of this AfD. — Swpb talk contribs 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly user Swpb is finding stupid things to attack me on to try and back up his claims. I CLEARLY stated above that ip address was me that I forgot to sign in, and I just forgot to sign in this time again but still signed, but yet you seem to feel you need to mention this. In response to the above comment .--155.144.251.120 I cite that this user is a single purpose account as has not signed in OR signed. I find his arguments are NOT BACKED up with proof at all and move that they should be ignored . — alexbeglin talk contribs 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
alexbeglin Talk 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Fang Aili talk 00:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non notable book, published by vanity press (Athena Press), by author without other books, gets 17 distinct Google hits[39], mainly from the homepage and from online sellers like Amazon and BarnesandNoble (who both sell everything and are no indication of notability). Non notable, no WP:V independent sources about the book. Fram 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for delete, though there seems to be a growing consensus for possibly merging all into one article. Please discuss that on the article talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Batch nomination of all the above transport stubs I stumbled across. These were mostly created in January 2005. These are light rail stops, and are only a little more noticeable than bus stops. These are a pretty indiscriminate articles, most of them contain not much more info than "[Station] is a station on Hong Kong's KCR Light Rail. It belongs to Zone [zone] for single-ride ticket. This station consists of [number of] platforms, and is situated on [road 1] near to its junction with [road 2], and serves [placename]. Routes : [route number] [start point] to [destination]". Also, most of these names are made up by KCR and do not correspond to any recognised districts which would allow us to merge per WP:LOCAL. I do not feel they are encylopaedic, as none of them have any sources to show how/why they may pass WP:N. Wikipedia whould be better served by improvements to KCR Light Rail and/or List of Hong Kong KCR stations. Furthermore, wikipedia is not a travel guide. Delete. Ohconfucius 06:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't meet notability standards for elected officials adavidw 06:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable by wikipedia standards adavidw 06:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by Kinu (CSD A1/A7). --- RockMFR 08:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. The First Doll 06:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep; it's a tough one here, but due to the fact the article was referenced and improved since the nomination, there seems to be a rough consensus to keep that article. Yuser31415 20:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that this should be quite obvious. There is no academic source or scholar who attests to the existence of this mythical "Brown people", a term with racist connotations. Many Middle-Easterners, Pakistanis and Indians are varied in skin-tone, and can range from Caucasoid to Mongoloid in ethnicity. Looks like a WP:NEO violation, at best, Neo-Nazi/far-right propaganda at worst. It would not be so bad if the article were sourced reliably and had some kind of academic context instead of just a couple of sentences. However, I do not think that such a thing is possible. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its offensive to ask an admin to ignore the comments of those one doesnt agree with. The admin should ignore Ju's comments on other users intentions and focus on the votes. Both Carwil and I still think it is a rascist article that needs deleting and for anyone to claim that other voters who voted delete dont think that is clearly trying to affect the vote in a negative and entirely spurious way. Its not for Ju to decide that delete means keep, nor anyone else. To ignore the delete votes would be little more than trolling and I trust that no admin will do so, SqueakBox 17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well people are still voting delete. The text itself says it is at best a shoddy concept and at worst there is no such thing. The fact that one new person has called for delete and I continue to do so is the clearest possible indication that the other editors won have changed their minds either. IMO this article was writen as troll bait and I am sure the person who wrote it is having a laugh at our expense. I also think in rewriting it Uncle G has damaged the reputation of wikipedia and has done more harm than good, SqueakBox 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in whom are doing the referring but in whom is being referred to. When I point out not all Mexicans are brown you delete it. Is iot cos you want to perpetuate the rascist stereotype that Mexicans are brown? SqueakBox 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was normal delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hoax, there is no such programme on CBeebies (or any other channel for that matter) ChrisTheDude 08:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete A3. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 09:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is merely for advertising Candam 08:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Fang Aili talk 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertions of any notability, aside from campus popularity. fuzzy510 08:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
del vanity WP:MUSIC. failed to find independent reviews (may be me being lazy...). `'mikka 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Del nonnotable gaming page. Previous nomination was inconclusive. Only 53 unique google hits - a mizerable show for an online thingy. `'mikka 22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, although the consensus in favor of cleanup is overwhelming. But AfD is not the place to settle content disputes, that's what WP:RfM, WP:RfC, WP:RfArb are for. ~ trialsanderrors 05:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A POV/edit war magnet, including the title. The content should be merged/split between Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II#Ukraine, History of Ukraine#Ukraine in World War II (or German occupation of Ukraine in World War II), History of the Jews in Ukraine and/or Holocaust in Ukraine during World War II. We don't have Romanian-German collaboration during World War II, Hungarian-German collaboration during World War II, Polish-German collaboration during World War II, French-German collaboration during World War II, or Austrian-German collaboration during World War II. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded for deletion, prod tag removed. I feel that this is listcruft. The title seems to indicate that this article contains all of the Golden Globe winners -- not the case. This article would be better to be replaced with either a list of the lists of winners, or a list of the lists of nominations/winners by year. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 09:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Dahn 09:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. ST47Talk 11:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Small MUD that doesn't meet any of the WP:WEB guidelines. No reliable sources are cited for notability, and I am familiar enough with the subject that I would be shocked if any exist. Eluchil404 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G11. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was speedy deleted with G11 as a reason[43], though I contested the speedy deletion tag [44] and explained my reasoning on the talk page. I requested undeletion from the administrator who deleted it and am now listing it here to get more opinions on the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V. Googling turns up nothing. It's been prodded since November. An inquiry on the talk page in late December was not responded to. Seems fictional. There is of course a Prince Street in Manhattan, but that doesn't seem to be what is being referred to. Maybe created by a bored NYU student? Wehwalt 12:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a google search and the info so far in the article, this person does not seem notable enough for an entry in this encyclopedia. Beltz 12:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to List of cocktails. Chill doubt, Uncle G is right regarding Wikibooks and how an independant entry would be better suited on that Wiki. As per Mangojuice's bold merge, I've merely completed the redirecting part. Daniel.Bryant 06:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN drink, apparently served at a single bar, complete with recipe. Finding references is impossible because of Madras the city. Failed Prod. Mangojuicetalk 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. ST47Talk 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no sources, and much of the article seems to contain POV as well "These snacks hold nostalgic notions for many British adults today along with other consumables from the 80's such as 'Top Deck' and 'Marathons'" → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 13:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Note that this is my 1st AfD nom If I've done something wrong, tell me on my talk page. Thanks.[reply]
Keep but rewrite Articles exist on Wikipedia for other branded crisps (eg Monster Munch Lots of google references. The article needs rewriting though to correct non encyclopedic style / content •CHILLDOUBT• 13:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Keep- There's no doubting its notibility and I can't see what reason there is to delete. Cleanup tag needed, afd not. J.J.Sagnella 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the same reasons as User:Chill doubt -- Ratarsed 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, POV. Recreate if a good article can be written. EdJohnston 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snack. Herostratus 17:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Snack food, Needs sourcing... Shouldn't be difficult ShakespeareFan00 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are working on providing more links to link for the rest of Wikipedia. It will be done within the next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradDick (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 January 2007
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like a personal political manifesto, not an encylopaedia article about Jamie Masse. Wikipedia does not provide personal web space for anyone to post what they believe. This entry would be more appropriate for MySpace. Ground Zero | t 13:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alf photoman 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Apache HTTP Server until someone is willing to put in the effort to clean this up and make it policy-compliable. ~ trialsanderrors 06:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Delete, if not merge to
Apache HTTP Server
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article subject is not notable and it would be difficult or impossible to establish verifiability. It is a list of neologisms. Lastly, WP is not an indiscriminate list of information. Should I mention that this is nothing but toilet humor and is not encyclopedic? (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rather useless trivia, similar to the list by birthday. Otto4711 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Flash game. Deprodded by anon. Weregerbil 14:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural listing for AfD in place of a second prod by User:The Kinslayer, who says "Non-verifiable (WP:V)". I deprodded it in Oct 2006 when I found The Hindu mentioning his name in a list of "legendary figures" [50], and a CD of his called "Legends". On this occasion, I'll say I'm neutral. Mereda 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was a notable Carnatic music singer. The article needs to be cleanedup and wikified though. Parthi talk/contribs 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable for any reason other than being a professor. Icemuon 15:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN-programing language, PROD removed by article creator delete Cornell Rockey 15:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While the professor may be notable in the regional context of his works (all arguments that they are in Norwegian aside), it is accepted amongst the academic community that they are to publish research and work. As such, his publications and the article do not altogether match WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Teke (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod expired. Prod rationale was "Not notable, his publications are in norwegian only, and are local history books for 4 Norwegian muncipalities". Prod contested on article talk page. Contested, even if not removed, is enough reason to bump to AFD. My opinion is that the language of publication is totally irrelevant. Some local historians are notable, some aren't. I lean to a weak keep myself. I'd like to see more sources to demonstrate meeting WP:BIO or WP:BOOK; so count this as a technical nomination, and I reserve the right to opine later. GRBerry 15:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by ChrisO (advertising). --- RockMFR 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
advert for NN-hotel chain; PROD removed by article creator delete Cornell Rockey 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Bobet 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod expired, bumping because article is on a person who probably is notable. Prod rationale was "Notability concerns, but CV/resume-toe does not help, nor does it being unsourced." It does look like the only source was a resume or CV; however I think a rewrite could salvage it. Does anyone want to source and rewrite? If not, delete at the end of the AFD, as WP:BIO notability is not definitively established in this unsourced article. GRBerry 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied as A7 group, text dump, WP:NOT a free webhost, etc. --Fang Aili talk 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
disputed speedy delete for NN-sports event Cornell Rockey 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to SONICFLOOd. Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although this article appears to make significant claims of notability, no references are given to substantiate these claims. A bit of web research fails to find any supporting evidence: unless evidence of the notability claims can be provided, suggest deletion as per the verifiability policy -- The Anome 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PROD bump. Rationale was non-notable. This is a real place, but is it important enough to have an article? Article says it is an island. This NOAA source says it is underwater at least part of the time, which fits the ledge name better. AFD Precedent is that major features are worth keeping. This has been named, and it wouldn't be hard to add geo-coordinate data to the article, but I'm not sure what to do. GRBerry 16:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP (nomination withdrawn). --Metropolitan90 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like a personal ad. I suspect that this is just a vanity page.--Azer Red Si? 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-prodded, but I don't think he passes WP:MUSIC. Scanning the few Google hits [55][56][57] I see nothing nothing non-trivial, reliable, and independent of him and his affiliations. http://www.christiantoday.com looks independent and reliable but this is all we'd have to work with from that source. Also fails the 2-albums-on-a-major-label test. I'd say delete unless it can be shown he's the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. Pan Dan 17:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[58] Also indy sources: [59] [60] [61] Rambler04 19:27, 17 January 2007
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No indication this is notable, zero google hits for article title, unreferenced, problems with WP:V and no assertion of notability, no reliable sources. See also WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Oh, and reads like a complete advert and in places patent nonsense. And as for the firm that is allegedly developing this game...well, Phoenix Technologies certainly exists, but their website is at http://www.phoenix.com. The website linked to from this article has nothing in development apart from this and seemingly nothing whatsoever to sell, and no way of selling it, with no link to what I suspect to be the genuine Phoenix Technologies. Probable hoax. Moreschi Deletion! 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Gmeman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN-website; speedy deletion tag removed by article creator delete Cornell Rockey 17:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly interesting to a fan (perhaps!), but it consists by definition, of uncyclopaedic, irrelevant speculation, with no hope of ever evolving John24601 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was de-prod'd without comment. Hoax and false autobiography created by User:Stephenjnichols. Non-notable person; wildly asserts that, at age 23 or younger, he was a guest conductor of the Beijing Ballet and Opera Orchestras and the the Harbin Opera Orchestra (I'm not sure if "Harbin Opera Orchestra" even exists [62]); 14 unique G hits for "Stephen J. Nichols" composer [63], various Google searches including "guest conductor" yield no sources. --Fang Aili talk 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Eluchil404 09:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reason non noteabel person non noteabel evant no reason why this should be on here Oo7565 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Result: Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no delete opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a summary of what seems to be a pretty minor piece of US legislation. To my mind, it is bordering on falling foul of Wikipedia is not a directory / indiscriminate collection of information. But...
Let me say that this is a very tentative AfD! I have no idea if there is any form of precedent on this sort of article, or indeed whether the article is acceptable or not. I've tried to work it out, but can't really find a definitive answer. The closest I've come is the partial list of notable United States federal legislation, and I don't believe that this act is notable. Anyhow, I will gladly withdraw this nomination if I'm in the wrong.
If anyone can point me to a better way of establishing whether articles like this are generally OK or not, please do let me know! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, unreferenced article dealing with a topic that seems very unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a railway incident log! -- ChrisO 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant material, Original Research, etc. The material in this entry is over-lapping so many articles that some of them need to be removed. Most of the content at Persecution of Heathens is at Persecution of Germanic Pagans and Christianization of Scandinavia and could be merged into Witch-hunt. Furthermore, someone seems to have confused Neopaganism with Paganism. - WeniWidiWiki 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ill-defined neologism. In the months since the intial AfD, a clear definition has not been established. More often than not, the article has become a dumping ground for POV assessments of groups or genres. GentlemanGhost 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is very likely a hoax as there is absolutely no information on this topic anywhere on the net (outside of this article). So, delete as hoax. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, and there is no third-party support for claims made within the article. Moreover, the article itself is written by a descendant of Quin's, as evidenced here, and is wholly anecdotal. MSJapan 20:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my inclusionist tendencies, after much consideration I think submitting this article for AfD is the best route. This article is a clear essay in violation of WP:NOT. The uses of it sources amount to synthesis and (like most essays) is original research. Furthermore, the topic matter itself (and its POV issues) can be better addressed within the respective French Wine, Bordeaux Wine and Globalization of wine articles. After reviewing the article with other members of the Wikipedia Wine Project, we have found little value worth salvaging and merging from this article that wouldn't already be tainted with POV or original research. Agne 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G4, although there are a lot of keeps, they are mostly by SPAs. Cbrown1023 01:46, 25 January 2007 (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)) . |
Already deleted once for being non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife). Article recreated again with no outside sources given to prove notability. #224 on WebComic list. Article should be moved to Webcomic Wiki. Also note that the author's entry [66] was deleted for not being notable along with his other podcast "The Instance." [67] Ocatecir 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“ | To give you a little background, WP:MEME tried this exact argument with internet memes and failed miserably. WP:WEB is just a codification of key unmutable policy WP:V: Articles must be verifiable using reliable sources. Trying to set the bar lower than that, by creating exceptions, doesn't work..... notability is very much an importance/influence question, not a popularity contest. - Nifboy | ” |
The result was redirect to The Magic Faraway Tree series, which someone could've done in 20 seconds a week ago without bringing it to afd. - Bobet 13:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub orphaned article of unclear importance within the source material. Either delete or if desired merge and redirect to The Magic Faraway Tree series. Otto4711 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non notable band, fail WP:MUSIC with one record (on an indie label with as far as I can tell only two releases until now, the other by Monochromatic) and no other claims to fame. Fram 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable fictional food item that played a momentary role in a single next Gen episode. I suppose someone could create a List of Star Trek foods and merge this article there but I would not be in favor of it. Otto4711 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:16, 25 January 2007 (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)) . |
Came across this page while reading somebody's talk page, although apparently he is related (in that they are both wrestling promoters) to Mosh Pit Mike who I have also nominated. Much of the information in this bio is similar to the info in that bio. This person doesn't seem to be inherently notability althuogh if notability can be established then cheers, but right now the only "sources" are Hobo Hank's own web site. Orstroeebski 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failed independent gubernatorial candidate. Election is over, she is now just a retired teacher. Contributions to this article come from a single purpose account and an anon who is almost certainly Piotr Blass, prolific and now banned purveyor of vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article's only claim to fame is that it's the first Finnish web comic. Even if this were verified, it wouldn't meet any of the three criteria of WP:WEB. Brad Beattie (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect to Teletubbies. Cbrown1023 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced stub article with no assertion of notability. Otto4711 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dictdef which has little or no potential of expanding beyond dictcef. Already in Wiktionary. Otto4711 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a list repository or an indiscriminate collection of information. These just list how a particular magazine has rated albums, a potentially never-ending project of little to no actual informative value as this expands to other publications and media outlets. The proper place for this is of course in sections on critical response in individual album articles; I don't see the point in trying to collect in one place all albums for which All Music Guide gave four stars or all films for which Roger Ebert gave thumbs up. See also recent, similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XXL Magazine's XXL Albums. BTW, the Five Mic Albums list at least has some content beyond just a list of the albums, but this section on criticism of the magazine's ratings could be easily merged into the article on the magazine (if it can be sourced, which it isn't at present). Postdlf 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This term, to the best of my knowledge, has been proposed on one website to give a name to works of science fiction living between the hard and soft subdivisions of that genre. Perhaps this is laudable, but it's not notable. I get 88 Google hits for the phrase, the list being topped off by Wikipedia and WP mirrors. Many hits are irrelevant ("the firm's science fiction imprint") or use the phrase in a different meaning ("Final Fantasy manages to still be a fantasy but works towards a wide-audience appeal by placing a firm science-fiction spin on it"). For comparison, "hard science fiction" gets over 300,000 ghits, and "soft science fiction" gets over 16,000. In a word, it's cruft. Anville 21:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Proto::► 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a NY Times article, the person who claims to have coined the name admits that it's branding for his firm, the name is intended to be synonymous with the Lower East Side, Manhattan, and he does not expect the term to replace LES. Meanwhile, a NY Daily News article indicates the name is
The sources cited does not show that the term is a widely accepted neologism.
While the term might become more accepted in the future, it seems that reputable, local media outlets have not accepted it as such. The way the article reads almost like a real estate brochure, and the way the article starter has included a link to "LoHo" in every possible article, sometimes hiding the link under "Lower East Side", it seems at best, premature neologism, and at worst, spam. Mosmof 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The point is not whether it has a different ethic mix (but it does, as it is a younger, more affluent population than that of the whole Lower East Side which spans Alphabet City all the way down and includes parts of China Town and Loisaida. LoHo is within LES, don't lose site of that) or that you can point to the person who began using it; Loho studios did years ago, than Loho Realty. It is the the demographic and affluence shift that has occurred as a result of the high-yield home prices, especially when compared to that of the Lower East Side as a whole, which consists mostly of City projects and low income housing facilities, has taken the name LoHo to mean the newer, trendier neighborhood, and not the old-style pushcart/peddler Lower East Side. Please understand the difference. Lower East Side is a much bigger picture, LoHo is smaller and more defined by its people, trends, lifestyle, nightlife, expensive homes, condos and hotels, and expensive boutiques. Juda S. Engelmayer 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can quote for you 1000 articles that refer to the neighborhood as LoHo; what you are doing is trying to back Wiki into a corner by saying that if one or more are not full features on the name LoHo, you won't buy it. The fact is that people, people from all over, near and far alike, are using the name LoHo. The fact that media refer to it, trendy nightspots and shops refer to it, etc,. says that it is beyond a whim or a novelty - and 1000 articles like this will be unable to satisfy anyone bent against the new moniker. The fact that you care so much about Wikipedia's integrity that you want this article to reflect a comfortable tone is commendable; that you chose Loho as your first and only target as the reason Wikipedia is not there yet, is, perhaps, a bit of a tell (as we say in poker). I just hope that the judges see rationale above all, and I appreciate the debateJuda S. Engelmayer 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Names are a personal and sensitive thing, which is why anyone with half a brain would stay away from the topic. So let me say this...
The Lower East Side stretched 100 years ago from 14th Street all the way to the water and included Chinatown, too. But within that area there were always neighborhoods (Chinatown & Corlear’s Hook come to mind). Those neighborhoods were named by their residents to determine a more precise location than a 2 by 3 mile area, and, believe it or not, for commercial reasons. Like the Orchard Street area.
SoHo, East Village (a total fabrication) and NoHo (likewise) have been there before. I believe LoHo is catching flack mostly for being latest to get rich off of real estate values in the city. It smacks of old money scorning the new, even if the person attacking it is a pauper.
Also, the East Village tag has been the flag of uninhibited gentrification, which utilized frontal violence to protect property values – is that a valued name for you? Think the Koch troops doing the Gestapo thing in Tompkins Park – that's what East Village brings to my mind. In comparison, what's the crime of LoHo? A pun on real estate history? An attempt to imbue an immigrants' neighborhood with some of the shine of the arts and hipness of SoHo? User:Yyanover 03:34, 18 January 2007
As a young person who spends a lot of time in the Lower East Side, I have not once heard anyone use the name LoHo in reference to the neighborhood. Call it an urban myth, I call it a real estate plan to attach a neighborhood name to its company. It's no secret that the man arguing to keep the name is a PR person.--Josef
I just saw this on the Observer. Its seems that while Mr. Engelmayer is open about his working in PR, he isn't being open about LoHo Realty being a client at hi PR company ( http://www.5wpr.com/Our_Clients/Index.cfm ). (He's neither a 5W Client or a personal one Juda S. Engelmayer 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC))With that in mind, it seems a bit disengenous to represent the entry as fact when the fact is it's part of a marketing campaign. I don't fault people for wanting to build up areas. But the Lower East Side- which is finally seeing its day again - is one of NYC's last remaining true-neighborhoods. NYC is at enough risk of erasing its past due to real estate development; Creating (or trying to brand ) a neighborhood from one that already possesses a rich identity is simply self-serving (to say the least) and pays no mind to the people who have spend years building it. I say delete the entry.Jilk96 19:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So, what happens if I stumble upon the term "LoHo" as a synonym for LES and wonder how the moniker came to be? My first instinct is to turn to Wikipedia. Imagine my dismay upon discovering that once again, some Wikipedia administrator decided this information (reliably sourced though it is) wasn't worth knowing, obstructing--for the n millionth time in this site's existence--learning, knowledge, and the spread of information. I won't be surprised, though. Most of you administrators are petty hypocrites. 66.150.69.10 22:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this should be one short paragraph in the Lower East Side entry, not its own separate entry.
Comment: Delete it as its own article. I second the redirect suggestion. A name doesn't deserve its own article. Michaelfs 03:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The East Village was a 1970's invention by real estate brokers who were thugs to boot. Everything you know about cruel gentrification, complete with sending riot police after squatters, happened on the sacred East Village. But no one challenges this made up name because it's been there almost 40 years. To sanctify the evil EV while calling LoHo "parasites" is to be entirely devoid of a notion of history. A name is out there as part of the culture. You want to censor the culture? Who gave you the right? [User Yyanover]
Calling Captain Kirk Are you sure we want to apply the Federation's Prime Directive in covering sociological phenomena? Anything that is being discussed here has been altered by the mere process of its discussion. Countless humanoids with pointy ears have tried in vain to follow in the footsteps of your purist approach, only to realize too late that applying the Prime Directive is just one more way of violating it. Wikipedia can afford to record the culture as it's being forged around us, including the changes induced by Wikipedia. If you want to know things 40 years after the fact, buy a Britanica. [YYanover]
The result was delete, no prejudice to recreation with the correct information. Teke (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created as result of a confusion, contains no factual information. There is no "Großes Höllental" near the Zugspitze or anywhere in Bavaria. It is in reality a small side valley on the Rax, which has no entry in de.wikipedia.org. Unless someone finds enough material to create a new page and wants to do it, this stub should be deleted. The creator of that page did not reply to my comments on the talk pages and his user page, although he was active inbetween. This lemma has also three redirects to it. Hurax 21:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedied. Wikibofh 15:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be spam promoting a (possibly nonexistent) company/person. Created by User:211.30.179.139, then marked by User:Robchurch as needing "cleanup-importance", but that flag was then removed by User:211.30.179.139 (and at the same time adding some seemingly irrelevant text). I could find nothing about this person/company on Google, so I suspect that it doesn't exist. We don't seem to have any content to keep, or sources from which to create such content. Erik Demaine 02:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is legitimate information. Ziad Mawassi is a real person and a local hero who lends his valuable time to many people in the community. He has helped many troubled teenagers by giving them a knowledge and experience in the automotive industry. Ziad Mawassi improved the quality of my life when he transformed my classic Ford into a show winner, as he has to many others.
I can also attest to Ziads quality of work. Previously having bad experiences with another restorator, i had a meeting with Ziad to discuss my options with my vehicle. Noting his professional behaviour and vast knowledge of the industry, i decided to trust him with my pride and joy. The final results were unimaginable. Even i couldnt envision such a quality job!
I would also like to state how much Ziad has contributed to our community. Realising that his success has been hugely a result of our community, he now strives to give back what he can. Quite often he has been a part of charity fundraising. From simple ordeals, to larger-scale projects, such as restoring cars to be sold off to raise funds.
I can not stress enough the faith i have in Ziad Mawassi, and his level of character.
I can and will definately hold my flag up high and show support that Ziad Mawassi as a genuine person. I can surely solemly swear that he singlehandedly "tricked up" my show winning Datsun Fairlady roadster. 2 Cheers for ziad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hooray!!
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:BAND. I came across this article by seeing it vandalized. I reverted the vandalism and noted that the band didn't have any third-party coverage. A myspace account does not a notable band make. -- Ben (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable fictional food item. If it's more significant to the plot of the source book than is made apparent by the article, then merge the relevant bits and redirect, otherwise get rid of it. Otto4711 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a morning radio show in San Diego. As far as I can tell, it is utterly non-notable. I originally prod'd it, and the prod was removed with an edit summary of, "The Mikey Show is a very popular show in a large market. How is this not notable?" by someone who has been around long enough that they should know what is and isn't notable. I was hesitant to take this to AFD, especially since I tend to err on the side of wanting to keep marginally notable articles; but really, what makes The Mikey Show different from any other popular large-market morning show? A google search for The Mikey Show KIOZ garners 362 Google hits. By comparison, a google search for Wank & O'Brien Hank (an Indianapolis market morning show) garners 9,820; but I wouldn't think they should have a Wikipedia article either. Looking at The Mikey Show's google results indicate that Mikey replaced Howard Stern on that station. While Howard Stern is certianly notable, I don't see how that would make The Mikey Show notable, and that assertion isn't in the article anyhow. The article cites no sources, and has been tagged as such since July. No one has cited sources to demonstrate notability in that time. Basically, I really hate to do this; but I have to ask... how is this show notable? How is it any more notable than its competiors on the other San Diego radio stations? How is it more notable than similar shows in other major markets? And why are there no sources in the article? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
disputed PROD for NN-housing development delete Cornell Rockey 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because its the same stuff:
The result was Delete. For what it is worth, this appears to be an attempt to advertise for the unpublished "The Warhammer 40,000 Lost Artifacts Omnibus".--Isotope23 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect to San Juan Capistrano, California. Cbrown1023 01:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be notable: no assertion of notability in the article itself, and a Google search turns up primarily websites associated with the school or its district, plus a few local mentions, most of which refer to students, rather than the school itself. Note also that the creator appears to have made this page as an attack page (see page's history); since there was a clean version in the history, I've reverted to this and felt it would be better to AfD rather than CSD G10. Heimstern Läufer 21:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. I'm deleting this per the debate below and a WP:OTRS complaint. The article history is full of vandalism and slander, and nothing in the article is referenced. If someone wishes to create a fresh fully-referenced article later, and is willing to watch it, fair enough (but please don't) -Docg 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Keeps being added nonsense, right from the very beginning. Húsönd 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopeless trivia. Tagged earlier for importance but it's so clearly unimportant why wait? Otto4711 22:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notableForrestLane42 03:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]
Picaroon, right of course presidents notable lists on their middle name, not so notableForrestLane42 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I can kinda see this might have some marginal encyclopedic value but it seems so much less important than listing the presidents by order of service or even order of birth that it seems more like trivia than encyclopedia material. Otto4711 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page can't get any bigger than it is. It's about a semi-famous speech, but all the information is already on Jim E. Mora's page. Plus, I can think of other meanings for this term...do you really expect someone to type this phrase into the search engine and expect to find this? UsaSatsui 23:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article making unverifiable claims added to by User:Fooqiman. This was apparently on this guys user page before being moved into an article space. MegX 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is 13 words long and the only information provided that is not in the title is a date. This is provided in Antipope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddstone (talk • contribs) 12:48, 17 January 2007
The result was speedy delete. Yuser31415 05:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article deleted for being non-notable. Still isn't notable. Descendall 23:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]